University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Senior leadership response to campus flashpoints

(USC Thesis Other)

Senior leadership response to campus flashpoints

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Senior Leadership Response to Campus Flashpoints
by
David T. Carreon Bradley

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by David T. Carreon Bradley 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for David T. Carreon Bradley certifies the approval of this Dissertation

John Brooks Slaughter
Anthony B. Maddox
Monique Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
A campus flashpoint is an incident, particularly related to cultural identity, that causes significant
disturbances in the community. These flashpoints are currently endemic and can have a variety
of negative repercussions for higher education institutions. This study aims to better understand
the experiences and behaviors of senior leaders in relation to these flashpoints. Interviews were
conducted with leaders of an institution that recently experienced a flashpoint. Social cognitive
theory serves as the theoretical framework for the study, allowing for an examination of the
interactions between people, environment, and behavior. The study’s findings showed that
leaders’ flashpoint-related behavior is influenced by their cultural identities, previous experience
with flashpoints, and the broader context in higher education and beyond. Additionally, the
findings unveiled that the campus climate prior to the flashpoint was seemingly fine on the
surface while having serious issues underneath. The flashpoint caused pain and trauma, and it
served as a powerful catalyst for change. During the flashpoint, leaders felt helpless, powerless,
and confused. The findings suggest that building relationships, education, and enhanced
protocols, policies, and procedures are important proactive strategies for preparing for and
responding to future flashpoints. To address these findings, recommendations include: tracking
previous flashpoints and monitoring potential flashpoints; assessing and improving campus
climate; creating, enhancing, and practicing protocols, policies, and procedures; implementing a
comprehensive education program; and cultivating relationships and trauma-informed
understanding. By implementing this multi-pronged approach, leaders can help to minimize the
negative effects and consequences of these flashpoints.
Keywords: diversity, inclusion, equity, higher education, flashpoint, campus climate,
crisis management, leadership

v
Dedication
To my beautiful mother and loving grandmother. Both of you left the Earth too soon, but I feel
you in my heart every day.

vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you, first and foremost to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Monique Datta.
Her unwavering support, enthusiastic encouragement, and excellent guidance were critical to my
success. Thank you as well to Dr. Anthony B. Maddox and Dr. John Brooks Slaughter for
serving on my committee and for infusing this work with your immense wisdom, knowledge,
and kindness. It was truly a gift to be mentored and guided by these three humans. Beyond their
expertise, they are remarkable people who truly care about student success.
Thank you to my family and friends. I know that pursuing a second doctorate didn’t really
make sense; so, I appreciated them checking in on me, supporting me, and loving me. Thank you,
especially, to two of my best friends, Akiko Yamaguchi and Cecil Chik. Witnessing these two
warrior women on their own doctoral journeys while each of them became mothers for the first time
gave me the courage to carry on with my own journey through this program.
Thank you to OCL Cohorts 14 and 15 for the commiseration and laughter, and to the
USC Rossier School of Education Scholarship for the financial support.
Thank you to the senior leaders who were willing to be open, honest, and vulnerable
during these interviews. Their candor and generosity will help to make our institutions of higher
education better and stronger.
Lastly, thank you to all of the students that I have had the pleasure of knowing
throughout my career in academia. Being a part of their learning and growth is what fuels me to
strive for a more diverse, inclusive, equitable, and just academy and world.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 9
Campus Flashpoints ............................................................................................................ 9
Causes and Context of Campus Flashpoints ..................................................................... 11
Recent Campus Flashpoints .............................................................................................. 16
Campus Flashpoint Response ........................................................................................... 22
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 30
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 30
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 33
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 33

viii
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 33
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 34
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 35
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 36
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 36
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 37
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 37
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 39
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 41
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 41
Findings for Research Question 1 ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Findings for Research Question 2 ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Findings for Research Question 3 ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Findings for Research Question 4 ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 74
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 76
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 76
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 83
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 89
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 89
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 91

ix
References ..................................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 117
Appendix B: Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 123

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 32

xi
List of Abbreviations
API Asian and Pacific Islander
DEI Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
LGBTQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer or Questioning
PWI Primarily White Institution
MSI Minority Serving Institution

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
A campus flashpoint is an incident occurring at an institution of higher education that
causes significant disturbances in the community, including trauma, heightened levels of
activism, media coverage, and public scrutiny (EAB, 2018). Campus flashpoints are a subset of
the broad range of crises that can take place at colleges and universities (Gigliotti, 2019). Of
particular interest in this study are flashpoints related to cultural identities such as ethnicity,
gender identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion. Williams (2008) refers
to these as diversity crises. Cultural identity issues are part of the larger campus climate: the
current and common experience of individuals and groups at the institution, including the quality
of the interaction between these individuals and groups (Hart, 2008; Northeastern Illinois
University, 2021).
Within this framework, the details of individual campus flashpoints can vary greatly.
Examples of these flashpoints include hate-motivated vandalism (Griffith, 2019), profiling by
campus security (Jaschik, 2019), controversial campus speakers (Redden, 2020), high-profile
cases of assault or harassment (Ryan et al., 2018), and viral social media posts (Taylor &
Morales, 2020; Wootson Jr. & Wong, 2018). Regardless of how it takes place, the flashpoint is,
by definition, publicized in local media and usually is covered by the national media as well
(EAB, 2018). More often than not, the flashpoint is followed by subsequent events, like
aftershocks following an earthquake (EAB, 2019a). Sometimes, one or more of the subsequent
events can be more impactful than the originating flashpoint (EAB, 2019b). The media and
public scrutiny of the flashpoint, as well as the resulting damage to the campus climate, typically
have negative effects on the institution (Jayakumar et al., 2009; Locks et al., 2008).
2

The extent and nature of these effects are shaped by the decisions and actions of campus
senior leaders (Mitroff et al., 2006). These senior leaders include the chancellor, president,
provost, vice presidents, deans, and other officers, depending on the complexity and structure of
the institution. Senior leadership response to a flashpoint typically includes an initial reaction to
the incident and messaging to the campus community (Cole & Harper, 2017). Depending on the
nature of the flashpoint as well as the magnitude of the original and subsequent events, senior
leadership response can also include changes to institutional structures, policies, and programs
(Harper & Hurtado, 2007). This dissertation addresses the problem of practice of ensuring that
senior leaders are able to proactively prepare for and respond to campus flashpoints in a way that
minimizes negative consequences. This focus on the experiences of senior leaders allows for a
deeper understanding of their unique perspective, which is underrepresented in the literature.
However, the dissertation also has broader applicability across many stakeholders, including
students, faculty, staff, alumni, and local community members. The results and recommendations
in this dissertation may also have applicability in other domains outside of higher education.
Context and Background of the Problem
The organization of interest for this dissertation is Knowledge University (KU), a
pseudonym. KU is an accredited public institution of higher education in the United States that
serves over 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The racial and ethnic diversity of the
student body is higher than the national average, with a particularly large Hispanic and Latinx
population. In addition to the students, the other primary constituency groups on campus include
faculty, staff, administrators, and senior leaders. Additional constituency groups related to the
organization include alumni, board members, parents and families of students, and local,
national, and global community members. KU recently experienced a race-related campus
3

flashpoint that resulted in a town hall and a list of student demands, and it required a response
from senior leaders.
Beyond KU, in the larger landscape of higher education, campus flashpoints have
recently occurred at hundreds of other institutions. For example, over 200 protesters toppled a
controversial Confederate statue on a university campus (Campbell, 2018). A Muslim-American
professor’s social media post calling former first lady, Barbara Bush, an ‘amazing racist’ went
viral (Wootson Jr. & Wong, 2018). Hundreds of sexual abuse complaints against a university
doctor during three decades at a campus clinic were made public (Ryan et al., 2018). Student
athletes called on their university to denounce a fight song linked to a racist history (Cramer

&
Diaz, 2020). A professor’s email asking an Asian-American student to Anglicize her name
because he felt it sounded offensive in English went viral (Taylor & Morales, 2020). A
university canceled a commencement speech by Ivanka Trump citing social justice issues
(Redden, 2020). Campus safety officers were accused of racial profiling after being videotaped
physically preventing a Black student from entering the college library (Jaschik, 2019). A queer
professor was denied a full-time position at a Christian university, which led to student protests
and a discrimination lawsuit followed by a faculty vote of no confidence in leadership for
upholding an anti-LGBTQ hiring policy (Takahama, 2021). At a secular institution, an LGBTQ
affinity house was attacked by a group of students and responding campus safety officers were
said to be “shaking hands with them, reminiscing about what it felt like to be a handsome young
man with hair in college” (Bucknell, 2021; Jiménez & Fazio, 2021). These are only a
representative sample of the many examples of these flashpoints from across the nation’s
institutions.
4

A recent survey of senior leaders at 145 institutions showed that these examples point to
a larger pattern in higher education (Seltzer, 2018). The surveyed leaders chose campus climate
and sexual assault flashpoints as the top reputational risks for their institutions during the
previous 3 years. The leaders predict that these flashpoints will remain in the top risk categories
for years to come. Only 26% of surveyed leaders characterize their institutions’ responses to
these flashpoints as consistently proactive. These survey results echo similar sentiments of senior
leaders collected in other sources (EAB, 2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020).
The rate of campus flashpoints is influenced by larger societal changes. The diversity of
students in higher education has increased dramatically over the past two decades (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018), and the number of campus flashpoints based on identity
differences has similar increased (EAB, 2018). Additionally, traditional college-aged students
are paying more attention to politics and taking political action more frequently now than in the
past (Johnson & Ferguson, 2018). This political action is fueled by increasingly contentious
politics on the national stage, exacerbated by a 24/7 news cycle, immediate access to
information, and various new technologies, including social media (Gigliotti, 2017). The rise in
social media has also been shown to be a significant cause for the spreading of misinformation
(Alcott et al., 2019). This context along with the growth of national and global movements such
as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo have been linked to increased awareness of identity-based
issues and student activism, which results in more frequent campus flashpoints and more
impactful repercussions of the flashpoints (Tevis, 2020).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
5

The purpose of the study in this dissertation is to better understand the experiences and
behaviors of senior leaders in relation to campus flashpoints. The research questions guiding this
study are as follows:
1. How do senior leaders’ prior experience and knowledge impact their preparation for
and response to campus flashpoints?
2. How do senior leaders envision their relationship to other stakeholders in the context
of their behaviors related to campus flashpoints?
3. How does the campus climate influence senior leaders’ knowledge and behaviors
related to campus flashpoints?
4. What proactive strategies can senior leaders develop to prepare for and respond to
future campus flashpoints?
Importance of the Study
Campus flashpoints are currently endemic in higher education. Therefore, it is important
to increase the understanding of these events and their effects. A review of various news outlets
shows that a large majority of campuses have experienced at least one of these flashpoints in the
past 10 years (EAB, 2018). Additionally, the rate of these flashpoints is increasing (EAB,
2019b). These flashpoints are associated with a level of student protests that has not been seen
since the peak of the 1960s and 1970s civil rights and anti-war demonstrations (Wong, 2015).
These flashpoints can have a variety of negative repercussions for the institutions. For
example, flashpoints can damage campus climate, which can negatively impact recruitment,
retention, and success of students, faculty, and staff (Jayakumar et al., 2009; Locks et al., 2008).
Flashpoints can harm institutions in other ways such as decreased enrollment (Trotter, 2015) and
reduced philanthropic support (Mcgee, 2021). The repercussions of these flashpoints can also
6

have lasting negative impacts on institutional reputation years beyond the initial incident
(Powell, 2021).
The response of senior leaders to these flashpoints and other crises has been characterized
as slow, reactive, and lacking coordination (Booker Jr., 2014; EAB, 2019b). This response has
also been criticized for focusing too narrowly on known physical disasters, a single emergency
event, or crises that the leaders have already experienced (Mitroff et al., 2006). Campus
flashpoints often catch institutions by surprise, which can make it difficult to develop a quick and
appropriate response. Additionally, the need for a swift institutional response to these flashpoints
often results in missteps, violations of free speech, and physical, psychological, and emotional
trauma (Walker, 2020). Senior leaders want to better understand the assumptions and processes
that prevent them from responding more effectively (EAB, 2019b). Understanding the thoughts
and actions of senior leaders can help institutions develop proactive strategies to prepare for and
address future flashpoints.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework used in this study is social cognitive theory (SCT). SCT
focuses on reciprocal interactions between people, environment, and behavior (Bandura, 2001).
This theory is appropriate to frame this problem of practice because it allows for an examination
of the interactions between senior leaders and other constituencies (people), campus climate
(environment), and their decisions and actions (behavior). SCT can also help explain how senior
leaders’ behavior is related to capabilities, observations, expectations, reinforcements, and self-
efficacy, which are all critical components of the theory.
The methodology used in this study is qualitative, which can help answer the question of
how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world (Merriam &
7

Tisdell, 2016). This research methodology is well-aligned with the study because the purpose is
focused on the experiences and behavior of senior leaders, which can be captured well with
qualitative research. The specific strategy of inquiry used is semi-structured interviews. The
methodology and inquiry strategy are described in detail in Chapter Three.
Definitions of Terms
This section contains definitions for key terms related to the study in this dissertation.
Campus Flashpoint
An incident occurring at an institution of higher education that causes significant
disturbances in the community, including trauma, heightened levels of activism, media coverage,
and public scrutiny (EAB, 2018), particularly those related to cultural identities such as ethnicity,
gender identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion
Campus Climate
The current and common experience of individuals and groups at the institution,
including the quality of the interaction between these individuals and groups (Hart, 2008;
Northeastern Illinois University, 2021)
Diversity
Differences in the demographic characteristics and identities of a group of people,
broadly defined (e.g. ability/disability, age, body size, caste, educational level, English literacy,
ethnicity and race, gender identity and expression, immigration status, national origin,
religion/spirituality, sex, sexual orientation and identity, skin color, and socioeconomic status)
Equity
The equal opportunity for access and success in the context of unbalanced conditions and
circumstance
8

Latinx
A gender-neutral term for a person of Latin American origin or descent (Oxford
University Press, n.d.)
Marginalized
Excluded, ignored, or relegated to the outer edge of a group, community, or society
Justice
A proactive process that reinforces and establishes policies, attitudes, and actions that
produce equitable opportunities, treatment, and outcomes for all individuals and groups
Senior Leader
An administrator at the highest levels of the institution who oversees the entire institution
or a major division of the institution (e.g. chancellor, president, provost, and vice presidents)
Underrepresented
Referring to a subset with a smaller percentage of a subgroup than that of the subset in
the larger population (e.g. Latinx undergraduate students are underrepresented in higher
education when compared to the percentage of Latinx people in the U.S. population)
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study,
highlighting the importance of the study, the theoretical framework, and the methodology.
Chapter Two provides a review of literature related to the study. Chapter Three details the
methodology of the study, including the selection of participants, data collection, and data
analysis. Chapter Four provides the findings of the study, including analysis of the data and
results. Chapter Five provides recommendations, based on the literature and findings, for
minimizing the negative consequences of campus flashpoints.
9

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The review of the literature in this chapter begins with a general overview of campus
flashpoints. This overview is followed by a description of causes and context of these
flashpoints, including examples of recent flashpoints. Next, the review provides a discussion of
the literature on response to campus flashpoints from different constituency groups: senior
leaders, faculty and staff, and students. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the theoretical
and conceptual frameworks followed by a chapter summary.
Campus Flashpoints
Campus flashpoints are a subset of the many types of crisis situations prevalent in higher
education in the United States. A crisis is a “an event, series of events, or situation that presents
reputational risk to the institution and requires immediate attention on behalf of its leaders”
(Gigliotti, 2019, p. 11). Crises have the potential to “disrupt the entire organization” (Pauchant &
Mitroff, 1992, p. 3), and they are growing in magnitude, frequency, and complexity (Helsloot et
al., 2012). Crisis situations happen in a variety of organizational domains both inside and outside
of higher education. The preparation and response to these situations are referred to as crisis
management. Modern organizational crisis management literature is typically traced back to
1982 when Johnson & Johnson responded to the lacing of their product, Tylenol, with potassium
cyanide, which resulted in the death of seven people in Chicago (Mitroff et al., 2006; Snyder,
1983). In crisis management, these situations can be categorized using a variety of schemes;
however, they can generally be divided into two types: sudden or smoldering (Irvine, 1997). A
sudden crisis is one that occurs without warning (Smith & Millar, 2002). A smoldering crisis is
one that typically starts out small, is initially not generally known within or outside of the
organization, and is often exacerbated as a result of administrative decisions or indecisions
10

(Smith & Millar, 2002). Within these two types, crisis situations in higher education can be
caused by a variety of issues, including academic misconduct, athletics scandal, building safety
issue, criminal act, employee strike, financial mismanagement or fraud, free speech issue,
lawsuit, natural disaster, student death, student protest, technology failure, and unethical
behavior (Mitroff, 2006; Smith & Millar, 2002).
As a subset of these higher education crisis situations, campus flashpoints, sometimes
referred to as “diversity flashpoints” (Garcia & Hoelscher, 2008), are crises related to cultural
identities such as ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation, race, and
religion. These flashpoints include incidents or events such as controversial campus speakers,
high-profile cases of harassment, and viral social media posts. These flashpoints result in
disturbances in the campus community, including trauma, heightened levels of activism, media
and public scrutiny, and long-term reputational damage (EAB, 2018).
Although these flashpoints are not new, this is an important topic given that the rate of
these flashpoints is increasing, they are currently endemic in the academy, and they can cause
significant damage to the reputation of the institution (EAB, 2019b). A review of various news
outlets shows that a large majority of campuses have experienced at least one of these flashpoints
in the past 10 years (EAB, 2018). In a recent survey of university senior leaders, 85% believe
racial justice protests are likely or very likely for the coming semester (AAUP, 2020). The
negative affect of these flashpoints on the reputation of the institution can result in challenges
such as decreased enrollment, reductions in philanthropic support, and damage to the campus
climate (EAB, 2019b).
Although a campus flashpoint may be a sudden crisis, it is often the culmination of a
smoldering crisis related to campus climate (Mitroff et al., 2006). Campus climate is the current
11

and common experience of individuals and groups at the institution, including the quality of the
interaction between these individuals and groups (Hart, 2008; Northeastern Illinois University,
2021). Researchers have studied higher education institutional environments for over half a
century (Pace, 1968); however, the understanding of campus climate has evolved to focus on the
experiences of minoritized and marginalized groups such as women (Hall & Sandler, 1982),
Black and Brown people (Hurtado, 1992), and LGBTQ people (Brown et al., 2004). Research
shows that hostile campus climates significantly affect students of color more than their White
peers (Locks et al., 2008). Although recent literature tends to focus on campus climate as it
relates to experiences of individuals (Boysen et al., 2009; Castagno & Lee, 2007; Fenske &
Gordon, 1998; Hurtado et al., 1999; Hutchinson et al., 2008; Locks et al., 2008; Rankin, 2003),
some studies have focused on the influence of campus climate on campus flashpoints such as
culturally insensitive theme parties and social media posts (Garcia et al., 2011; Nelville et al.,
2010; Tynes & Marko, 2010). Campus flashpoints are intrinsically linked to campus climate
through a reciprocal relationship: campus climate has a direct effect on the occurrence of
flashpoints, and flashpoints have a typically negative effect on the climate (Davis & Harris,
2015).
Causes and Context of Campus Flashpoints
The causes of campus flashpoints are primarily related to identity differences based on
categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, ability/disability, language or
linguistic ability, religion, age, size, family structure, and geographic origin (Garcia &
Hoelscher, 2010). For example, Garcia et al.’s (2005) study based on interviews with 34 student
affairs professionals at 11 college campuses generated 153 accounts of “potentially explosive”
interpersonal events grounded in identity differences between and among college faculty and
12

students. The diversity of students in higher education has increased dramatically over the past
two decades (U.S. Department of Education, 2018), and the number of campus flashpoints based
on identity differences has similar increased (EAB 2018).
Many campus flashpoints can also be attributed to political polarization on campus and in
the national landscape. A recent survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at
UCLA showed that the incoming cohort of college students is the most polarized cohort in the
51-year history of the survey (Eagan et al., 2017). Fewer students than ever before (42.3%)
categorize their political views as “middle of the road.” These results came during the same year
as one of the most contentious presidential elections in the history of nation. This strong
connection between the landscapes of national politics and higher education is linked to a large
portion of campus flashpoints being based on national issues like controversial speakers, free
speech, and racial inequality (EAB 2018). The focus of this study is on local campus flashpoints
that originate within the institution. However, even with this narrow focus, these flashpoints
cannot be divorced from the context of the national landscape. In particular, two nation-wide
movements, Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, and recent U.S. national elections have had a
major influence on campus flashpoints.
Black Lives Matter Movement
Black Lives Matter is a Black-centered political activist movement founded in 2013 by
three Black women, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, after the acquittal of
George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012 (Black Lives Matter, n.d.). The
movement began with a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, and grew nation-wide in 2014
as several Black people were killed by White police, most notably Eric Garner (Goldstein &
Schweber, 2014).), Tamir Rice (Fitzsimmons, 2014), and Michael Brown (Bosman, 2014).
13

Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri resulted in public unrest and protests across the nation
(Bosman, 2014). The police officer who killed Brown was not indicted, which sparked additional
protests and unrest (Davey & Bosman, 2014). These events also highlighted that higher
education, as a microcosm of the national and global society, is not and never has been immune
to issues of racism and patriarchy, which resulted in numerous calls on senior leaders in higher
education to respond to these highly controversial race-related events (Tevis, 2020).
The unrest associated with Brown’s death manifested itself at nearby University of
Missouri (MU) with the formation of two student activist groups: MU for Michael Brown and
Concerned Student 1950 (Izadi, 2015). These groups issued complaints about the university’s
lack of response to racial tensions on campus (Miller, 2015). The year following Brown’s death,
MU saw a spate of racist and anti-Semitic incidents, which resulted in a student hunger strike
and the eventual resignation of the university’s president. MU’s president and several other
higher education senior leaders (mostly White males) were highly criticized that year for
ignoring and mishandling racism concerns at the national and campus level (Arkin et al., 2015;
Tevis, 2020). Linked to this criticism, students at MU and across hundreds of other universities
protested, demonstrated, and participated in other forms of student activism (Izadi, 2015).
Over the years, the Black Lives Matter movement continued to grow and was marked by
additional high-profile deaths of Black Americans, including Walter Scott (Schmidt & Apuzzo,
2015) and Breanna Taylor (Oppel et al., 2021). Support for the movement reached an all-time
high (MSNBC, 2020) in 2020 in response to the murder of George Floyd (Lankes, 2021), which
sparked world-wide protests and a “racial reckoning” in the United States (Chang et al., 2020).
Since its inception, Black Lives Matter has been related to racial tensions and activism at
colleges and universities across the nation (Izadi, 2015). Presently, Black Lives Matter has
14

expanded to a global network foundation in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada,
with a mission to eradicate White supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence
inflicted on Black communities (Black Lives Matter, n.d.).
#MeToo Movement
The #MeToo movement was founded by sexual violence survivor and activist Tarana
Burke to bring resources, support, and healing to other survivors (Me Too Movement, n.d.). The
movement went viral after October 15, 2017 when U.S. actor, Alyssa Milano, tweeted “If you’ve
been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet” followed by an image
showing the text: “Me Too. Suggested by a friend. ‘If all the women who have been sexually
harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too.' as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude
of the problem’” (Milano, 2017). Over the next 24 hours, the hashtag #MeToo was used in over
12 million Facebook posts; within 48 hours, the hashtag was shared nearly one million times on
Twitter (Lawton, 2017). Within days, the hashtag was adapted on social media by people in over
85 countries across the globe: #BalanceTonPorc, #QuellaVoltaChe, #YoTambien, #نﺎﻤﻛ_ﺎﻧأ, and
#נחנאםג (Park, 2017; Tarnopolsky & Etehad, 2017). Although the #MeToo movement was not
the first occurrence of social media-based feminist activism (Dixon, 2014; Mendes et al., 2018),
its cultural significance and visibility is unprecedented (Cobb & Horeck, 2018).
The #MeToo movement also manifested at institutions of higher education. Research
shows that sexual assault reports on college campuses increased in the year after #MeToo
(Parker, 2017). Recent statistics indicate that 26.4% of female undergraduate students and 6.8%
of males experience sexual assault; these rates of reported sexual assault increased from 2015 to
2019 by 3 percentage points for undergraduate women and 1.4 percentage points for
undergraduate men (AAU, 2017, 2020). Researchers also recently discovered that college
15

students are more likely to label unwanted sexual experiences as “sexual assault” as more time
passes since the #MeToo movement went viral (Jaffe et al., 2021). This finding suggests that the
movement and its social context has changed the cognitions of sexual assault survivors,
particularly on college campuses (Jaffe et al., 2021).
Studies have also asserted that higher education institutions are less likely to publicize
issues of sexual assault to maintain their federal funding, protect their reputations, and to attract
highly qualified student applicants (Bahr, 2014; Blinder & Perez-Pina, 2015). A new wave of
campus flashpoints, particularly student protests, has been sparked by the #MeToo movement
(Hartocollis, 2019). These flashpoints have been fueled by other national issues related to sexual
assault such as the confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice accused of sexual assault
and the presidential administration’s 2020 redrafting of federal Title IX guidelines on sexual
assault to provide more due process rights to the accused (Hartocollis, 2019).
National Elections
In addition to these two movements, recent U.S. presidential elections have also had an
influence on campus flashpoints. The 2016 U.S. presidential election brought to light
longstanding tensions in the nation, and the actions and policies of the subsequent administration
exacerbated these issues and affected both the national and higher education landscape (Hypolite
& Stewart, 2019). Issues that reverberated on campuses included the travel ban barring citizens
from seven Muslim-majority countries (Almasy & Simon, 2017), a controversial transgender
military policy (Philipps, 2019), and the planned end to the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program (Romo, 2017).
The 2020 U.S. presidential election continued to exacerbate these national tensions and
was a source of significant stress for more Americans, including college students, than the 2016
16

election (American Psychological Association, 2020). According to a pre-2020 election survey,
71% of college students indicated that they were “absolutely certain” that they would vote in the
2020 election, which was an unprecedented participation rate (Knight Foundation, 2020). Among
those surveyed, race relations such as those that often fuel campus flashpoints, was the second
most important issue, preceded only by the COVID-19 pandemic (Knight Foundation, 2020).
The election was followed by unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud (MITRE, 2021), led to a
deadly insurrection at the national capitol building, and continues to be highly contentious across
the country (Barker, 2021).
Regardless of the cause, the increase in campus flashpoints was predicted by Perrow
(1984) who observed that increased complexity in society would also lead to an increase in
crises. As society becomes increasingly complex, so too do organizations, including institutions
of higher education (Gigliotti, 2017). Specific complexities that have contributed to crisis
situations like campus flashpoints include the rise of a 24/7 news cycle, immediate access to
information and misinformation via the internet, and the use of various new technologies,
including the resulting virality caused by social media (Gigliotti, 2017). Tynes et al. (2013) also
asserted that recent technology development, especially social media, has impacted how students
experience campus climate and the visibility of campus climate issues to the public. The modern
connectedness of people by social media, online news, blogs, and other digital media publicizes
campus flashpoints more quickly and extensively than ever before (Cole & Harper, 2017).
Recent Campus Flashpoints
Many examples of recent campus flashpoints are described throughout local and national
media sources (EAB, 2018). Race-related incidents comprise a large majority of campus
flashpoints. A repository of “Campus Racial Incidents” can be found on-line, which includes
17

hundreds of campus flashpoints related to race and ethnicity (The Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education, n.d.). Additionally, Rooney and Smith (2019) constructed a dataset of campus
flashpoints at the top 100 U.S. universities over a 12-year period. In the next section are four
examples of recent campus flashpoints that illustrate the range of inciting issues.
University of Oklahoma: Fraternity Racism
In 2015, a video was posted to YouTube showing several White members of the
University of Oklahoma chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon singing a racist song that referenced
restricting Black students from joining the fraternity (New, 2015). The song was set to the tune
of “If You’re Happy and You Know It,” and included an anti-Black racist slur and references to
lynching. The video resulted in student protests the following day. University officials and
student leaders denounced the video on social media. The university president issued a statement
saying that the video was being investigated and that the behavior in the video was reprehensible
and contrary to the values of the university.
Two days later, another video was discovered on Vine, which was a now-defunct social
networking short-form video hosting service, showing the fraternity’s 78-year-old house mother
singing along to a different song using the same anti-Black racial slur (McClam, 2015). Both
videos and the incidents on campus received wide-spread local and national news coverage. The
university and the fraternity’s national headquarters shut down the Oklahoma chapter during the
week that the videos surfaced, and the university severed all ties to the fraternity (Oklahoma
Daily, 2015). The university’s president expelled two students that played a leading a role in the
singing of the song and who had “created a hostile learning environment for others” (Fernandez
& Perez-Pena, 2015).
18

Repercussions of the flashpoint were immediate. For example, one of the nation’s most
sought-after high school football players, who is Black, withdrew his commitment to play for
Oklahoma, citing the videos as the reason for his decision (Trotter, 2015). Although most
responses to the university president’s decision to expel the students were positive, several legal
experts noted that the president’s actions likely violated the First Amendment (Pearce, 2015) and
the expelled students had a strong case for suing the institution. However, no suit was ever filed
against the university or the president. Several years after the flashpoint, the effects of the
flashpoint still reverberate in the campus community (Haws, 2020), and the news media
continues to cover the story (Tulsa World, 2021).
University of California, Berkeley: Controversial Speaker
In 2017, the Berkeley College Republicans, a student organization, invited right-wing
commentator and controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos to give a speech on campus at
University of California, Berkeley (Fuller, 2017). After the announcement of Yiannopoulos’s
impending visit, Berkeley received many requests to ban him from campus and cancel the event,
and Berkeley’s chancellor issued a statement to the campus community citing the need to
balance the right to free expression and the university’s values of tolerance, inclusion, and
diversity (University of California, Berkeley, n.d.-a). The chancellor stated that the event would
be held as planned, explaining related federal laws and campus policies. He also referred to the
university’s suggestions for “how to protest safely” (University of California, Berkeley, n.d.-b).
On the day of the event, over 1,500 campus community members, mostly students, engaged in
non-violent protest of the speaker (Fuller, 2017). The protest was interrupted by a group of
approximately 150 people wearing black clothing, covering their faces with masks, and carrying
sticks. The protest interrupters, who were determined to be from outside the university
19

community, threw rocks, smashed windows, and set fires, causing an estimated $100,000 in
damage. Related protests and violent altercations occurred at and near Berkeley following this
incident and throughout that year (Dinkelspiel, 2018).
Later that year, another student group, Berkeley Patriot, planned a “Free Speech Week,”
and extended invitations to Yiannopoulos and several other right-wing commentators, including
Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter. The day before the week-long event was to commence, it was
cancelled by the student group due to logistical problems such as unsigned contracts and failure
to file paperwork for reserving campus venues. Yiannopoulos arrived on campus nevertheless
and gave a brief speech to about 150 people with hundreds more waiting in line (Fortin, 2017).
The university spent an estimated $800,000 on security for the event (Barmann, 2017).
Throughout that year, Berkeley spent over $2 million for security, 10 times the typical annual
amount (Hanlon, 2017). In 2018, Berkeley also paid a $70,000 settlement after Berkeley College
Republicans and other plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the university used unwritten and
unpublished policies to suppress conservative speech (University of California, Berkeley, 2018).
The chancellor resigned from his position in the summer of that year; however, he had
announced his intention to leave prior to the controversial speaker flashpoint, but after criticism
regarding a previous sexual harassment flashpoint (Matier & Ross, 2016).
New York University: Sexual Harassment
In 2017, a male graduate student filed a complaint accusing Avital Ronell, a female New
York University (NYU) professor, of sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, and retaliation
over a 3-year period while he was her advisee (Greenberg, 2018). Ronell was found responsible
for sexual harassment after an 11-month Title IX investigation. Unsatisfied with the university’s
20

response to the investigation, the student filed a lawsuit against NYU and Ronell in the New
York State Supreme Court (Domb, 2018).
Both Ronell’s and the student’s descriptions of their experiences echoed those of other
#MeToo stories (Ryzik, 2018). However, this incident was notable in that the complainant is
male and the respondent is female, a reversal of gender roles in comparison with most #MeToo
incidents. After the university made its determination that Ronell was responsible for sexual
harassment, a group of prominent scholars sent a letter to NYU defending Ronell. The letter was
criticized for being similar to past defenses of powerful men accused in #MeToo cases. Judith
Butler, a highly-regarded feminist scholar and one of the prominent letter signers, later issued an
apology for supporting the letter (Butler, 2018).
The flashpoint received extensive media coverage and its effects continued long after the
initial complaint. Ronell returned to teaching at NYU the following year, which was
controversial (Cochran & Porcelli, 2019), condemned by the student government association
(Maharishi, 2019), and met by student protests (Porcelli & Mohammadi, 2019) and a petition to
have the professor fired (Porcelli, 2019). The repercussions of the flashpoint continue several
years later, most recently with the questioning of the consistency of NYU’s policies when
contrasting sexual harassment and COVID-19 (Chiarella, 2020).
University of Michigan: Letter of Recommendation Refusal
In 2018, a University of Michigan professor, John Cheney-Lippold, declined to write a
letter of recommendation for a student who requested the letter for a study abroad program in
Israel (Silverstein, 2018). Cheney-Lippold e-mailed the student and stated that he could not write
the letter because of an academic boycott against Israel in support of Palestinians living in
Palestine, as recommended in the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott
21

of Israel (PACBI) Guidelines for the International Academic Boycott of Israel (USACBI, n.d.).
Club Z, an organization that supports students committed to Zionism, posted Cheney-Lippold’s
declination e-mail to Facebook and criticized the message as anti-Semitic (Sourine, 2018).
The incident was widely publicized in local and national news channels. The university
received criticism for the incident from U.S. and world-wide Jewish organizations, including a
letter from a senior Israeli cabinet minister sent to the university president (Karoub, 2018). The
reaction from the campus community was divided, with some supporting the professor and the
boycott while others criticized the professor and the university as anti-Semitic (Read, 2018).
Cheney-Lippold received multiple death threats (BBC, 2018). The university issued a statement
that it formally and publicly opposed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions (Schlissel, 2018).
Cheney-Lippold was formally disciplined by the university in a letter from the interim
dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (Read, 2018). The disciplinary action
included the cancelling of his sabbatical the following semester, removal of his sabbatical
privileges for 2 years, and no merit pay raise for that review period (Kozlowski, 2018). The
university also informed him that he could be dismissed from his position altogether if a similar
incident were to occur in the future. Reaction to the disciplinary action was mixed, including the
university being called “shameful” by the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights and a rally
supporting the professor by University of Michigan students (Bandler, 2018). The American
Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a letter to the university president
criticizing their treatment of Cheney-Lippold and citing concerns about a lack of procedural
protections (Tiede, 2018).
Four examples of recent campus flashpoints are described in this section. These examples
included a racist video, a controversial speaker, a high-profile case of sexual harassment, and an
22

e-mail criticized as anti-Semitic. The events were all covered by both local and national media,
resulted in negative consequences for the institution, and had effects that reverberated long after
the initial flashpoint.
Campus Flashpoint Response
Although campus flashpoints are endemic in higher education, most coverage of the topic
is from news media, and the scholarly literature on the response to these flashpoints is relatively
scarce (Gigliotti, 2019). The literature on the response to these flashpoints can be categorized
based on the major constituencies. The following subsections delve into the literature on
response to campus flashpoints from three groups: senior leaders, faculty and staff, and students.
Senior Leadership Response
Responding to a crisis (i.e. crisis management) is a critical competency for higher
education leaders (Peters, 2014). It involves prevention, mitigation, and planning prior to a crisis;
response and recovery during the crisis; and learning and changing following a crisis (Zdziarski,
2006). Although scholarship that explores senior leadership crisis management in higher
education goes almost as far back as the Tylenol crisis (see, e.g., Gigliotti, 2019; Peters, 2014;
Scott, 1983; Shaw, 2017; Wang, 2010), most of that literature focuses on non-diversity-related
campus crises such as natural disasters, student deaths, and employee malfeasance.
The literature that does exist on senior leadership response to campus flashpoints is often
critical of the response. For example, Genshaft (2014) pointed out that colleges and universities
are particularly set up for poor handling of flashpoints and other crises given lack of preparation,
decentralized structures, and a focus on maintaining a positive reputation. The critique of campus
flashpoint response often focuses on the institutions failing to have a proactive and systematic
approach to handling these flashpoints (Perry, 2002). Glenn (2008) discovered that senior leaders
23

did not see the need to implement a systemic response. The lack of a proactive approach results
in the common defense of claiming innocence or not understanding (Davis & Harris, 2015). The
short-term response that many institutions devise often result in inaction or is seen as a wasted
effort (Schmidt, 2008). Many institutions demonstrate a lack of urgency surrounding the
response to and future prevention of flashpoints; without systemic interventions, the reactionary
treatment of flashpoints has been said to prevent the construction of inclusive campus climates
(Davis, 2015).
Other research shows that flashpoints, particularly racial issues, tend not to be officially
addressed and documented until campus protests occur or there is negative media coverage
(Harper & Hurtado, 2007). Davis (2015) gave several examples of institutions that remained
mostly unaware and seemingly unaffected by flashpoints until their reputations were threatened
by images of incidents surfaced on social media. Furthermore, flashpoints are often treated as
rare and isolated rather than normal and pervasive (Perry, 2002). Other researchers stated that
senior leaders dread the student activism that often accompanies campus flashpoints (Barnhardt
& Reyes, 2016). Although senior leader response to flashpoints is highly criticized, surveys show
that senior leaders in higher education desire an increased understanding and improved practice
as it relates to crisis leadership and flashpoint response (EAB, 2019b; Mitroff et al., 2006).
Much of the research on senior leadership response focuses on the rhetoric used in
communications, typically messages sent to the campus community. These messages are
commonly sent by senior leaders after the institution receives widespread negative publicity
(Cole & Harper, 2017). Fortunato et al. (2018), referring specifically to the 2015 flashpoint at
University of Missouri, found that senior leaders failed to use communication for building and
maintaining necessary relationships with key stakeholders, which exacerbated the effects of the
24

flashpoint. Harper and Hurtado (2007) purported that these communications often avoid directly
addressing race, and senior leaders do not comfortably or routinely engage in conversations
about racism and other problematic power structures that can negatively affect campus climate.
Cole and Harper (2017) analyzed 18 statements issued by college presidents responding to a
flashpoint, and they concluded that, although the statements broadly mention the incident itself,
they do not acknowledge the systemic or institutional issues that foster the campus climate that
resulted in the flashpoint. Harper (2012) observed that senior leader communications used
sophisticated methods for avoiding terms associated with problematic power structures like
racism, replacing them with safer, less controversial semantic substitutes. Garcia et al. (2020),
through an analysis of communications from 31 institutions, found that there is often a
distinction between senior leaders espousing commitments to DEI and actually enacting that
commitment. Davis and Harris (2016) asserted that senior leaders must go beyond
communicating a commitment to DEI by more intentionally working with their campus
community to address campus climate issues and to ensure marginalized groups feel a strong
sense of belonging. Although some senior leaders feel that they addressed flashpoints
successfully (Glenn, 2008), other research analyzing similar communications found that the
language often allows leaders to convey taking action without requiring the institution to
meaningfully do so and is used to quell activism and calls for change (Ahmed, 2012; Ferguson,
2012; Squire, 2019).
The scholarly literature that provides recommendations for effective and proactive
strategies for senior leaders to prepare for and respond to campus flashpoints is rather limited.
Garcia and Hoelscher (2010) conducted an analysis of more localized, interpersonal diversity-
related incidents, resulting in a set of recommended behaviors of an ideal leader with respect to a
25

campus flashpoint response. These behaviors are based on Kouzes and Posner’s (1995, 2007)
five practices of exemplary leadership (model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the
process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart), although Kouzes and Posner were not
looking specifically at campus flashpoint crises. Williams (2008) reviewed flashpoints at the
institutional level and recommended a 3-year decentralized model for ongoing diversity planning
to avoid reactive, crisis-prompted responses to racial incidents on campuses.
Kezar et al. (2018) partnered with the American Council on Education (ACE) and the
University of Missouri to conduct a case-study analysis of the 2015 events at the university,
which are described in the Black Lives Matter Movement section of this chapter. As part of their
report, the researchers recommended that senior leaders use a framework for campus capacity
building and resiliency as a proactive strategy for preparing for and responding to future
flashpoints. The framework consists of five key areas: (a) strategic planning, institutional
mission, and guiding values; (b) leadership expertise; (c) building trust and respect across
stakeholder groups; (d) institutional investment in continual learning for faculty, staff, and
students; and (e) evaluation and assessment practices. The researchers also asserted that an
ineffective response to a DEI-related flashpoint can deepen the emotional trauma experienced by
the groups affected by the initial incident (Kezar et al., 2018). Therefore, they recommended that
senior leaders follow a collective trauma recovery framework based on Saul’s (2014) work. The
trauma recovery framework includes: active listening; speaking from the heart; and acting with a
variety of trauma-informed approaches. The researchers also make recommendations for what
leaders “absolutely should not do” immediately after a flashpoint, namely: set up a task force;
collect data; and develop a report with recommendations (Kezar et al., 2018).
26

Two years later, the researchers revisited University of Missouri and issued a second
report (Fries-Britt et al., 2020). The researchers found that the University of Missouri campus
community was fragmented across perspectives, tensions, and emotions, even though 5 years had
passed since the initial flashpoint. Due to this fragmentation, the researchers recommended a
weaver-leader approach (Fries-Britt et al., 2020). They define a weaver-leader as a leader that
encourages over-communication, sets clear expectations, and builds relationships that create
common ground on which to move the community forward after a flashpoint. This weaver-leader
is similar in many ways to the ideal leader behavior recommended by Garcia and Hoelscher
(2010).
EAB (2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; 2020) produced a series of white papers on campus
flashpoints in which they provide a series of recommendations for senior leaders. These
recommendations include:
• Regularly integrate flashpoints into the institution’s risk register and leverage online
risk monitoring strategies to promote early action.
• Create mechanisms to consistently elevate and discuss potential flashpoints.
• Develop a dedicated team to structure and coordinate the campus response.
• Set clear expectations on when and how senior leaders will respond to flashpoints.
• Establish sustainable structures to address the broader context of flashpoints.
These recommendations are discussed in relation to the findings from the current study in
Chapter Five.
Staff and Faculty Response
Staff and faculty are two distinct constituency groups. They are combined in this section
because there is little research on either group’s response to campus flashpoints. Harper and
27

Hurtado (2007) noted that staff often feel voiceless and powerless in situations related to race, a
feeling that is exacerbated by the fear of being labeled as a troublemaker. Kezar (2010) examined
faculty and student affairs staff, and observed that faculty were likely to connect activism to
classroom activities at institutions with a culture of activism. Other researchers described student
affairs staff who often advocate for student activists, asserting that consequences of this
advocacy can include reprimands to termination of employment for the staff (Harrison, 2010,
2014; Rhoads, 2016).
Garcia et al. (2005) studied 153 faculty–student interactions, typically in the classroom,
to develop a set of faculty-focused recommendations for responding to flashpoints. These
include: generation of flashpoint case-studies that provide practical and authentic learning
opportunities; creation of a professional development programs specific to the history, context,
and patterns of flashpoints unique to the individual institution; formal collaborations between
student affairs professionals and faculty members; and increased training on interpersonal
communication skills pertaining to student identity differences.
Student Response
Student response to campus flashpoints varies and often includes student activism such as
protests, town halls, and demands. Institutions of higher education have long been the sites of
student activism including the notable peak in the 1960s and 1970s with anti-war and civil rights
demonstrations (Moore, 1976). While student activism continued after that time, it was not until
the 2010s that student activism became highly visible once again with movements such as
Occupy Wall Street (Asal et al., 2017). Beginning in 2015 and continuing through today, student
activism has increased substantially in frequency and visibility, particularly in the context of
movements such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo and in response to the policies and actions
28

of the administration of the 45
th
U.S. president (Barnhardt & Reyes, 2016; Harrison & Mather,
2017; Wong, 2015). In addition to national issues such as Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) and transgender rights, student activism has increased in response to more
campus-specific issues such as adequacy of campus resources, racial, ethnic, and gender
diversity of staff and faculty, and campus sexual assault (Harrison & Mather, 2017; Hope et al.,
2016; Linder et al., 2016; Marine & Trebisacci, 2018; Rhoads, 2016).
Student activism most often takes the form of protests and demonstrations in response to
campus flashpoints or in solidarity with national movements such as Black Lives Matter (Eagan,
et al., 2016). According to a recent survey of over 130,000 first-year college students at over
1,500 higher education institutions, students’ self-reported likelihood of participating in protests
and demonstrations reached a 50-year high (Eagan et al., 2017). Over 20% of these students have
participated in a demonstration for a cause (Eagan et al., 2017). When accounting for race, Black
students were twice as likely as Whites to participate in a protest (Eagan et al., 2017). This
statistic is supported by other researchers who assert that student activism is an act of survival
and a necessity for students from marginalized groups (Linder & Rodriguez, 2012; Patton, 2016).
A common student response to campus flashpoints is the issuance of demands to change
institutional policies, procedures, and infrastructure (Byrd et al., 2021). The scholarly literature
on student demands is extremely limited; however, the student demands are typically
spearheaded by domestic students of color and are often posted on-line; We the Protesters, a
national organization focused on ending racism and police violence in the United States,
compiled an on-line database of recent student demands from institutions across the country (We
the Protesters, n.d). These student demands are typically focused on promoting diversity, equity,
inclusion, and justice. Chessman and Wayt (2016) analyzed the demands from 76 higher
29

education institutions, and they observed seven major themes: policy, leadership, resources,
increased diversity, training, curriculum, and support. Ndemanu (2017) conducted a similar
analysis (n = 73), and he noted that student demands often call for an increase in faculty and
students of color, diversity training for faculty and staff, and required racial/social justice course
for all students. The KU student demands that were issued for the flashpoint of interest in the
current study included all of these major themes. The details of these demands have not been
included to ensure the confidentiality of the institution and senior leaders who participated in the
study.
A recent study focused on the experiences of international students of color, who often
have intersecting marginalized identities of race, ethnicity, language, nationality, and religion
(Yao et al., 2021). In this case, the students were interviewed before and after a campus
flashpoint, which was a YouTube video posted by a fellow student who proclaimed to be the
most active White supremacist in the state. Findings from the study showed that international
students of color may respond to campus flashpoints in ways that are distinct from domestic
students of color. In particular, the interviewed international students expressed confusion about
institutional policies and national law, such as those related to free speech and individual rights,
that may be different in their home countries.
Student response to campus flashpoints can also go beyond counter-system activism,
such as serving on university task forces, leading educational programs, and engaging in other
mechanisms to work within the system to affect change (Broadhurst & Martin, 2014). Through
this work, students have achieved goals such as more inclusive services for students with
disabilities (Cory et al., 2010), greater curricular diversity (Stepteau-Watson, 2012), and gender-
neutral bathrooms and housing (Hobson, 2014). Broadhurst and Martin (2014) described a
30

positive correlation between students’ perception of administrators’ support and their willingness
to work within the system to affect change.
In addition to the response of students on campus, campus flashpoints also elicit a
response from potential students. For example, Rooney and Smith (2016) established that
campus flashpoints can result in an approximate 10% decline in student applications for the
following year. Two years after the protests at the University of Missouri, new student
enrollment declined more than 35%, which resulted in budget cuts, temporary closure of seven
residence halls, and elimination of 400 staff positions (Hartocollis, 2017).
Theoretical Framework
The theory used to address the problem of practice in this study is social cognitive theory
(SCT). SCT focuses on reciprocal interactions between people, environment, and behavior
(Bandura, 2001). Key components of social cognitive theory include opportunities for social
support through instilling expectations, self-efficacy, and using observational learning and other
reinforcements to implement behavior change.
SCT is an appropriate theory to examine the problem of practice in this study because it
allows for an examination of the interactions between senior leaders, faculty, students, and other
constituencies (people), campus climate (environment), and decisions and actions (behavior).
Questions that are explored within this framework include: who were the key players (people) in
past flashpoints, what lessons have senior leadership learned from past flashpoints, what
decisions and actions (behaviors) were successful, what decisions and actions (behaviors) would
the leadership change in retrospect, what effects have flashpoints had on the campus climate
(environment)?
Conceptual Framework
31

A conceptual framework of a research study shows the researcher’s approach to
exploring a problem as well as the relationship between different variables within the study
(Grant & Osanloo, 2014). The conceptual framework for this study complements social cognitive
theory by incorporating the factors of people, environment, and behavior. These factors have
been applied to the unique situation of senior leaders in higher education. The conceptual
framework for this study centers the senior leaders. The campus flashpoint creates certain
experiences for the senior leaders. The experiences of the senior leaders lead to specific
behaviors. These behaviors constitute the response to the flashpoint as interpreted by various
constituencies (people), including faculty, students, board members and alumni, and the public
and press. The campus climate (environment) also affects the senior leaders’ experience, as does
the behaviors of the various constituencies (people). The behaviors of the senior leaders in turn
affect the campus climate (environment). An illustration of the conceptual framework is shown
in Figure 1.

32

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Summary
This literature review synthesizes the research related to campus flashpoints. The review
provides an overview of causes and context of these flashpoints. This context includes the Black
Lives Matter and #MeToo movements as well as recent national elections. Literature related to
examples of recent flashpoints at four institutions is also presented. The remaining sections of
the review synthesize research highlighting the responses of three key constituency groups:
senior leaders, faculty and staff, and students. The review culminates with a description of the
theory used to address the problem of practice in this study, social cognitive theory, and a
discussion of the conceptual framework.

33

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study explored the people, environment, and behaviors associated with the response
of senior leaders to campus flashpoints at institutions of higher education. This chapter provides
the detailed methodology used for this study. The chapter begins with the research questions,
research design, and research setting. It continues with the positionality of the researcher,
followed by details on the data sources, participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures,
and data analysis. The chapter concludes with a description of the methods for ensuring data
validity and reliability and a discussion of ethics in relation to the current study.
Research Questions
Four research questions guide this study:
1. How do senior leaders’ prior experience and knowledge impact their preparation for
and response to campus flashpoints?
2. How do senior leaders envision their relationship to other stakeholders in the context
of their behaviors related to campus flashpoints?
3. How does the campus climate influence senior leaders’ knowledge and behaviors
related to campus flashpoints?
4. What proactive strategies can senior leaders develop to prepare for and respond to
future campus flashpoints?
Overview of Design
The methodology used in this study is qualitative, which can help answer the question of
how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This research methodology is aligned with the study because it is focused on the
34

experiences and behaviors of senior leaders, which can be captured well with qualitative
research. The specific strategy of inquiry used in this study is semi-structured interviews.
An interview is necessary when behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the world
around them cannot be directly observed, as is typically the case with campus flashpoints. In a
semi-structured interview, the questions are flexibly worded or may be a mix of more and less
structured questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This format allows the interviewer to respond to
the situation, to the responses of the interviewee, and to new ideas on the topic (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This format also supports the natural flow of responses into other areas of
interest, minimizes questions that elicit redundant responses, and helps to build interviewer-
interviewee rapport by allowing for a more conversational tone. This semi-structured approach is
also useful since the senior leaders in this study are asked to reflect on their past experiences and
behaviors, and their view of the past may change throughout the interview. Also, each senior
leader has a different perspective (e.g. president perspective is institution-wide, provost
perspective is academic affairs, etc.), so the semi-structured approach allows the interviewer to
adapt to each perspective. The interview questions are listed in the interview protocol in
Appendix A.
Research Setting
The setting in which this study occurred is Knowledge University (KU), a pseudonym.
KU is an accredited institution of higher education in the United States serving a diverse
population of over 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Beyond the students, other
constituency groups on campus include faculty, staff, and senior leaders and other
administrators. KU is an appropriate setting to address the research questions in this study
because a campus flashpoint recently occurred that necessitated the response of many senior
35

leaders. The answers to these research questions at KU can be generalized more broadly given
that the institution embodies many of the traits that are characteristic of other institutions of
higher education in the United States.
The participants in this study were senior leaders at the KU who were involved in the
response to a recent campus flashpoint at the institution. These senior leaders included those in
positions at the highest levels of the institution such as the president, provost, vice presidents,
deans, senior diversity officer, and other officers. The research questions in this study are
focused on the interactions between people, environment, and behaviors from the social
cognitive perspective of senior leaders. Therefore, to better understand this perspective,
including senior leaders as the participants in this study was an appropriate choice.
The Researcher
I identify as a queer, gender-non-binary, biracial Mexican-American, first-generation
college student from a working-class background. These identities are historically and currently
underrepresented and marginalized in higher education. These intersectional identities relate
strongly to the focus of this study since campus flashpoints almost always involve members of
the campus community with underrepresented and marginalized identities. Given my
positionality based on these social identities, I may have certain biases. I may value the
perspectives of people with similar identities more than those from majority groups. Also,
although I am gender-non-binary, I often present as male, so I may have blind spots when it
comes to the perspectives of women. There are also a variety of other marginalized identities that
I do not hold, such as having a perceptible permanent physical disability. Therefore, I may
inadvertently disregard the perspectives of people with these identities.
36

Professionally, I am a senior leader with over 15 years of experience working in higher
education. Therefore, I am extremely familiar with the sector, and the people I interview for this
study are my colleagues and peers within higher education. None of the interview participants
directly report to me, and I do not supervise any of them. This positionality may cause me to
make assumptions about the higher education context as well as the interviewees’ motivations
and perspectives based on my past experiences and interactions with other senior leaders.
I use several different strategies for countering these biases and assumptions. These
strategies include adequate engagement in data collection, reflexivity, creating a comprehensive
audit trail, respondent validation, and instructor and peer review. For example, instructors and
peers have reviewed my research methodology and provided feedback, which I used to modify
the methodology. The details of these strategies are discussed in the section of this chapter on
credibility and trustworthiness.
Data Sources
This study uses interviews as the source for data. These semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 12 purposefully sampled participants. The inductive approach of interviewing is
well-suited to providing greater understanding of a social phenomenon, and it generates a large
amount of data from a relatively small sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Participants
The participants in this study were senior leaders at the institution, KU, which include the
president, provost, vice presidents, senior diversity officer, deans, and other officers. These
senior leaders oversaw major areas of the institution. They were the people who key constituents
such as students and faculty expected to respond to campus flashpoints. They were also the
people who hold the power and authority to make high-level decisions related to campus
37

flashpoints. Purposeful sampling was used to select these participants. This sampling method
allows for including people who know the most about this topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
participants for this study were recruited through direct outreach via an email that explained the
purpose of the study and included an overview of the methodology. Seventeen senior leaders
were contacted using this approach, and 12 agreed to participate in the interviews.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol used to collect data for this study employed a peer-reviewed semi-
structured format of 15 open-ended questions. Each question has a set of potential follow-up
probe questions. These probes helped increase the level of detail provided in the responses and
were used to connect the responses from preceding questions to subsequent ones. These research
questions begin with a broad question about the participant’s position and role at the institution.
This question helped to build report and provided context for the following questions related to
campus flashpoints. The remaining questions explore the concepts of people, environment, and
behaviors (the key concepts in social cognitive theory) related to three time periods: before the
recent campus flashpoint, after the recent flashpoint, and in the future when another flashpoint
may occur. The concept of people is focused on key stakeholders such as other senior leaders,
students, faculty, staff, and external entities such as alumni and media. Environment is focused
on campus climate. Behaviors focuses on the decisions and actions of the participating senior
leaders as they prepare for and respond to campus flashpoints. Appendix B presents the
interview protocol.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection used for this instrumentation included video and audio recordings
during the interview, transcripts of the interviews, and notes taken during the interviews. The
38

video and audio recordings were captured using video conferencing software. The transcripts
were automatically generated by the software. Transcript accuracy was immediately verified
following the interview, and minor corrections were made. Observational notes were taken
during the interview to supplement the transcript. The use of video conferencing software was an
appropriate choice given the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic during
the time of this study. Additionally, the software provided easy access to transcripts without the
need for third party transcript generation.
Prior to these interviews, participants were contacted via email to schedule their session.
Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour, inclusive of the time required to introduce the study
and review participant consent and confidentiality. Interviews were conducted using video
conferencing software (Zoom), which was used to capture the data, both in video and audio
format. Audio and video recordings were taken with the explicit permission of the participant.
The recordings were immediately deleted after the transcript was generated and verified. The
recording feature in Zoom was turned off by default at the start of each interview until informed
consent was reviewed and obtained from the participants. Participants were given the
opportunity to not consent to recording through Zoom. All participants agreed to the recording.
Data Analysis
Data analysis allows for meaning to be derived from the collected data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Analyzing qualitative data such as those collected through interviews involves
coding the data and identifying themes that help answer the research questions of the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, to analyze the data collected through the interviews,
transcripts and accompanying notes were used to begin coding the data. The data coding was
linked to variables of interest from the study’s conceptual framework by constructing and using a
39

codebook to mark key themes in the data (Bernard et al., 2016). These variables included people,
environment, and behaviors, which were first identified in individual interviews and then
compared to the entire interview data set to identify patterns. To understand the themes and
patterns, several techniques were employed. These techniques included identifying repetition in
the data, similarities and differences in specific question responses across interviews, and the use
of analogies and metaphors by participants (Bernard et al., 2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is the confidence in the truth of the study and its findings (Connelly, 2016 as
cited in Polit & Beck, 2014). Trustworthiness is the degree of confidence in the data, its
interpretation, and the methods that are used to help ensure the quality of a study (Connelly,
2016 as cited in Pilot & Beck, 2014). To help ensure credibility and trustworthiness, this study
employed Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) strategy of adequate engagement in data collection. In
this strategy, sufficient time is spent collecting data and purposefully looking for variation in the
understanding of the phenomenon. The process of reflexivity was also used. This process
involves reflecting upon the data collection and analysis process to actively identify and mitigate
potential biases and assumptions.
To further demonstrate credibility and trustworthiness, the data analysis was conducted in
a precise, consistent, and exhaustive manner by recording the interviews to provide verbatim
transcripts. Peer review of the interview protocol, including pilot testing and modifications based
on feedback was also used. The methods of analysis are also disclosed here with enough detail to
enable the reader to determine whether the process was credible. Toward this end, descriptive
data are provided to allow the reader as much access to the participant responses as possible.
Furthermore, a comprehensive audit trail was created, which includes notes on the interview
40

environment and consistently preserved and stored transcripts, so that data are link to their
original sources (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Three broad principles regarding ethics in qualitative research are provided by Rubin and
Rubin (2012): (a) respect for participants, (b) not pressuring participants, and (c) not causing
harm to participants. Three strategies used in this study to achieve these principles were
voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality. Participants were informed that
their participation was voluntary in the interview introduction and information sheet as detailed
in Appendices A and B, respectively. Participants were asked to give their informed consent
prior to beginning the interviews. Confidentiality was ensured by using a pseudonym for the
institution and by not divulging the names of the participants or other details that may be used to
identify the institution or members of the campus community.
The final product of the study was provided to participants upon request, which may have
provided incentive in the form of insight into past experiences. The study served the interests of
and potentially benefited all constituencies involved in campus flashpoints, with the aim being to
minimize negative consequences of campus flashpoints. The potential for harm from this study
was low and presented no more than minimal risk to human subjects. However, the study
centered the experiences of senior leaders, which may have marginalized other voices,
particularly students. This choice was partially based on the need to narrow the scope of the
research, and partially since senior leadership perspectives were largely missing from the
literature. This study was approved by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB), and no data
was gathered prior to IRB approval.

41

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences and behaviors of
senior leaders in relation to campus flashpoints. This study used semi-structured interviews as
the source for data. These data were collected to better understand the three key factors of the
conceptual framework: people, environment, and behavior. This conceptual framework helped to
shape the following research questions:
1. How do senior leaders’ prior experience and knowledge impact their preparation for
and response to campus flashpoints?
2. How do senior leaders envision their relationship to other stakeholders in the context
of their behaviors related to campus flashpoints?
3. How does the campus climate influence senior leaders’ knowledge and behaviors
related to campus flashpoints?
4. What proactive strategies can senior leaders develop to prepare for and respond to
future campus flashpoints?
The data from the interviews, including transcripts and accompanying researcher notes,
were coded using both a priori and inductive codes. Based on these codes, thematic analysis was
used by identifying relationships, similarities, and differences in the data (Ratvitch & Carl,
2019). As described by Gibson and Brown (2009), a theme is “a generalized feature of the data
set” (p. 129). Themes were formed first by analyzing individual interviews and then comparing
to the entire interview data set to look for patterns. Each theme had at least eight participants
(67%) responding in a similar fashion. The themes and associated evidence for each of the
research questions are discussed in the remaining sections of this chapter.
Participants
42

The participants in this study were senior leaders at Knowledge University (KU),
including the president, provost, vice presidents, senior diversity officer, deans, and other
officers. These senior leaders oversaw major areas of the institution and were therefore the
people who constituents such as students and faculty expected to respond to campus flashpoints.
They were also the people who held the authority and power to make high-level decisions related
to campus flashpoints. These are high-profile positions, typically with only one person serving in
the role, and they can be highly politicized within institutions. Therefore, to be overly cautious
regarding confidentiality, the descriptions of findings in this chapter do not use pseudonyms or
refer to specific role titles.
Purposeful sampling of KU senior leaders was used to select 12 participants in the
interview protocol. The demographics of the participants include a mix of ethno-racial identities:
six White, two Asian, two Latinx, and one Black. The demographics include a balance of binary
gender identities: six women and six men. The participants’ number of years of experience as
senior leaders in higher education varied from 2 years to over 10 years.
Findings for Research Question 1: How Do Senior Leaders’ Prior Experience and
Knowledge Impact Their Preparation for and Response to Campus Flashpoints?
For Research Question 1, three major themes were identified. These themes include: the
broader landscape beyond the campus; diversity as it relates to personal identity of the senior
leader; and senior leader experience with prior campus flashpoints.
Theme 1: The Broader Landscape
The interview responses showed that the experience and knowledge of senior leaders are
shaped by the broader landscape beyond the campus. All of the leaders referred to the local,
national, and global landscape as they described their preparation for and response to campus
43

flashpoints. These references to the broader landscape included the political climate of the
county surrounding the institution, the proliferation of campus flashpoints at other institutions,
the 2016 U.S. presidential election and subsequent administration, the Black Lives Matter and
#MeToo movements, the murder of George Floyd, anti-Asian hate crimes across the country, and
the influence of social media.
Several leaders referenced the problematic history of the local county, its conservative
politics, and how these factors influenced their approach to their leadership on campus. For
example, one leader said, “our county is the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan … and now it is
much more diverse. Our challenge now is to become an equitable and inclusive institution that
reflects the diversity in our community.” Another leader asserted: “until [the 2016 election], I
had no idea this place was filled with racists, like crazy racists, and seeing the ugliness of hate
and racism and intolerance really makes me viscerally want to go the other way as fast and as
quickly as I can.”
Many of the leaders compared the recent campus flashpoint at KU to flashpoints at other
campuses. For example, one leader stated, “we had seen this at other universities, so we knew
that a list of demands was coming.” Nearly all of the leaders referenced flashpoints at other
institutions as part of the larger context of how the rate of these incidents is increasing. They also
noted how this context made clear the inevitability of another flashpoint at KU in the near future.
The leaders described how national events like the 2016 election and the murder of
George Floyd impacted their approach to leadership and the campus climate. For example, one
senior leader argued: “if that hadn’t had happened with George Floyd, everybody would have
said that the [recent flashpoint] was terrible, and then we would have gone back to business as
usual.” The senior leader went on to describe how the recent flashpoint was different: “but,
44

instead, everyone stopped and said, ‘what are we going to do? We will not let this happen.’”
Another leader pointed out, “this was a very interesting situation, because of the timing and the
fact that [the 2016 election] had already stirred up all of this stuff in ways that we had not seen at
this institution before.” Several leaders mentioned an added “pressure” to respond to the
flashpoint because of this national context.
All of the leaders cited the global context of social media as increasing the difficulty of
responding to campus flashpoints. Most of the leaders described how social media has led to a
proliferation of misinformation, both generally and as it relates to flashpoints. One leader
referred to cancel culture prevalent in social media as affecting her leadership, saying: “I’m
scared. There’s so little room for error.” Several of the leaders noted that the increased speed of
communication facilitated by social media required senior leaders to respond much more quickly
to flashpoints. One leader pointed out that the flashpoint can often be embedded in social media
itself. Two of the leaders mentioned that social media can have positive effects as well.
Specifically, they referred to the power of social media to support student activism. Many of the
leaders predicted that social media is going to be part of the context in higher education for the
foreseeable future, and that senior leaders will need to learn to work within that context to
effectively prepare for and respond to flashpoints.
Theme 2: Personal Identity and Diversity
This study focuses on diversity-related flashpoints, including those connected to cultural
identities such as ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation, race, and
religion. In their responses to the interview questions, all of the senior leaders connected their
personal cultural identities to the recent flashpoint. One leader confided, “it was tough for me as
a White male to talk about [the flashpoint]. … I got the feeling that some people were like, ‘you
45

can't do it, you don't understand.’” One leader shared that her initial response to the flashpoint
was “not okay.” She said, “it reminded me of when I moved to a new high school and some guy
in my chemistry class said Donald Duck is a Jew in a derogatory way. … I don't even know that
the guy knew I was Jewish.” Another leader explained, “being one of the few Black
administrators on this campus. … I wanted to talk to [the Black students], I wanted to better
understand.” One leader went into detail about how the impact of the flashpoint was related to
his identity:
It was probably one of the most painful things that I have gone through in my life.
Personally, I mean, because of who I am and where I come from. I came in committed to
diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. People don't know these things about me, but I am
an immigrant to this country, I'm a product of a mixed marriage. When my parents came
to this country, they couldn't find a place to live, because people wouldn't rent to them or
sell to them. … You know, I also have an African American son. [The students] don't
know that. I didn't share that with them. And so, these things are intensely personal to
me, so [the flashpoint] was intensely personal to me.
All of the leaders who identify as White referenced their own privilege when recounting
past flashpoints. One leader admitted, “I may not have been aware of the effect that [the
flashpoint] had on other people because of my privilege.” Another White leader observed, “if
you're like me, with privilege … people like me needed to stop and recognize that, yes, [KU]
may be diverse, but the institutional policies, procedures, and everything is set up to benefit me
and White males or White people, specifically.” This same leader continued, “I gotta check my
privilege … to even wrap my head around what was going on and I don't know that I can.”
Another leader reflected on how privilege factored into his expectation that a Black colleague
46

protect him from students’ criticism regarding his response to the flashpoint: “I was so angry
with him. … I should never have assumed. That was my White privilege; assuming that [he]
owed that to me … I would have done that differently, I wouldn't have gotten mad.” One other
White leader expressed how privilege limited his experience of the flashpoint, “those of us that
come from a privileged background, we were not experiencing [the flashpoint] ourselves, we can
never fully understand.” The other White leaders made similar comments about their privilege
and their inability to fully understand the impact of the flashpoint on people of color. It is
important to note that KU required several diversity-related trainings for senior leaders since the
most recent flashpoint; therefore, these perspectives on privilege may have been influenced by
these trainings.
Theme 3: Previous Experience With Flashpoints
The interview responses showed that most of the leaders had previous experiences with
campus flashpoints. One leader, for example, recounted an incident in which a student had
recorded a faculty member’s lecture and then edited it “out of context” to make it “look racist.”
The student posted the video on social media, where it went viral, resulting in demands for the
faculty member to be fired. The leader shared their personal emotions of fear and surprise in
reaction to the past flashpoint, and how those emotions carried over to the more recent
flashpoint. Other leaders also expressed similar emotional responses to past flashpoints, which
included emotions such as fear, sadness, and shock. They also reported similar emotions in
response to the recent flashpoint.
Several of the leaders talked about another flashpoint involving anti-Black racism that
had occurred at KU 2 years prior to the most recent flashpoint. They characterized the resolution
to the previous flashpoint as being a much smoother process than the one for the recent
47

flashpoint. These leaders mentioned that the vice president for student affairs at the time
identifies as Black and had strong relationships with members of the Black student organization.
They attributed the smoother resolution to these relationships between the vice president and
students. One leader recalled, “at that time, we worked through the issues with [the students].
They did not have a list of demands. We collaborated.” Another leader explained, “We were
really proud of having worked together with our students to come up with a list of things that we
could work on together. I wish that we had been able to get there in this [recent] flashpoint.”
Several of the other leaders similarly described being disappointed that the recent flashpoint did
not resolve similarly.
Most of the leaders revealed that they had difficulty in deciding when and how to respond
to past flashpoints. For example, one leader revealed: “I worry about being selective. I responded
to this incident and not that incident.” Most of the leaders also shared how it was difficult to
know when an incident has reached the level of campus flashpoint. Most of the leaders said that
they knew the most recent incident had reached the level of flashpoint once the students had
organized a campus-wide town hall.
Several of the leaders also talked about their experiences with past flashpoints, indicating
how each flashpoint is unique and presents its own challenges. One leader specified, “we know
how to deal with demonstrations, we know how to deal with controversial speakers, we know
how to deal with a bias incident, but how do we deal with this one now?” Other leaders made
similar comments and identified the unique challenges of each flashpoint as one of the most
difficult aspects of responding quickly and effectively.
Three major themes were identified for Research Question 1. The first theme centered on
how the experience and knowledge of senior leaders are shaped by the broader landscape beyond
48

the campus. The second theme highlighted the senior leaders’ connection of their personal
cultural identities to the recent flashpoint. Finally, the third theme focused on the leaders’
previous experiences with campus flashpoints and how that experience influenced their
behaviors.
Findings for Research Question 2: How Do Senior Leaders Envision Their Relationship to
Other Stakeholders in the Context of Their Behaviors Related to Campus Flashpoints?
For Research Question 2, three major themes were identified. These themes include:
support, care, and education of others; defensive stances taken by senior leaders; and the
positional authority of senior leaders in relation to others.
Theme 1: Support, Care, and Education
As the senior leaders reflected on their relationship to other stakeholders, all of them
talked about the importance of support and care of other people during and after a campus
flashpoint. One leader expressed, “the faster you can respond to the initial flashpoint, it shows
people you get it and you care about them.” Another leader described how their level of care is
not dependent on the magnitude of the flashpoint: “if it's posted out there, [available off-
campus], then we have to work with the external communities, but if it's just something that one
student saw and it's contained, then our kindness and care doesn't change.” A different leader
discussed how care can help in navigating the complexities of a flashpoint response, “you can
definitely navigate [the flashpoint]; you just have to go at it with kindness, care, empathy, and
apology to help [the students] understand the realities of the situation.” Another leader contrasted
the personal versus institutional approach to care: “I tried to navigate those waters as best as I
could, to talk to [the students], and to offer my care and support as a person, but I couldn't do it
from an institutional level.” This leader went on to rhetorically ask of the institution, “what are
49

we doing that is going to make [our Black students] truly feel like we care?” One other leader
asserted the importance of supporting all members of the campus community:
You have to develop relationships with members of the community before [a flashpoint]
occurs. Be out there, engaging with your students, your faculty, your staff, all of your
communities, and make sure that they understand that you're there to listen.
Another leader focused on the need to support faculty because, they argued, it is the faculty who
support the students, “the mentors that our students can look to for support are our African
American faculty, who were also affected by [the flashpoint]. It's all about providing support to
our African American faculty.”
All of the leaders also emphasized the importance of education when working with other
stakeholders in the context of flashpoints. One leader stated, “We're going to start a very
intentional educational campaign about anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Another
leader contextualized this education specifically for students: “it's an education point for the
students right when something like this happens. I think this is actually in the Greek life training
these days for new Greek life leaders.” While several of the leaders highlighted the importance
of diversity-related education for students in both the classroom and co-curricular spheres, one
senior leader specified that education of faculty was paramount, “[we] created this five-segment
module of how to teach cross culturally and the next year we required all our incoming faculty to
take it.” Another leader highlighted the importance of education for both faculty and staff at the
institution, “some of the stuff that was falling through the cracks was [diversity] education for
employees.”
One leader delved into the difficulty of diversity-related education by comparing it to
learning a foreign language: “when you're in French 101, you're learning how to say ‘help,’
50

‘bathroom,’ ‘beer,’ ‘wine,’ and in French 202, you can read a newspaper and have a
conversation. When you're going through anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion training, [it
is similar].” The leader continued by saying, “we have people who don't even want to take 101
and people who were already graduate students and have passed 202.” The leader went on to say
that this wide range of knowledge and buy-in from people across the institution makes it difficult
to develop and implement a comprehensive diversity-related educational campaign.
Some leaders talked about how diversity-related education was relatively new for the
institution. One leader mentioned that, before the flashpoint, “we did not have a Vice President
for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts who would…help with education for employees; this
was a deficit.” Another leader said that, after the flashpoint, “we started to do more education for
our faculty and staff, which is fairly new for this campus. Because, before that, the only ones that
were doing this work were the identity-based centers through their ally programs.”
Several of the leaders also talked about their own learning and education in relationship
to the flashpoint. One leader described their learning related to flashpoint response, “I tried to
learn stuff. I mean, this is a path that others have gone down I don't have to reinvent the wheel,
so I started reading.” Another leader stated simply, “I would just say the biggest takeaway for me
and my position is just never stop learning and never stop taking diversity training and never stop
paying attention.” One White-identified leader reflected on their diversity-related educational
development, “I could see myself just sort of gaining more facility. … [Before the flashpoint,] I
never even said ‘White people.’ Like, they were not words that I used. I had a lot to learn. I
mean, I still do.” All of the leaders participated in diversity-related training after the flashpoint.
Theme 2: Defensive Stance
51

Another theme from the interview responses regarding the relationship between senior
leaders and other stakeholders is the defensive stances taken by some senior leaders. This quote
from a White- and male-identified leader exemplifies this defensive stance:
I don't know if this is a White male thing, but it might be. In these situations, we have the
tendency to want to say, ‘we're doing all this work.’ ‘Look at all this work we're doing
and look at how much success we've had.’ And, in our minds, it's like, ‘yeah this is really
bad, this sucks. But look what we're doing!’ That was not the right route to take in
hindsight.
A female-identified leader of color criticized the other leaders by saying, “the response
from other leaders, I felt was lacking…it became about, ‘how dare these students…somebody
needs to tell the students that this is all the work that we've been doing.’” Another female-
identified leader had a similar critique: “it was almost like, ‘how do we protect ourselves from
these angry students.’ That broke my heart. I remember hearing that and then that sort of started
to show through in the messaging that went out.”
One leader described the defensiveness specifically of another leader, referencing that
leader’s background as an attorney and litigator, “…he's used to arguing his point, so we had to
remind him that, like, your role is to listen, not to clap back, just to listen to the students and their
experiences.” The leader being referenced in this quote was self-reflective on this same moment:
“I'm a litigator, I love combat. My initial reaction to the demands was like a legal brief. ‘Here, let
me tell you all the ways in which you're wrong.’ I had to tear it up and start again and approach it
in a completely different way.” That same leader went on to say: “You can probably still hear
that there's a little bit of resentment in my voice. A lot of it was, ‘how can you [attack me]? You
know, you guys don't even know me.’”
52

Several of the other leaders also characterized the response from other constituencies,
particularly the students, as an “attack.” For example, one leader said, “I learned that, when
you're attacked, it feels like they're attacking you, but they're really not attacking you; they are
attacking the institution.” Another leader described the feeling of being attacked during the town
hall: “everyone was around [the leaders], and just anger and frustration just coming…one after
the other, after the other.” One of the leaders used the word “combat” when describing the
response from students, “you're not interested in solutions, you're interested in combat.”
Several of the leaders were particularly defensive about the student demands. One leader
referenced how one leader was angry and defensive about the student demands in particular: “he
was kind of angry about [the student demands]. We had conversations about how students
shouldn't be demanding things; they shouldn't be using the word ‘demand.’ It should be requests
or suggestions, but not demands.” One leader referenced a “confrontation” while providing a
possible solution to the problem: “It’s important to distribute the response so that it's everybody
responding, not just one person. I think it's really important. It dissipates the confrontation and it
creates all kinds of different places and pockets for potential resolution.” The leader goes on to
say that, even if one or two of these “pockets” can “bear fruit,” a solution could be found for the
entire flashpoint. So, even though this leader uses defensive language, similar to the other
leaders, he seems to believe that there is the possibility for resolution to the conflict.
Theme 3: Positional Authority
The third theme that formed as the senior leaders described their relationship to other
stakeholders is focused on the positional authority of the leaders. Many of the leaders felt
helpless or powerless despite their authority over major aspects of the institution. Some of the
leaders indicated that they were confused or unsure of their role in responding to the flashpoint.
53

All of the leaders expressed belief that the primary responsibility for response to the flashpoint
fell under the purview of a different leader.
One of the leaders was straightforward in confiding, “I remember sitting in the cab ride
and feeling very powerless.” Some leaders felt like they had no authority or power in the
decision-making process. One senior leader plainly said, “I was not part of any decision
making.” Another leader shared, “my job was to advise, and the decision-making authority lived
with others.” One leader felt powerless because of the behavior of another leader, as they shared
in this quote, “I had gotten a call [from another leader]. Not for my input, but more just to say
‘hey, did you know that this happened? It's been handled.’ I need more than that [to do my job].”
Another leader named the areas that they felt powerless to change, “I can't do anything about it. I
can't do anything about HR. I can't do anything about administration and finance.” One of the
leaders seemed overwhelmed by their powerlessness: “this is deep waters. Deep water and this is
hard. This is hard to manage, hard to handle. I don't think anyone really, well anyone with my
background, would necessarily be good at handling this.” The leader went on to say, almost at a
loss for words, “this is a big, big, different, full of water.”
Closely related to powerlessness, many of the leaders also expressed confusion. One
leader said, clearly, “I was perplexed.” Another leader was not sure what to do in their role
“because I was surprised that [the other leaders] had not done the things that they needed to do to
deal with [the flashpoint].” In addition to feeling uncertain about their large-scale response to the
flashpoint, several leaders were also unsure about seemingly quotidian things like what to wear
and where to sit. One leader said, “they were asking folks to wear black. I didn't know whether it
was appropriate to wear black because that's what students were asking or to not wear black
because it's not really about me.” A White-identified leader shared a memory from the town hall
54

“a student got up on the microphone and said, ‘if you're White and you're sitting down, you need
to get up. You need to let Black students sit.’” The leader went on to share his feelings in
response to this request, “I was sort of sitting, you know, in the third row from the end, and I
thought, you know, I just feel so awkward, like, do I get up?”
Many of the leaders were also initially confused about whether or not to respond to the
incident. One leader reflected, “I always worry: well, I responded to this, but I didn't respond to
the swastika, and I didn't respond when there were [anti-]Asian hate crimes. I worry about being
selective. I responded to this incident and not that incident.” One leader was confused by all
aspects of the flashpoint. They shared that “the whole thing seemed very confusing. Very
confusing like I didn't know what to wear, I didn't know where to sit, I didn't know if I needed to
go [to the townhall].” When asked what they wished they knew ahead of time, this leader went
on to say, “I don't know what I could have known in advance, because it was just so fast moving.
I think this is a skill you have to have in higher ed right now and I'm trying to be better at it.”
All of the leaders characterized the responsibility for response to the flashpoint as being
under the purview of a different leader. One leader made it clear that the other leaders “were
supposed to deal with the students. To listen to them. To talk to them. To understand. To tell
them that they were the point people that were working on this.” Another leader was clear about
what responsibility did and did not fall under their authority: “I had to remind him that those
areas did not report to me, and that he should check in with [another leader].” When asked about
their behaviors and decisions, one leader said, “it was somebody else, it was a different table that
was working on this and making some of those calls.”
In addition to believing that the responsibility lay with other leaders, some of the leaders
shared their disappointment with the other leaders’ actions. For example, one leader said, “some
55

things that were being decided [by the other leaders] we're not in alignment with our mission.”
Another interviewee described how they were let down: “[the other leaders] said ‘we'll take care
of it; don't worry about it.’ But they didn’t.” One leader summed up this issue with positional
authority by saying that shared responsibility amongst leaders is a cornerstone in higher
education “until it's an ugly baby, then everyone passes it. No one wants to keep this baby and
raise it. We keep passing it along.” The ugly baby, in this case, is the flashpoint.
Three key themes were found for research question two. The first theme focused on the
importance the senior leaders placed on support, care, and education during and after a campus
flashpoint. The second theme centered on the defensive stances taken by some senior leaders,
and their characterization of the flashpoint using battle language like "attack" and "combat."
Finally, the third theme highlighted feelings of powerlessness and confusion in the midst of the
flashpoint, despite the positional authority held by each of the senior leaders.
Findings for Research Question 3: How Does the Campus Climate Influence Senior
Leaders’ Knowledge and Behaviors Related to Campus Flashpoints?
For Research Question 3, three major themes were identified. These themes include: a
campus climate of ignorance and surface-level niceness (Disneyland); the pain and hurt in the
campus climate; and the catalytic nature of flashpoints in changing campus climate.
Theme 1: Ignorance Was Bliss in Disneyland
When asked about the campus climate prior to the flashpoint, all of the senior leaders
described an environment that seemed fine on the surface, but had serious issues that people
were either unaware of or did not talk about openly. Specific words and phrases that the leaders
used included, “ignorance was bliss,” “ostriches with our heads in the sand,” “papered over,”
“something just underneath the surface,” “smoldering,” “subterranean combustion,” “a facade,”
56

“polite,” “White nice,” and “Disneyland.” One leader said, “yeah I don't think it was okay, I just
think we didn't know it.” Several of the White-identified leaders attributed their lack of
awareness of the problems under the surface to their privilege. For example, one leader noted
that “there were things that I may not have been aware of prior [to the flashpoint] because of my
privilege. But, rest assured, people affected by that fire were aware of it.”
The leader who referred to ostriches described three groups that existed before the
flashpoint. Referencing the first group, he said, “when it comes to diversity, equity, inclusion,
you have a group of people that don't believe in it; they are, um, maybe, racist.” He characterized
the second group of people as “ignorant, you know, that ostrich theory, if you just ignore it, it
doesn't affect me kind of thing.” The third group, according to the leader, include the people that
“experience it, understand it, have to suffer through it.” After some probing, he clarified that the
“it” he was referring to was racism.
The leader who used the phrase, “White nice” went on to explain what she meant:
“people were just trying to be nice because people weren't willing to call each other out and
shine a light on the problem.” She continued to describe the problem, “those of us that worked
directly with students kept hearing it over and over. … Several students would come into my
office and say, ‘I want to report that I have this racist faculty member.’” She then lamented the
lack of options for formal resolution to these types of student complaints. The most that this
leader had seen in response to this kind of issue was a dean having a one-on-one conversation
with the accused faculty member. She said that she never saw open dialogue about the issue.
During the townhall, several students shared their experience of racism in the classroom. In
reference to these reports, this same leader said, “it wasn't a shock to me when all of this stuff
came out. … Thank God people now know how messed up some of the people are around this.”
57

The leader who described the pre-flashpoint climate as being like Disneyland made it
clear that she was not saying that the institution was the happiest place on earth. Rather, she
described how the people were “very polite” when it came to issues of social justice, but that,
under the surface, “there was a race problem that started the day this campus opened.” This
leader did not dive too deeply into the details of this race problem. The last thing she said in
response to the question about the pre-flashpoint climate was, “it was … it was … it was …
’welcoming.’ I’ll just leave it at that.” It was clear from her tone and phrasing that she was trying
to be careful about what she said when describing the climate prior to the flashpoint.
Theme 2: Pain and Hurt
The senior leaders made it clear that the campus climate during the flashpoint was
charged with emotions of pain and hurt. All of the leaders recalled the pain that other
constituencies were experiencing at the time. They focused mostly on the pain of students,
particularly Black students, with one leader simply stating, “the students were hurt.” One leader
said that the flashpoint “allowed us to really hear the depth of pain and frustration and anger
from the students.” Another leader admitted that “there were some things that I heard [from the
Black students] that were very, very shocking. It was good for me to see the depth of the hurt and
anger in that community.”
Some of the leaders described the pain of non-student communities on campus as well.
One leader said, “you heard the pain that was there, I think good people want to take that pain
away because the students should never have—students, faculty, and staff should never have to
feel that way.” Another leader focused on faculty and staff by saying, “There were some really,
really hurt employees.”
58

One leader noted how the flashpoint allowed people to connect with one another through
their pain: “a lot of people were walking around campus carrying this hurt and pain and negative
experiences that they'd had. And when they started hearing others, they were like, ‘wow. There
really is an issue here; it's not just me.’” The leader went on to say, “this can be very
empowering and rewarding.” Another leader talked about how people “just wanted to be heard
acknowledged and recognized at how painful and horrible this thing was.”
The senior leaders did not only relate the pain and hurt they saw in other groups. They
also described their own pain and the pain of the other senior leaders. One leader revealed, “it
was probably one of the most painful things that I have gone through in my life, personally.”
Another leader said, “I am a little embarrassed. I burst into tears, which, I never cry at work,
ever. And I don't really cry that much in general, and I had no idea that was coming.” One leader
described the emotional response of another senior leader, who was also a close friend: “[she]
ended up in tears in the bathroom and then me following her and then all the [other leaders] were
in the bathroom, and it was just awful. It's bad.” One leader described how the flashpoint helped
the senior leaders focus on their emotions and dispense with formality. He said, “titles are out the
window in these scenarios. It doesn't matter if you're President, Vice President, whatever. This is
a time when we're not worried about that.” The leader went on to say, “we were focused on how
we were hurting and how we need to heal and the best way for us to do that is to be with each
other.”
Several of the White-identified leaders experienced pain because of empathizing with the
experiences that were shared by Black students during the town hall. The following quote is
characteristic of what the leaders shared in the interviews:
59

I shouldn't be surprised, but when I heard [the student], I was crying inside because there
was a young man that stood up and said, “I wrote a paper and I worked really, really hard
on it. And my professor called me in and said, ‘okay, who helped you with this paper?’
And I said, ‘nobody helped me with this paper.’ And they were just, like, ‘come on, I
know you couldn't have written this paper.’” And that just crushed me because I was
thinking to myself, that can be a life turning point for someone where they, they just give
up on themselves.
Most of the senior leaders agreed with this sentiment from one leader: “as painful as it
was, I'm glad it happened.” One leader explained why they were grateful. She said, “as painful as
it was, it was so useful for our campus to start to leverage [diversity work] in a way that we
previously had not.” Additional reasons for why senior leaders felt that the flashpoint was,
ultimately, a positive thing for the institution are given in the following section.
Theme 3: Flashpoint as Catalyst
All of the leaders described the flashpoint, particularly the town hall, as a powerful
catalyst for change. For some, this catalyst led to an increase in their individual awareness,
particularly as it related to racism on campus. One leader remarked, “it was extremely eye-
opening for me, personally.” Another leader said that the flashpoint “adjusted my own thinking
and…shifted my perspective.” He now believes that diversity, inclusion, and equity “have to be
part of the things that we try to do every day.” One leader shared, “the town hall was very
moving for me. Hearing that number of students and former students with their stories, I found
that very moving and upsetting.” Many of the leaders connected their personal awakening from
the flashpoint to realizations they had about the broader impact of racism based on national
incidents such as the murder of George Floyd and the highly publicized acts of anti-Asian
60

violence. It should be noted that the leaders who referred to national and global flashpoints as a
moment of realization are all White-identified.
The leaders all characterized the flashpoint as a catalyst for a shift in the campus climate.
When asked how they would describe the climate after the flashpoint, specific words and phrases
that the leaders used included: “reconciling,” “cathartic,” “urgent,” “on alert,” “heavy,” “we
turned a corner,” “now largely committed to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion,”
“improved, but still a bit imbalanced,” “improved, but we still have a ways to go.” None of the
senior leaders described the post-flashpoint climate as seeming fine on the surface, as they had
when describing the pre-flashpoint climate. Instead, the general sentiment was that the flashpoint
had brought the underlying issues to light. Although, they felt that there was still much work to
be done.
Some of the leaders were optimistic that this shift in the climate would lead to positive
change. One leader said that the flashpoint “brought the whole campus together to take
responsibility to address the demands.” Another leader expressed excitement when saying that
the positive climate shift felt like it “came from above, it came from our President.” He went on
to describe how he interpreted the messaging from the President: “every division needs to have
diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, and…you're going to put them on your website, and you're
going to achieve them, and this is going to be something that we're doing every year!” One
leader talked about the KU “before the flashpoint” and the KU “after the flashpoint.” She said,
“we were forever changed in that moment, because it was the topic of discussion everywhere. It
didn't matter where you were on campus, this is what we were talking about.” She went on to
say, “a week after that, it was still the topic of conversation everywhere.” She remembered
thinking to herself, “whoa, this isn't gonna pass! We're gonna have to do something, so we can
61

move through this moment. And then start to rebuild with a better understanding of the power of
Black people on our campus.”
Some of the other leaders were less optimistic as they pointed toward surface-level
change and stagnation. One leader explained, “there's a flashpoint, there's a heavy reaction, and
then the reaction starts to wane over time.” Another leader went into detail about how the
momentum of change fades away:
It quickly became something that needed to be controlled or managed or squashed. You
know, it became like, “oh my God. Well, let's respond. Let's do some things.” But then
it's Thanksgiving break. “Thank God.” And I think, also, because the students took
themselves out of the narrative in a healthy way for them, it was easier for people in
leadership positions that…could have or should have had an effect to very easily be like,
“Whew. Great, Thanksgiving break. It's Christmas, people have forgotten about it. We're
going to move on.” And then we had a pandemic. So, it was really easy to not go back to
it. It became really easy to not have to think about it because everything became COVID,
COVID, COVID.
Many of the leaders noted that it was unfortunate that the flashpoint had to happen to see
change. One leader lamented, “it's horrible that it takes a flashpoint like this for people to say
‘oh, wait a minute. We do need to think about that.’” The leader went on to point out that “it isn't
just on student affairs to create an inclusive environment. Because, you can do that all day on
campus, but if students are being marginalized in the classroom, it's not gonna change a thing.”
Another leader described the flashpoint as “the catalyst for us to see all the other things that were
happening on this campus.” Then he acquiesced, “you know, it shouldn't have come to a point
62

where [the students] had to plan this town hall. We should have been listening earlier to the
students.”
On the other hand, one leader characterized flashpoints as a necessary part of student
development:
Senior leaders shouldn’t regard a flashpoint as something that is, at its very core,
negative. Higher education is supposed to be a place where we are helping prepare not
just the leaders of tomorrow, but we're helping shape society. And if we are bringing
students in and they're leaving here the same way, with more academic knowledge in an
area, but they aren't growing as people, then we haven't done our job. And what
flashpoints show us is that there's something about our campus that is helping our
students find their voice. … If leaders immediately clamp up, and we see [a flashpoint] as
something so wrong, and we need to stop it from happening, and we need to fix it
immediately, then we're not leaving room for organizational learning.
All of the leaders talked about tangible change that happened on campus after the
flashpoint. One leader characterized the flashpoint as “good and therapeutic” because the
institution had “turned a corner” afterward. The leader who had characterized three groups on
campus before the flashpoint (one, “maybe racists;” two, “ostriches with their head in the sand;”
and three, “people experiencing [racism]”) described the formation of a fourth group after the
flashpoint. He said, “a fourth group started to emerge. They are the ones who haven’t
experienced [racism], but now know people who have. [They] say, ‘we should do something
about it and I'm not going to stay in group two, [the ostriches], anymore.’”
As a manifestation of this change, all of the leaders talked about initiatives that were
developed and implemented in response to the flashpoint. These initiatives include the following:
63

• a President-mandated requirement that all units include diversity, equity, and
inclusion in their annual goals;
• a diversity-focused, campus-wide, common read program;
• a multiple-module learning program to help interested faculty learn to teach cross-
culturally;
• a new requirement for all incoming faculty to participate in an equitable pedagogy
module;
• a critical conversation series;
• an inclusive champion certification program available to all faculty, staff, and
students, which is required for all managers and senior leaders;
• an improved crisis response protocol;
• a new bias incident response team.
When asked if they thought that this positive change could have happened without the
flashpoint, nearly all of the leaders said, “no.” They agreed with the sentiment of one of the
leaders who said, “it was a catalyst to get everybody to say, let's get better.” One leader,
however, felt that the change could have happened without the flashpoint. Except, the leader
pointed out, “I don't know how we would have made it happen as quickly.” Another leader
argued that the positive change could only have happened without the flashpoint if there was a
significant turnover in the university administration.
It should be noted that one senior leader rejected the characterization of the incident as a
flashpoint. He did not believe that a critical mass of people was aware of and affected by the
incident. However, he spent most of the interview talking about the many significant changes
and initiatives that came about as a result of the incident, and he characterized the incident as a
64

“catalyst, this was clearly a catalyst.” He went on to say, “looking back, it was actually good.
Catalysts are good for galvanizing things; it was a necessary.”
Three key themes were identified for research question three. The first theme highlighted
the senior leaders' description of the pre-flashpoint campus climate as seemingly fine on the
surface, but with serious issues that people were either unaware of or did not talk about openly.
The second theme focused on the senior leaders' characterization of the campus climate during
the flashpoint as being charged with emotions of pain and hurt. Finally, the third theme centered
on the leaders' view of the flashpoint point as a catalyst that significantly changed the campus
climate.
Findings for Research Question 4: What Proactive Strategies Can Senior Leaders Develop
to Prepare for and Respond to Future Campus Flashpoints?
For Research Question 4, three major themes were identified. These themes include:
building relationships as a proactive strategy; proactive education of self and others; and
proactive strategies related to protocols, policies, and procedures.
Theme 1: Building Relationships
When asked about proactive strategies for preparing for future flashpoints, the most
common answer given by the senior leaders emphasized the importance of building
relationships. One leader stated it very clearly: “you have to develop relationships with members
of the community before [a flashpoint] occurs. Be out there, engaging with your students, your
faculty, your staff, all of your communities.” The leader went on to say that it is imperative to
“make sure that they understand that you're there to listen, to demonstrate that you're a good
listener before the catalyst. I think that's really important, really important.” Another leader
65

shared a similar sentiment, “the work we do now to build relationships will help us in the
future.” A third leader explained the importance of building relationships in detail:
It's really important to have those relationships, because we know trouble is coming. It's
inevitable, and if trouble arrives, and you don't have any anyone you can reach out to get
feedback, to collaborate with, to just get your finger on the pulse of the university, then
you're dead in the water.
One leader emphasized the need to build these relationships broadly: “what helps the
institution be successful is building relationships throughout the university, not just at certain
levels, but really across, and up and down.” Another leader pointed out that “you can't [build
relationships] just at the flashpoint, because that won't work out well for you at all and it takes
constant effort. Since our student leadership turns over all the time, this has to be a constant thing
that you're doing.”
An important theme in these relationships, for the senior leaders, is trust. One leader
made it very clear, in order to prepare for a flashpoint, “you have to build trust.” Another leader
built on this idea, “we have to have that level of trust in each other when something like this
happens.” The leader said that this trust is needed for the campus to come together and say, “let's
work together to address it and see if it's indicative of any bigger things that we should take
another look at … let's get back on our track of long-term change items that need to be changed.”
Many of the leaders talked about the importance of building relationships with “key
players.” One leader shared the adage, “you have to know the key players. Like, I shouldn't have
been meeting the [Black cultural center] people for the first time. … I didn't even know where
the [Black cultural center] was.” Another leader reflected back: “I should have known who they
were beforehand.” Then the leader admitted their past mistakes: “there wasn’t a fire under my
66

butt to do that. And, in my busy day-to-day, I didn't do it. It would have never reached priority
status.”
In addition to relating to key players, several of the leaders emphasized the need for
building and maintaining “active on-going engagement with all of our diverse communities.”
One leader carried forth this idea of connecting to diverse communities by naming them
specifically:
I need to seek out the leaders of my Latinx faculty and talk to them, I need to seek out my
API leaders and talk to them, I need to seek out my LGBTQ faculty and staff and talk to
them. And I need to do that for the students as well. So that they all have met me, know
me, feel like they can talk to me. And then I will listen before any issue comes.
Another leader noted that building relationships “even with our diverse faculty and staff is
important because there is turnover. We have to constantly engage with them to reduce turnover
and then also to build relationships with new folks.” The senior leader used the word “diverse”
here as a euphemism for people who identify with a marginalized or minoritized group,
particularly Asian, Black, Latinx, and Native American ethno-racial groups. It should be noted
that an individual unto themselves cannot be diverse since diversity refers to differences in
characteristics of a group of individuals.
The senior leaders who made comments about the importance of connecting to a diverse
range of communities were all White-identifying. The senior leaders of color talked about,
instead, the importance of leveraging their existing relationships with these communities. In fact,
rather than highlighting building these relationships as an important proactive strategy, the
leaders of color focused on how their membership in a minoritized group made the flashpoint
more difficult. Here is an in-depth description from this perspective:
67

Being one of the few Black administrators on this campus and having built relationships
with the Black students just from that cultural connection, I wanted to talk to them. I
wanted to better understand. … I remember going to them. … They were gathered in the
[Black cultural center], and I just sat down and talk to them. And I wanted to know, what
was their end goal, where was this going, what did they hope would happen, how could I
help? All of these pieces. So, that was part of what I was doing and then where I found
myself was in the middle. I was advising the President and [other senior leaders], and I
was a source of comfort for the Black students. I was wanting to help them and be there
for the Black students. But, also, on the personal side, I want to support this student
group, because I connect with them, and I know them.
Here is another detailed account from a senior leader of color:
The response from campus was really hard for me, on a personal level. Having to watch
colleagues go through some of this was challenging and, in particular, I had several
students who reached out to me because I had personal relationships with them. And they
just kind of asked me, “what the fuck is happening? You know, like why don't we, like,
where's the President, and why isn’t anybody responding, and we can't get anybody to,
you know, talk to us.” That was really hard and I have African American colleagues and
faculty who I worked really closely with because I had convened a group called the Black
Excellence Care Group…. I had several faculty from that group reach out to me and say,
“what's happening, what's going on, we don't know what the campus is doing, why is this
happening, why are students, all of a sudden, really angry.” … And, and, that was really
hard for me, but I know it's especially hard for [my Black] colleagues. You know, I try to
navigate those waters as best as I could, to talk to them, and to offer my care and support
68

as a person. But I also understand that I couldn't do it from an institutional level…. That
was tough. Yeah, thanks for listening. I hadn't thought about that event in a long time.
Several of the leaders, both White and of color, talked about how staff and faculty who
share the identity of the targeted group in the flashpoint play a special role in the response. In
particular, the leaders pointed to the issue of cultural taxation. “Cultural taxation” is a term
coined by Padilla (1994) to describe the unique burden placed on minoritized faculty in carrying
out their service to the institution. Some leaders took this idea to the next level. For example, one
leader shared, “the mentors that our students can look to for support are our African American
faculty, who were also affected by [the flashpoint]. … It's all about providing support to our
African American faculty.” This sentiment is indicative of several leaders’ belief that it is
important to connect with minoritized faculty and staff directly, to support them in specific ways.
Theme 2: Education
As described in the findings for Research Question 2, all of the leaders emphasized the
importance of education when working with other stakeholders during a flashpoint. All of the
leaders also asserted that education is vital as a proactive strategy for preparing for future
flashpoints. Most of the leaders described this education in the context of diversity, equity, and
inclusion training. One leader said that we should “just never stop learning and never stop taking
diversity training.” Another leader described a proactive approach as a “a broad, very intentional
educational campaign about anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion at different levels.” A
third leader stated that the institution needed to “implement a comprehensive diversity, equity,
and inclusion professional development and co-curricular education program for all campus
constituencies.” Another leader described how the institution had already been offering this
69

training, “so, now, we're better prepared [for a future flashpoint], because we have a full team of
people that are heavily trained.”
A few leaders noted that this education had to go beyond diversity training. One leader
pointed out that it was important to “make certain that people are knowledgeable about the
legalities around some of these issues, such as the student conduct policies and procedures.”
Another leader emphasized the importance of making sure that all senior leaders had a clear
definition of behavior that could potentially detract from a climate of inclusion. The leader said,
“if we have a better understanding of what are our indicators for such behavior, then we have a
better idea about our communication strategy.” One leader emphasized the need for education
and skill building on having difficult conversations and dialoguing across difference. The leader
lamented that university employees, particularly faculty, were often reluctant to have these
conversations. The leader said, “this is your classroom, this is your student. Why are [student
affairs staff] going to have this conversation with [the students]? … I don't know what it is, but
[faculty] just do not feel comfortable having difficult conversations with students.” The leader
went on to say, “this is the job. We work with students. You shouldn't be scared to have a tough
conversation with students.”
Most of the leaders described learning from one another as a vital proactive strategy. One
leader said that we have to learn before, during, and after a flashpoint, and that we have to
“listen, listen, listen” to each other. Another leader reflected back on the flashpoint and said that
he wished he “would have listened more and taken more time to understand” people being
affected by anti-Blackness and other forms of racism.
A few of the leaders focused on the need for senior leaders to learn from other senior
leaders. One leader expressed discontent: “we haven't had an opportunity to just talk [as a senior
70

leadership team] … about, like, how do we work with students and faculty when these issues
come to light?” The leader went on to question, “how do we respond as leadership? What are our
institutional mechanisms? We have not had that conversation. I think having that conversation
and thinking about that would be one really good, serious step in the right direction.” Several
other leaders pushed the idea of this kind of conversation to a full tabletop exercise. One leader
said, “to prepare for a future flashpoint, we should do a tabletop exercise … a simulation
exercise with the senior leaders.” They went on to say, “[senior leaders] need to have a shared
understanding of how we respond…. If we aren’t talking about that, it’s going to leave us in a
tight spot the next time something happens.” Another leader said, “I think there are a lot of
lessons to learn from those crisis management exercises, like, let's imagine there was a
[flashpoint], what would we do.” A third leader asked, “isn't that what they do in first responder
drills?” and then said, “yes, we need to do that.” One leader said, “just knowing names and
phone numbers and faces before the emergency is helpful,” as she built upon the idea of first
responder drills by saying that she needed basic education on who to reach out to when there was
a flashpoint.
Theme 3: Protocols, Policies, and Procedures
When senior leaders were asked to identify proactive strategies, the third most common
answer centered on improving protocols, policies, and procedures related to flashpoints. One
leader laid out this idea very clearly, “you have to figure out your procedures.” The leader
expanded on this idea, “but, you'd have to have a threshold, and that's the hard thing. … You
could have your procedures, but you'd have to know when you start them.” Many of the leaders
similarly described the difficulty of knowing when to engage protocols and procedures at the
senior leadership level due to the vast range of types of potential flashpoints.
71

Several leaders described the need for crisis management protocols and the development
of a crisis management team. One leader explained why these structures are important: “if
anything like this erupts, we [would] immediately have a framework for how to deal with it and
how to talk about it.” Another leader said, “we now have a crisis communication [plan] that does
have like a kind of a bullet point list for bias incidents and racist incidents. We've gotten better
since [the flashpoint].”
Many of the leaders talked about creating more general communication protocols as a
proactive strategy. For example, one leader emphasized that “we have to be keeping people
informed. … What we've done poorly at [KU] is close the loop and keep folks informed across
campus of the efforts that are happening behind the scenes.” Another leader described the need
to be prepared to “get something out from the president” in a matter of hours. A third leader
underscored the importance of timely communication, “we need to make an immediate response
to the incident. Delaying the response … allows the fire and the pain and the hurt to grow.” One
leader shared the challenges of developing effective communication protocols, “it has been one
of the biggest struggles. … [We] send out newsletters, books to read, emails … social media. …
It's just challenging to know what the best form of communication is.”
Some of the leaders highlighted the importance of having a strong diversity, equity, and
inclusion infrastructure. For example, one leader shared, “our goal by next year is that we will
have a committee inside the department that will come up with a whole anti-racism, diversity,
equity, inclusion plan for [the following] year.” Another leader stated, “you have to have a strong
diversity, equity, and inclusion team.”

72

Some of the leaders talked about the need to have protocols in place for monitoring the
campus climate for minoritized groups. For example, one leader suggested “taking an honest
inventory of what you are doing, an honest, authentic, self-assessment … of what makes them
feel supported what makes them feel included because that's not going to be the same for every
marginalized community.” The leader clarified that this approach would not be easy: “that takes
everyone kind of working together at all levels and listening to the silences and doing things that
are actually transformative and impactful.” Another leader described a similar approach of
“really being intimately involved, not in the weeds but, having our finger on the pulse of what is
happening and not just trusting when somebody says, ‘this is fine, don't worry, it's taken care
of.’”
Nearly all of the leaders talked about the importance of improving flashpoint response
timing. For example, one leader relayed the frustration they heard from students and faculty
about the timing of the senior leader response, “they said it was taking an eternity.” Another
leader corroborated this perspective, “the [Black student organization] did not feel the university
was reacting quickly or forceful enough in those nine or ten days.” A third leader added to this
idea, “what I was hearing was that the student group was expecting something to happen from
the university level and it wasn't happening. So, they took action.” The action that the leader was
referring to was organizing the townhall and sending a list of demands. One leader described the
time constraints coming from the students in contrast to their attempt to work within those
constraints, “they gave us a timeframe, an artificial timeframe, which we could not comply with,
but we immediately crafted a letter back to them. … [But] we didn't finalize the answer within
the timeframe.” Another leader shared the time pressures coming from faculty, “the faculty
member was angry that [our response] wasn't forthcoming within hours of the incident becoming
73

public.” One leader provided a different perspective as they complained that the time pressure
was coming from other senior leaders, “they wanted us to do diversity, equity, and inclusion
work at lightspeed. And that was a problem because this work is strategic. You have to take your
time. You have to build in intentionality.”
While the students and faculty may have felt that the flashpoint response was too slow,
many of the senior leaders felt differently about time during the flashpoint. For example, one
leader plainly stated, “it happened very quickly.” While another leader shared, “it was really
moving much faster than me.” Another leader described the dilation of time during the
flashpoint, “two to three hours doesn't sound like a long time. But it's a long time in these
situations and you wouldn't want to go much past three or four hours if [the flashpoint] happened
in the A.M.” One leader of color posited a possible reason for the slow response from senior
leaders, “they feel so uncomfortable because we’re talking about race and, if [they] have to talk
about race. … [They are] terrified that [they] are going to say the wrong thing.” The leader went
on to connect that terror with the speed of the other leaders’ response, “that fear almost led to a
state of paralysis, which is why it took so long [for them to respond].” Regardless of their
perspective on time during the flashpoint, all of the leaders said that it was important to enhance
their protocols, policies, and procedures as a proactive strategy for easing the timing challenges
during a future flashpoint.
One leader went into detail about how each senior leader has a specific role to play in
responding to a flashpoint, and the importance of understanding those roles ahead of time as a
proactive strategy:
The President is the spokesperson for this and the lightning rod for it. … We all have
roles to play. The provost deals with what happens in the classroom. The student affairs
74

vice president deals with what happens with co-curricular activities. If it's digital, [we’ve]
got a vice president of information technology. If it's advancement, [we’ve] got, you
know. … We have to make sure everybody, number one, understands the priorities of
where we are, what we're doing. And then, when the question or the flashpoint or the
attack or whatever comes in, we distribute the response. … We have to ensure that the
response is collaborative and distributed.
One leader made it very clear that senior leaders needed to proactively prepare for the
next flashpoint, regardless of their role. They said, with an ominous tone, “listen, David, I'm
surprised it hasn't happened here again.” Another leader was critical of the institutions current
flashpoint—and student-conduct policies, “our policies weren't sufficient and they need to be
fixed before [the next flashpoint].” A third leader described the need for and difficulty of more
pragmatic proactive strategies: “we need to create those spreadsheets about how to respond.
They're really just loose guidelines, because every situation is so different. Like how are you
going to make a spreadsheet for a fraternity post … in the middle of this Trumpian craziness?”
Three major themes were found for research question four. The first theme centered on
the senior leaders' belief that building relationships is the most important proactive strategy for
preparing for and responding to future campus flashpoints. The second theme highlighted the
emphasis that the leaders placed on education as a vital proactive strategy. Finally, the third
theme focused on proactively improving protocols, policies, and procedures related to
flashpoints.
Summary of Findings
The findings for the current study are presented in this chapter, organized into themes for
each research question. For Research Question 1, the themes included: the effects of the broader
75

landscape beyond the campus; effects of personal identity; and effects of experience with prior
campus flashpoints on senior leader preparation for and response to campus flashpoints. For
research question two, the themes regarding relationships with other stakeholders encompassed:
support, care, and education of others; defensive stances taken by senior leaders; and the
positional authority of senior leaders. For Research Question 3, the themes touched upon: a
smoldering pre-flashpoint campus climate; the pain and hurt during the flashpoint; and the
catalytic nature of the flashpoint in changing the campus climate. For Research Question 4, the
themes included: building relationships as a proactive strategy to prepare for and respond to
future flashpoints, proactive education of self and others, and proactive strategies related to
protocols, policies, and procedures. Recommendations based on these findings are presented in
Chapter Five.

76

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter includes a discussion of findings from interviews with senior leaders at
Knowledge University (KU). This discussion focuses on nine major findings. Following the
discussion of findings are a set of five recommendations to address these key findings.
Limitations and delimitations of the study are also presented along with recommendations for
future research. The chapter ends with an overall conclusion for the study.
Discussion of Findings
Finding 1: Effect of Broader Context and Previous Experience
The first major finding from this study is that flashpoint-related actions and decisions of
senior leaders are influenced by the broader context of flashpoints in higher education, including
their previous personal experience with flashpoints. Most of the leaders had been involved with
at least one previous flashpoint, and several of the leaders recounted another flashpoint at KU 2
years prior to the most recent flashpoint. All of the leaders expressed being aware of the
frequency and severity of flashpoints in higher education. All of the leaders also referred to the
local, national, and global landscape as they described their preparation for and response to
campus flashpoints. Many of the leaders also compared the recent campus flashpoint at KU to
flashpoints at other campuses. Nearly all of the leaders referenced flashpoints at other institutions
as part of the larger context of how the rate of these incidents is increasing and how these
flashpoints are growing in magnitude and complexity. In particular, all of the leaders cited the
global context of social media as increasing the difficulty of responding to campus flashpoints,
and most of the leaders described specifically how social media has led to a proliferation of
misinformation.
77

This finding is aligned with literature reviewed in Chapter 2. For example, the research
shows that flashpoints are growing in frequency, magnitude, and complexity (EAB, 2019b;
Helsloot et al., 2012; Seltzer, 2018). In particular, researchers have found that national and
global contexts, including social media, have resulted in more frequent campus flashpoints and
more impactful repercussions of the flashpoints (Alcott et al., 2019; Gigliotti, 2017; Johnson &
Ferguson, 2018; Tevis, 2020). Additionally, research shows that a large majority of campuses
have experienced at least one flashpoint in the past 10 years (EAB, 2018).
Finding 2: Pre-Flashpoint Smoldering Climate
The second key finding from this study is that the campus climate at KU prior to the
flashpoint was characterized by the senior leaders as smoldering: seemingly fine on the surface
while having serious issues that people were either unaware of or did not talk about openly. This
finding is in agreement with the literature, which says that crises can generally be divided into
two types: sudden or smoldering (Irvine, 1997), and that a smoldering crisis is one that typically
starts out small, is initially not generally known within or outside of the organization, and is
often exacerbated as a result of administrative decisions or indecisions (Smith & Millar, 2002).
The previous research also says that a campus flashpoint is often the culmination of a smoldering
crisis related to campus climate (Mitroff et al., 2006).
Finding 3: Catalytic Effect of Student Activism
The third major finding is that the senior leaders described the flashpoint as a powerful
catalyst for change in the campus climate. In particular, they saw student activism in the form of
a townhall as the catalytic event. Very few of the senior leaders mentioned the posting of the
racist flyer, which was the original incident proceeding the townhall. This finding is corroborated
by the previous research that shows that racial issues tend not to be officially addressed and
78

documented until there is a sharp increase in student activism, such as a townhall (Harper &
Hurtado, 2007). Other research shows that senior leaders dread the student activism that often
accompanies campus flashpoints (Barnhardt & Reyes, 2016).
Nearly all of the senior leaders saw the catalytic flashpoint as having a positive effect on
the campus climate, resulting in a variety of diversity initiatives. This finding contrasts with
previous research that says flashpoints typically have a negative effect on the climate (Davis &
Harris, 2015). Additional previous research shows that flashpoints tend to damage the campus
climate and have negative effects on the institution (Jayakumar et al., 2009; Locks et al., 2008).
This seeming contradiction may be a matter of timing. A flashpoint may have an initially
negative effect on the climate, followed by positive changes to the institution if the crisis
response is handled well. Additionally, the interviews in this study were conducted 2 years after
the flashpoint, so it is possible that the negative effects on the climate may have dissipated.
Another possible explanation of the seeming contradiction is that the perspective of senior
leaders may not accurately represent the general perception of the campus climate. It is possible
that the senior leaders believe that the flashpoint positively changed the campus climate, while
other constituencies may have a different perspective. One other possible explanation is the
broader context of the national racial reckoning brought on by the murder of George Floyd.
Several of the senior leaders referenced this national flashpoint as increasing the imperative to
address racism on campus. Also, the research that connects campus flashpoints to a negative
effect on the climate was published prior to the murder of George Floyd. One final reasoning for
the contradiction could be the relatively small magnitude of this particular flashpoint at KU. This
flashpoint did not draw extensive media scrutiny, particularly at the national level. This lack of
negative press may have mitigated the negative effects of the flashpoint on the campus climate.
79

Finding 4: Post-Flashpoint Climate of Pain and Trauma
The fourth key finding from this study is that the senior leaders characterized the
flashpoint as causing pain and trauma, particularly for communities of color on campus. This
finding is supported by previous research that shows that flashpoints result in disturbances in the
campus community, including physical, psychological, and emotional trauma (EAB, 2018;
Walker, 2020). The research also shows that flashpoints and hostile campus climates affected
students of color significantly more than their White peers (Locks et al., 2008). Kezar et al.,
(2018) pointed out that ineffective response to a DEI-related flashpoint can deepen the emotional
trauma experienced by the groups affected by the initial incident. Therefore, they recommend
that senior leaders use a collective trauma recovery framework when responding to flashpoints.
Finding 5: Effect of Personal Identity
The fifth key finding is that the personal cultural identities of the senior leaders
influenced their perceptions and actions in relation to campus flashpoints. Some leaders,
particularly White- and male-identified leaders, talked about their privilege and tended to take a
defensive stance when responding to the flashpoint. This finding is likely related to the literature
that says that senior leaders dread student activism related to campus flashpoints (Barnhardt &
Reyes, 2016). The defensive stance is also aligned with the previous research that characterizes
senior leader response as focused on quelling student activism (Ahmed, 2012; Ferguson, 2012;
Squire, 2019).
White-identifying senior leaders emphasized the importance of building relationships
with a diverse range of communities. Whereas, senior leaders of color talked about, instead, the
importance of leveraging their existing relationships with these communities, and they
highlighted how these relationships made the flashpoint more difficult. The relationship between
80

senior leadership personal identity is not explored in the sparse previous research on senior
leadership response to flashpoints. However, this relationship may explain why mostly White
male senior leaders are highly criticized in the literature for ignoring and mishandling flashpoints
(Arkin et al., 2015; Tevis, 2020).
Finding 6: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody
The sixth key finding from this study is that many of the leaders felt helpless, powerless,
confused, and that the responsibility for responding to the flashpoint was under someone else’s
purview. This finding surfaced despite the fact that the senior leaders each have significant
positional authority over major aspects of the institution. The issue of ambiguous responsibility
reminds me of a story from an inspirational poster on the wall of my childhood choir practice
room ("A story," n.d.).
This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Everybody was
sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody
got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could
do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody
blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
One of the senior leaders used a different metaphor to describe the same issue, referring to the
flashpoint as an ugly baby for which no one wanted to take responsibility.
This finding is reflected in the previous literature by researchers such as Genshaft (2014),
who asserted that colleges and universities are particularly set up for poor handling of flashpoints
and other crises given lack of preparation and decentralized structures. Perry’s (2002) critique of
institutions for failing to have a proactive and systematic approach to responding to flashpoints is
81

also aligned with this finding. Davis and Harris (2015) also support this finding by stating a
common defense of senior leaders is to claim innocence or a lack of understanding.
Finding 7: Building Relationships as a Proactive Strategy
The seventh major finding is that building relationships is an important proactive strategy
for preparing for and responding to future flashpoints. Building relationships was the most
common answer given by the senior leaders when asked about proactive strategies. The types of
relationships suggested by the leaders varied, and included relationships up and down the
hierarchy, relationships with key players, and relationships with a diverse set of communities,
particularly those from marginalized and minoritized groups that are most likely to be affected
by flashpoints.
This finding is supported by the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. In particular, all of
the major recommendations for senior leadership response to flashpoints emphasize the
importance of building relationships as part of a multi-modal approach. Garcia and Hoelscher
(2010) and Kouzes and Posner (1995, 2007) referred to it as “encouraging the heart.” Kezar et al.
(2018) framed this as building trust and respect across stakeholder groups. The trauma recovery
framework put forth by Kezar et al. also includes active listening, an essential component of
building trusting relationships. Fries-Britt et al. (2020) suggested the need for a weaver-leader
role that builds relationships that create common ground on which to move the community
forward after a flashpoint.
Finding 8: Education as a Proactive Strategy
The eighth key finding from this study is that education is one of the most important
proactive strategies for senior leaders. The leaders emphasized that this education has to be done
prior to, during, and after a flashpoint. Also, the education must take on various forms, which
82

include: a comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development and co-
curricular education program for all campus constituencies; awareness-raising around legal
frameworks, policies, and procedures; skill building on having difficult conversations and
dialoguing across difference; and opportunities for senior leaders to learn from other
constituencies and from one another.
This finding resonates with recommendations for senior leaders in several of the previous
researchers’ works. Kezar et al. (2018) argued for the need to increase leadership expertise,
which happens through education. Their study also asserts that leaders must make an institutional
investment in continual learning for faculty, staff, and students. Williams’s (2008)
recommendation of a decentralized model and EAB’s (2019b) recommendation of sustainable
structures to address the broader context of flashpoints also both include education.
Finding 9: Protocols, Policies, and Procedures as a Proactive Strategy
The ninth major finding from this study is that protocols, policies, and procedures need to
be developed, refined, and practiced as a proactive strategy for senior leaders. According to the
senior leaders, this strategy is particularly essential to address the challenges of timing since
constituencies expect much faster responses than senior leaders can usually deliver without
ample preparation. These protocols, policies, and procedures include: campus climate monitoring
procedures; a crisis response team; a crisis communication plan; clear expectations on when
leaders will respond (i.e. a response trigger); a response assessment plan; and a strong diversity,
equity, and inclusion team and plan. These structures and processes should also be tested and
practiced through approaches like simulation and tabletop exercises.
This finding is well-supported by the recommendations for senior leadership flashpoint
response in the literature. Williams (2008) recommended a 3-year decentralized model for
83

ongoing diversity planning to avoid reactive flashpoint responses. Kezar et al. (2018)
recommended both strategic planning as well as evaluation and assessment practices. It is also
important to note that Kezar et al. stated that senior leaders should not set up a task force, collect
data, or develop a report with recommendations immediately after a flashpoint. Therefore, these
types of protocols, policies, and procedures should only be done as proactive measures before a
flashpoint. Fries-Britt et al. (2020) encouraged over-communication and setting of clear
expectations as part of their weaver-leader model. Finally, all of EAB’s (2018; 2019a; 2019b;
2019c; 2020) recommendations are focused on protocols, policies, and procedures: adding
flashpoints to the institution’s risk register and risk monitoring; creating mechanisms to
consistently elevate and discuss potential flashpoints; creating a dedicated team to structure and
coordinate the campus response; setting clear expectations on when and how senior leaders will
respond to flashpoints; and establishing sustainable structures to address the broader context of
flashpoints.
Recommendations for Practice
This section presents five recommendations to address the key findings discussed
previously. These recommendations are based on a synthesis of the findings from this study, the
proactive strategies recommended by the interviewed senior leaders, and the recommendations
provided in the literature.
Recommendation 1: Track Previous Flashpoints and Monitor Potential Flashpoints
The first recommendation is to track previous flashpoints and monitor potential
flashpoints. To track previous flashpoints, senior leaders would keep a record of past flashpoints
at the institution, including the type of flashpoint (e.g., hate-motivated vandalism, viral social
media post, controversial campus speaker, etc.), the cause of the flashpoint, the response to the
84

flashpoint, and the reaction of various constituencies to the flashpoint response. To monitor
potential flashpoints, senior leaders would observe national and global contexts as well as the
flashpoints occurring at other institutions. Additionally, leaders would create processes to watch
for potential flashpoints on their own campuses through approaches such as online risk
monitoring and mechanisms to consistently elevate and discuss potential flashpoints to promote
early action. In particular, they would establish direct lines of communication with students and
faculty, and with staff who work more closely with students, especially those from minoritized
and marginalized groups.
The key finding from the current study that is driving this recommendation is Finding 1:
flashpoint-related actions and decisions of senior leaders are influenced by the broader context of
flashpoints in higher education. This recommendation is an appropriate solution to this issue
based on the literature. Perry (2002) noted that flashpoints should be treated as normal and
pervasive, rather than how they are often treated, as rare and isolated. Additionally, two of the
recommendations from the series of white papers from EAB (2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; 2020)
are directly connected to this recommendation. The EAB recommendations include leveraging
online risk monitoring strategies to promote early action, and creating mechanisms to
consistently elevate and discuss potential flashpoints.
Recommendation 2: Assess and Improve the Campus Climate
The second recommendation is to periodically assess the campus climate and make
concerted efforts to improve the climate based on the results of this assessment. To assess the
climate, senior leaders would use established tools such as campus climate surveys (see e.g.,
Campus Climate Surveys, n.d.; Garvey et al., 2015). To improve the climate based on this
assessment, senior leaders would employ a wide variety of high-impact practices from the field
85

of DEI in higher education, as appropriate for their campus (see e.g., Museus, 2015; Smith,
2020; Williams, 2008, 2013).
Finding 2 from the current study is driving this recommendation. This finding states that
the campus climate prior to the flashpoint was characterized by the senior leaders as smoldering:
seemingly fine on the surface while having serious issues that people were either unaware of or
did not talk about openly. If senior leaders are able to bring these issues to the surface before the
flashpoint, it is possible that they could address the climate without as much of the pain and
trauma caused by the flashpoint. This recommendation is an appropriate solution to this issue
based on the literature, which asserts that senior leaders must address campus climate issues,
ensure marginalized groups feel a strong sense of belonging, and establish sustainable structures
to address the broader context of flashpoints, including the campus climate (Davis & Harris,
2016; EAB, 2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020). Also, one of the top recommendations from
Kezar et al. (2018) includes implementing evaluation and assessment practices, including
campus climate surveys, which should be administered at least once every 3 years (Campus
Climate Surveys, n.d.; Williams, 2008).
Recommendation 3: Create and Enhance Protocols, Policies, and Procedures Then
Practice, Practice, Practice
The third recommendation is to create and enhance protocols, policies, and procedures
related to flashpoints and then to practice them. To create and enhance their protocols, policies,
and procedures, senior leaders would first need to determine where there are existing gaps and
weaknesses. The leaders would conduct comprehensive reviews of their policies and protocols,
and they would use tools such as DEI-specific tabletop exercises based on those used in
emergency preparedness (see e.g., Carreon Bradley & Chik, 2022; Savoia, 2009; Wexler &
86

Flamm, 2017). These tabletop exercises would ease the uncertainty that arises during an actual
flashpoint, and they would clarify the roles and responsibilities of each leader. The senior leaders
would create a team to structure and coordinate flashpoint response, which would include setting
clear expectations on when and how a response would be initiated. The leaders would also
clarify and enhance their communication procedures related to flashpoints.
This recommendation is being driven by Findings 6 and 9 in the current study. Finding 6
states that many of the senior leaders felt helpless, powerless, confused, and that the
responsibility for responding to the flashpoint was under the purview of a different leader.
Finding 9 indicates that protocols, policies, and procedures must be developed, refined, and
practiced as a proactive strategy for senior leaders. Several references from the literature support
this recommendation as an appropriate solution to this issue. Mitroff et al. (2006) stated senior
leaders need to practice crisis leadership and flashpoint response. Recent research shows that the
tabletop exercise model is an effective tool for senior leaders to refine and enhance their
protocols, policies, and procedures related to DEI flashpoint response (Carreon Bradley & Chik,
2022). Two of the recommendations from the series of white papers from EAB (2018; 2019a;
2019b; 2019c; 2020) also speak directly to this recommendation. The EAB recommendations
include, developing a dedicated team to structure and coordinate the campus response, and
setting clear expectations on when and how senior leaders will respond to flashpoints. Fries-Britt
et al. (2020) also indicated that setting clear expectations is an important part of their weaver-
leader model. Additionally, several references emphasize the need to address weaknesses in
communications surrounding flashpoints, which often exacerbate the negative effects of these
flashpoints (Ahmed, 2012; Cole & Harper, 2017; Ferguson, 2012; Fortunato et al., 2018; Garcia
87

et al., 2020; Glenn, 2008; Harper, 2012; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Squire, 2019). Also, the
recommended weaver-leader model from Fries-Britt et al. includes over-communication.
Recommendation 4: Implement a Comprehensive Education Program
The fourth recommendation is to develop and implement a comprehensive professional
development and co-curricular education program for all campus constituencies. This education
would take on various forms, including: DEI training; awareness-raising around legal
frameworks and campus policies and procedures; skill building on having difficult conversations
and dialoguing across difference; and opportunities for students, faculty, staff, and senior leaders
to learn from other constituencies and from one another. The DEI training would include
workshops on cultural competency, which includes improving the ability to understand one’s
own cultural identity and how it relates to the cultures of other people.
The key findings from the current study that are driving this recommendation are
Findings 5 and 8. Finding 5 states that the personal cultural identities of the senior leaders
influenced their perceptions and actions in relation to campus flashpoints. Finding 8 indicates
that education is one of the most important proactive strategies for senior leaders. This
recommendation is an appropriate solution to this issue based on the literature. Most notably, the
top recommendations from Kezar et al. (2018) include institutional investment in continual
learning for faculty, staff, and students, and leadership expertise, which is bolstered by
education. Williams’s (2008) recommendation of a decentralized model and EAB’s (2019b)
recommendation of sustainable structures to address the broader context of flashpoints also both
include education.
Recommendation 5: Cultivate Relationships and Trauma-Informed Understanding
88

The fifth, and final, recommendation is to cultivate relationships before a flashpoint
occurs and to develop a trauma-informed understanding of flashpoints. To cultivate
relationships, senior leaders would employ a variety of approaches. These approaches would
include developing trust, using transparent and consistent communication, and showing
appreciation and respect for others. The approaches would also include direct interaction with
individuals and groups. The relationships would include those that are up and down the
hierarchy, those with key players, and those with a diverse set of communities, particularly those
from marginalized and minoritized groups that are most likely to be affected by flashpoints. To
demonstrate a trauma-informed understanding, senior leaders would recognize that flashpoints
can cause a great deal of collective emotional pain for members of the campus community. If an
individual senior leader has not experienced this type of trauma, or does not identify as a
member of a group that is often affected by flashpoint trauma, they may need to engage in
critical self-reflection and professional development through programs such as the one on shared
equity leadership offered by the American Council of Education (n.d.).
Findings 4 and 7 from the current study are driving this recommendation. Finding 4
indicates that flashpoints cause pain and trauma, particularly for communities of color on
campus. Finding 7 states that building relationships is an important proactive strategy for
preparing for and responding to future flashpoints. This recommendation is an appropriate
solution to this issue based on the literature. Two of the top recommendations from Kezar et al.
(2018) directly connect to this recommendation: building trust and respect across stakeholder
groups, and following a collective trauma recovery framework. The trauma recovery framework
includes active listening, speaking from the heart, and “acting with,” which requires leaders to
move in a measured way that deeply connects to community. The recommended weaver-leader
89

model from Fries-Britt et al. (2020) also includes building relationships that create common
ground on which to move the community forward after a flashpoint. Additionally, the ideal
leader behavior recommended by Garcia and Hoelscher (2010) and Kouzes and Posner’s (1995,
2007) is rooted in relationships and trauma-informed understanding.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are design constraints and external factors that cannot be controlled by the
researcher or mitigated by the design of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One potential
limitation was related to the interviews being conducted using video conferencing software,
which can make it more difficult to observe non-verbal cues, and can affect the interviewees’
level of candor. The general truthfulness of the participants was also a limitation of the study.
The interview protocol was designed to build interviewer-interviewee rapport, which should
have increased the likelihood of interviewee comfort and candor.
Delimitations are the intentional characteristics and boundaries of the study that limit its
scope. The primary delimitation of the current study was the focus on participants who are senior
leaders in higher education. The demographics of this group is largely homogeneous throughout
the sector, with White straight, cis-gender males composing the vast majority (Whitford, 2020).
However, the demographics of the senior leaders who participated in the current study
represented more ethno-racial and gender diversity than is typified by Whitford. Another
delimitation was the relatively small sample size and the focus on a single institution, which may
make it difficult to generalize the findings from the study.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on the problem of practice of ensuring that senior leaders are able to
proactively prepare for and respond to campus flashpoints in a way that minimizes negative
90

consequences. To help further address this problem, future research could be carried out in
several areas. These areas include: additional interviews of senior leaders; studying different
types of institutions; studying different types of flashpoints; and studying different constituency
groups.
To enhance the validity of the findings from the current study, future research could
include conducting similar interviews of senior leaders at several other institutions. The larger set
of interviews could be studied using thematic analysis to verify the themes presented in Chapter
Four. Themes and patterns could be identified for specific positions within senior leadership. For
example, the commonalities between presidents responding to different flashpoints could be
assessed. Insight into how senior-level diversity officers respond to flashpoints compared to
provosts and vice presidents of other areas of the institution could be gathered, as another
example. These additional interviews would help to address the delimitation of the relatively
small sample size, which may make it difficult to generalize the results of the current study.
Future research could vary the types of institutions that are studied. These institution
types could include large private universities, community colleges, small liberal arts colleges,
PWIs (Primarily White Institutions), and other types of MSIs (Minority Serving Institutions), for
example. These additional institution types would help to address the delimitation in the current
study of the focus on a single institution (a large public Hispanic Serving Institution).
The type of flashpoint could be varied in future research to better understand similarities
and differences in the response to flashpoints predicated on a variety of incidents. For example,
controversial campus speaker flashpoints could be compared and contrasted with hate-motivated
vandalism, which could in turn could be compared to flashpoints caused by viral social media
posts. Additionally, flashpoints based on different identity characteristics could be compared and
91

contrasted (e.g. ethno-racial identity, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, religion,
etc.).
Future research could also include interviews of different constituency groups, e.g.
students, staff, faculty, and senior leaders. Previous studies have separately interviewed students
(Yao et al., 2021), staff (Garcia et al., 2005), and senior leaders (EAB, 2019; Mitroff et al.,
2006); however, only one study (Kezar et al., 2018) has interviewed a full range of key
constituency groups, although that study did not provide extensive details on the similarities and
differences across constituency group. More multi-constituency interview studies would provide
a better understanding of how the perception of flashpoint response varies across constituency.
This would help to address a delimitation of the current study, which focuses only on participants
who are senior leaders.
Conclusion
As long as there are institutions of higher education with diverse communities and
conflicting perspectives, there will be campus flashpoints. Most campuses have experienced at
least one of these flashpoints in the past 10 years, and these flashpoints are associated with a
level of student protests that has not been seen since the peak of the 1960s and 1970s civil rights
and anti-war demonstrations. The broader context of increasingly complex and contentious
national and global communities indicate that the frequency and magnitude of these flashpoints
will continue to increase. These flashpoints can harm not only the institutions, but more
importantly the students who have put their faith and trust in these institutions. The most
vulnerable to the effects of these flashpoints are the minoritized and minoritized students who are
subject to injustices both within the institutions and in society at large.
92

The extent and nature of the effects of these flashpoints are shaped by the decisions and
actions of senior leaders. These leaders have the power to proactively prepare for and respond to
campus flashpoints in ways that can mitigate the negative effects, particularly the pain and harm
that can come to students and other members of their campus communities. Senior leaders want
to better understand these flashpoints and improve their practices as it relates to crisis leadership
and flashpoint response. The current study provides a deeper understanding of the senior leader
experience and offers concrete recommendations for flashpoint preparation and response. If
senior leaders implement this recommended multi-pronged approach, they can make a lasting
and meaningful impact on their campus communities by minimizing the negative consequences
of these flashpoints in the future.

93

References
"A story about Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody." (n.d.).
AAU (Association of American Universities). (2017). 2015 Report on the AAU Campus climate
survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct.
https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/AAU-
Campus-Climate-Survey-FINAL-10-20-17.pdf
AAU (Association of American Universities). (2020). 2019 Report on the AAU Campus climate
survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct.
https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-
Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-
2020_FINAL).pdf
AAUP (Association of American Colleges & Universities). (2020). Responding to the ongoing
COVID-19 crisis and to calls for racial justice: A survey of college and university
presidents.
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/research/AACU_ABC_PTSurvey_Report_F
indings__updated.pdf
Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Yu, C. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social
media. Research & Politics, 6(2).
Almasy, S., & Simon, D. (2017, March 30). A timeline of President Trump’s travel bans. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/index.html
American Council on Education. (n.d.). Equity-minded leadership.
https://www.acenet.edu/Research-Insights/Pages/Diversity-Inclusion/Equity-Minded-
Leadership.aspx
94

American Psychological Association. (2020, October 7). 2020 presidential election a source of
significant stress for more Americans than 2016 presidential race [Press release].
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/10/election-stress
Arkin, D., Johnson, A., & Schuppe, J. (2015, November 9). University of Missouri President
Tim Wolfe resigns amid racial unrest. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-
news/tim-wolfe-university-missouri-president-says-hes-resigning-amid-racial-n459941
Asal, V., Testa, A., & Young, J. (2017). Occupy this: why some colleges had Occupy Wall
Street protests. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 10(2–3), 81–103.
Bahr, A. (2014, August 1). Campus sexual assault bill relies on public shaming of colleges. New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/upshot/campussexual-assault-bill-
relies-on-public-shaming.html
Baker, P. (2021, January 6). A mob and the breach of democracy: The violent end of the trump
era. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trump-
congress.html?searchResultPosition=6
Bandler, A. (2018, October 24). Students and groups protest U-M for disciplining professor.
Jewish Journal. https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/240807/students-groups-
protest-u-m-disciplining-professor/
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review Psychology
52, 1–26.
Barmann, J. (2017, September 25). Milo Yiannopoulos spent 15 minutes at UC Berkeley, cost
them $800,000. SFist.
https://sfist.com/2017/09/25/milo_spent_15_minutes_at_uc_berkele/
95

Barnhardt, C. L., & Reyes, K. A. (2016, March 2). Embracing student activism. American
Council on Education. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2016/03/02/embracing-student-
activism/
Bernard, H., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. (2017). Analyzing qualitative data: Systemic approaches.
SAGE Publications.
BBC. (2018, September 21). Michigan professor embroiled in Israel boycott row.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45592553
Black Lives Matter. (n.d.). https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
Blinder, A., & Perez-Pina, R. (2015, January 28). Vanderbilt rape trial didn’t stir students on
campus. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/vanderbilt-rape-trial-
didnt-stir-students-on-campus.html?searchResultPosition=1
Booker Jr, L. (2014). Crisis management: Changing times for colleges. Journal of College
Admission, (222).
Bosman, J., & Fitzsimmons, E. G. (2014, August 10). Grief and protests follow shooting of a
teenager. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/us/police-say-
mike-brown-was-killed-after-struggle-for-gun.html
Boysen, G. A., Vogel, D. L., Cope, M. A., & Hubbard, A. (2009). Incidents of bias in college
classrooms: Instructor and student perceptions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
2, 219–231.
Broadhurst, C. & Martin, G. L. (2014). Part of the “establishment”? Fostering positive campus
climates for student activists. Journal of College and Character, 15(2), 75–86.
96

Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the campus
climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students using a multiple
perspectives approach. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 8–26.
Bucknell University (2021, May 21). May 22, 2021: Fran’s House investigation update.
https://www.bucknell.edu/may-22-2021-frans-house-investigation-update
Butler, J. (2018, August 20). Judith Butler Explains Letter in Support of Avital Ronell [Letter to
the editor]. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/judith-butler-explains-letter-in-support-of-avital-
ronell/
Byrd, W. C., Luney, L. T., Marie, J., & Sanders, K. N. (2021). Demanding attention: An
exploration of institutional characteristics of recent student demands. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 14(1), 25–36.
Campbell, A. F. (2018, August 21). More than 200 protesters topple a Confederate statue at the
University of North Carolina. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17763784/unc-silent-
sam-confederate-statue
Campus Climate Surveys. (n.d.) Frequently Asked Questions.
https://campusclimatesurveys.com/faqs/
Carreon Bradley, D. T. & Chik, C. (2022). DEI campus flashpoint response tabletop exercise.
National Conference on Race and Ethnicity (NCORE).
Castagno, A. E., & Lee, S. J. (2007). Native mascots and ethnic fraud in higher education: Using
tribal critical race theory and the interest convergence principle as an analytic tool. Equity
and Excellence in Education, 40, 3–13.
97

Chang, A., Martin, R., Marrapodi, E. (2020, August 16). Summer of racial reckoning. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/16/902179773/summer-of-racial-reckoning-the-match-lit
Chessman, H. & Wayt, L. (2016, January 13). What are students demanding? Higher Education
Today American Council on Education.
https://www.higheredtoday.org/2016/01/13/what-are-students-demanding/
Chiarella, N. (2020, September 18). If NYU can punish violaters of COVID-19 policies, why not
sexual assault perpetrators? https://nyunews.com/opinion/2020/09/18/nyu-covid-sexual-
assault/
Cochran, L. & Porcelli, V. (2019, September 9). Some students welcome Ronell’s return, others
denounce it. Washington Square News. https://nyunews.com/news/2019/09/09/avital-
ronell-returning-to-nyu-reaction/
Cobb, S., & Horeck, T. (2018). Post Weinstein: Gendered power and harassment in the media
industries. Feminist Media Studies, 18, 489–491.
Cole, E. R., & Harper, S. R. (2017). Race and rhetoric: An analysis of college presidents’
statements on campus racial incidents. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4),
318.
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. MedSurg Nursing, 25(6). 435–
436.
Cory, R. C., White, J. M., & Stuckey, Z. (2010). Using disability studies theory to change
disability services: A case study in student activism. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 23(1), 28–37.
98

Cramer, M. & Diaz, J. (2020, June 13) Texas football players call on university to drop a song
steeped in racist history. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/us/eyes-
texas-racist-longhorn-football.html?searchResultPosition=2
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Davey, M., & Bosman, J. (2014, November 24). Protests flare after Ferguson police officer is not
indicted. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/ferguson-darren-
wilson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html
Davis, S. & Harris, J. (2015), But we didn't mean it like that: A critical race analysis of campus
responses to racial incidents. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and
Student Affairs, 2(1), 6.
Dinkelspiel, F. (2018, November 1). White nationalist group came to Berkeley in 2017 with
intent to cause violence, documents contend. Berkeleyside.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/11/01/white-nationalist-group-came-to-berkeley-in-
2017-with-intent-to-cause-violence-documents-contend
Dixon, K. (2014). Feminist online identity: Analyzing the presence of hashtag feminism. Journal
of Arts and Humanities, 3(7), 34–40.
Domb, A. (2018, August 26). Student sues NYU over sexual harassment. Washington Square
News. https://nyunews.com/2018/08/26/news-ronell-reitman-sexual-assault-lawsuit/
EAB. (2018). Addressing campus climate flashpoints: A briefing for senior institutional leaders.
Retrieved from https://eab.com/
EAB. (2019a). Case study compendium of campus flashpoints. https://eab.com/
99

EAB. (2019b). How to Address Climate Flashpoints and Crises Through Social Listening.
Retrieved from https://eab.com/
EAB. (2019c). Risk Management Tactics for Climate Flashpoints. https://eab.com/
EAB. (2020). Addressing Campus Climate Flashpoints Five Failure Paths for Colleges and
Universities. Retrieved from https://eab.com/
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Whang Sayson, H., & Rios-
Aguilar, C. (2017). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. Los Angeles. CA:
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Fenske, R. H., & Gordon, L. (1998). Reducing racial and ethnic hate crimes on campus: The
need for community. In A. M. Hoffman, J. H. Schuh, & R. H. Fenske (Eds.), Violence on
campus: Defining the problems, strategies for action (pp. 123–148). Jones & Bartlett
Learning.
Fernandez, M., & Perez-Pena, R. (2015, March 11). As two Oklahoma students are expelled for
racist chant, Sigma Alpha Epsilon vows wider inquiry. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/university-of-oklahoma-sigma-alpha-
epsilon-racist-fraternity-video.html
Fitzsimmons, E. (2014, November 23). 12-year-old boy dies after police in Cleveland shoot him.
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/us/boy-12-dies-after-being-shot-
by-cleveland-police-officer.html
Fortin, S. (2017, September 23). Free speech week at Berkeley is canceled, but Milo
Yiannopoulos still plans to talk. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/us/milo-berkeley-free-speech.html
100

Fortunato, J. A., Gigliotti, R. A., & Ruben, B. D. (2018). Analysing the dynamics of crisis
leadership in higher education: A study of racial incidents at the University of
Missouri. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(4), 510–518.
Fries-Britt, S., Kezar, A., Wheaton, M. M. , McGuire, D., Kurban, E., & Dizon, J. P. M.
(2020). Leading after a racial crisis. American Council on Education.
Fuller, T. (2017). A free speech battle at the birthplace of a movement at Berkeley. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/university-california-berkeley-free-
speech-milo-yiannopoulos.html
Garcia, C. E., Arnberg, B., Weise, J., & Winborn, M. (2020). Institutional responses to events
challenging campus climates: Examining the power in language. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 13(4), 345.
Garcia, G. A., Johnston, M. P., Garibay, J. C., Herrera, F. A., & Giraldo, L. G. (2011). When
parties become racialized: Deconstructing racially themed parties. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 48(1), 4–20.
Garcia, J. E., & Hoelscher, K. J. (2008). Managing diversity flashpoints in higher education.
Praeger Publishers.
Garcia, J. E., Hoelscher, K. J., & Farmer, V. L. (2005). Diversity flashpoints: Understanding
difficult interpersonal situations grounded in identity difference. Innovative Higher
Education, 29(4), 275–289.
Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ
community college students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 39(6), 527–541.
101

Genshaft, J. (2014). It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up (and the follow-up). In G. M. Bataille &
D. I. Cordova (Eds.), Managing the unthinkable: Crisis preparation and response for
campus leaders (pp. 7–17). Stylus.
Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). The social construction of crisis in higher education: Implications for
crisis leadership theory and practice [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate
School-New Brunswick].
Gigliotti, R. A. (2019). Crisis leadership in higher education: Theory and practice. Rutgers
University Press.
Glenn, I. (2008). The experiences of chief student affairs officers in addressing incidents of
racial insensitivity on college and university campuses. [Doctoral dissertation, Clemson
University].
Goldstein, J., & Schweber, N. (2014, July 18). Man’s death after chokehold raises old issue for
the police. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/nyregion/staten-
island-man-dies-after-he-is-put-in-chokehold-during-arrest.html
Greenberg, Z. (2018). What Happens to# MeToo When a Feminist Is the Accused?. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-
professor.html
Gibson, W. & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. Sage.
Gigliotti, R. A. (2019). Crisis Leadership in Higher Education. In Crisis Leadership in Higher
Education. Rutgers University Press.
Griffith, J. (2019, July 17). Stanford University investigating noose found on campus. NBC
News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/stanford-university-investigating-noose-
found-campus-n1030931
102

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women?.
Hanlon, A. (2017). What stunts like Milo Yiannopolous’s ‘Free Speech Week’ cost. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/opinion/milo-yiannopoulos-free-speech-
week-berkeley.html
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New directions for student services, 2007(120), 7–24.
Harrison, L. M. (2010). Consequences and strategies student affairs professionals engage in their
advocacy roles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 197–214.
Harrison, L. M. (2014). How student affairs professionals learn to advocate: A
phenomenological study. Journal of College and Character, 15(3), 165–177.
Harrison, L. M., & Mather, P. C. (2017). Making meaning of student activism: Student activist
and administrator perspectives. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29(2), 117–135
Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J. (2008). Analyzing campus climate studies: Seeking to define and
understand. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 222–234.
Hartocollis, A. (2017, July 9). Long after protests, students shun the University of Missouri. New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-
protests-fallout.html
Hartocollis, A. (2019, June 8). New wave of student activism presses colleges on sexual assault.
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/college-protests-dobetter.html
Haws, P. (2020, February 18). Five years after SAE: OU community discusses university's
efforts to address diversity, acknowledges more work needs to be done. The Oklahoma
103

Daily. https://www.oudaily.com/crimson_quarterly/five-years-after-sae-ou-community-
discusses-universitys-efforts-to-address-diversity-acknowledges-more-
work/article_b84cdfe6-5278-11ea-8ce5-47f9cd68ffd7.html
Helsloot, I., Boin, A., Jacobs, B., & Comfort, L. K. (2012). Mega-crises: Understanding the
prospects, nature, characteristics, and the effects of cataclysmic events. Charles C
Thomas Publisher.
Hobson, A. (2014). Designing and implementing a successful gender-neutral housing
community. Journal of College and Character, 15(1), 33–38.
Hope, E. C., Keels, M., & Durkee, M. I. (2016). Participation in Black Lives Matter and deferred
action for childhood arrivals: Modern activism among Black and Latino college students.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 203–215.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539–569.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 26, No. 8). Washington, DC: George
Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Hutchinson, S. R., Raymond, K. J., & Black, K. R. (2008). Factorial invariance of a campus
climate measure across race, gender, and student classification. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 1, 235–250.
Hypolite, L. I., & Stewart, A. M. (2019). A critical discourse analysis of institutional responses
to the 2016 US presidential election. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 14(1), 1–
11.
104

Irvine, R. B. (1997). What’s a crisis anyway? Communication World, 14(7), 36–41.
Izadi, E. (2015, November 9). The incidents that led to the University of Missouri president’s
resignation. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/11/09/the-incidents-that-led-to-the-university-of-missouri-presidents-
resignation/
Jaffe, A. E., Cero, I., & DiLillo, D. (2021). The #MeToo movement and perceptions of sexual
assault: College students’ recognition of sexual assault experiences over time.
Psychology of Violence, 11(2), 209–218.
Jaschik, S. (2019, April 15). Entering campus building while Black. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/15/barnard-suspends-police-officers-
after-incident-black-student
Jayakumar, U. M., Howard, T. C., Allen, W. R., & Han, J. C. (2009). Racial privilege in the
professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. The Journal
of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–563.
Jiménez, J. & Fazio, M. (2021, May 16). Bucknell investigating ‘horrific’ harassment of
L.G.B.T.Q. students. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/us/bucknell-university-lgbtq-
harassment.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0hxvohwVv-
vGbxpEJYYDl6XyLiQSsHRyvDtF4fm68Lv19L5EFyGX9h70s
Johnson, M. R., & Ferguson Jr, M. (2018). The role of political engagement in college students'
civic identity: Longitudinal findings from recent graduates. Journal of College Student
Development, 59(5), 511–527.
105

Karoub, J. (2018, October 9). Israeli official criticizes UM lecture. The Detroit News.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/10/09/israeli-official-
criticizes-um-lecture/38105099/
Kezar, A. (2010). Faculty and staff partnering with student activists: Unexplored terrains of
interaction and development. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 451–480.
Kezar, A., Fries-Britt, S., Kurban, E., McGuire, D., & Wheaton, M. M. (2018). Speaking truth
and acting with integrity. American Council on Education.
Knight Foundation. (2020). College students, voting and the COVID-19 election.
https://knightfoundation.org/reports/college-students-voting-and-the-covid-19-election/
Kozlowski, K. (2018). (2018, October 9). UM disciplines prof over Israel letter controversy. The
Detroit News.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/10/09/university-
michigan-disciplines-professor-over-israel-letter-controversy/1580969002/
Lankes, C. (2021, July 3). How George Floyd's death reignited a worldwide movement.
Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/how-george-floyds-death-reignited-a-
worldwide-movement/a-56781938
Lawton, G. (2017). MeToo is here to stay. We must challenge all men about sexual
harassment. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.
com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/28/metoo-hashtag-sexual-harassment-violence-challenge-
campaign-women-men.
Linder, C., & Rodriguez, K. (2012). Learning from the experiences of self-identified women of
color activists. Journal of College Student Development, 53(3), 383–398.
106

Linder, C., Myers, J. S., Riggle, C., & Lacy, M. (2016). From margins to mainstream: Social
media as a tool for campus sexual violence activism. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 9(3), 231–244.
Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus
climate and diversity to students' transition to college. The Review of Higher Education,
31(3), 257–285.
Maharishi, M. (2019, May 10). SGA condemns the return of professor accused of sexual
harassment. Washington Square News. https://nyunews.com/news/2019/05/10/nyu-
sexual-harassment-avital-ronell-sga-letter
Marine, S., & Trebisacci, A. (2018). Constructing identity: Campus sexual violence activists’
perspectives on race, gender, and social justice. Journal of College Student Development,
59(6), 649–665.
Matier, P. & Ross, A. (2016, August 16). UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks announces
resignation. SFGate. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/UC-Berkeley-
Chancellor-Nicholas-Dirks-planning-to-9146561.php
McClam, E. (2015, March 10). SAE identifies Beauton Gilbow as house mother who appeared to
use epithet. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sae-identifies-beauton-
gilbow-house-mother-video-racial-epithet-n320936
Mcgee, K. (2021, March 1). “UT needs rich donors”: Emails show wealthy alumni supporting
“Eyes of Texas” threatened to pull donations. Texas Tribune.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/01/ut-eyes-of-texas-donors-emails/
Me Too Movement. (n.d.). History and inception. me too. https://metoomvmt.org/get-to-know-
us/history-inception/
107

Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2018). #MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of
challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women’s
Studies, 25, 236–246.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Milano, A. [@Alyssa_Milano]. (2017, October 15). If you’ve been sexually harassed or
assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet [Tweet]. Twitter.
https://twitter.com/alyssa_milano/status/919659438700670976?lang=en
Miller, M. E. (2015, November 6). Black grad student on hunger strike in Mo. after swastika
drawn with human feces. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/06/black-grad-student-
on-hunger-strike-in-mo-after-swastika-drawn-with-human-feces/
MITRE. (2021). Data analytics to enhance election transparency.
https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr-21-0431-data-analytics-to-
enhance-election-transparency.pdf
Mitroff, I. I., Diamond, M. A., & Alpaslan, M. C. (2006). How prepared are America's colleges
and universities for major crises? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(1), 61–
67.
Moore, K. (1976). Freedom and constraint in eighteenth century Harvard. The Journal of Higher
Education, 47(6), 649–659.
MSNBC. (2020, June 12). Support for Black Lives Matter reaches all-time high.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/support-for-black-lives-matter-reaches-all-
time-high-84969029654
108

Museus, S. D., Ledesma, M. C., & Parker, T. L. (2015). Racism and racial equity in higher
education: AEHE Volume 42, Number 1. John Wiley & Sons.
Ndemanu, M. T. (2017). Antecedents of college campus protests nationwide: Exploring Black
student activists’ demands. The Journal of Negro Education, 86(3), 238–251.
New, J. (2015). Fraternity caught on video singing racist song. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/03/09/fraternity-caught-video-singing-
racist-song
Northeastern Illinois University. (n.d.). What is Campus Climate?
https://www.neiu.edu/about/campus-climate-study/what-campus-climate
Oklahoma Daily. (2015, March 9). Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity disbanded at OU after video
of members chanting racist slurs surfaces. The Oklahoma Daily.
http://www.oudaily.com/news/sigmaalpha- epsilon-fraternity-disbanded-at-ou-after-
video-of/ article_9b58c58c-c612-11e4-b671-eb2054315c93.html
Oppel, R. A., Talor, D. B., & Bogel-Burroughs, N. (2021, April 26) What to know about
Breonna Taylor’s death. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-
taylor-police.html
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your
“house”. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and
Research, 4(2), 7.
Oxford University Press. (n.d.) Latinx. Oxford English dictionary. https://www-oed-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/view/Entry/79123233?redirectedFrom=latinx#eid
109

Pace, C. R. (1968). The Measurement of College Environments. Office of Education (DHEW),
Washington. D.C. Bureau of Research.
Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research and mentoring: Current and future
issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 24–27.
Park, A. (2017, October 24). #MeToo reaches 85 countries with 1.7M tweets. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/metoo-reaches-85-countries-with-1-7-million-tweets/
Parker, C. E. (2017, December 13). Reports of sexual harassment at Harvard increase amid
national movement. The Harvard Crimson.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/12/13/title-ix-harvey-weinstein/
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods - Qualitative interviewing.
SAGE Publications.
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher
education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342.
Pauchant, T. C. & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing
Pearce, M. (2015, March 10). Is University of Oklahoma frat’s racist chant protected by 1st
Amendment. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oklahoma-
fraternity-explainer-20150310-story.html
Peters, J. G. (2014). Managing the unthinkable: Crisis preparation and response for campus
leaders. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Philipps, D. (2019, March 13). New rule for transgender troops: Stick to your birth sex, or
leave. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/transgender-troops-
ban.html
110

Polit, D. F. and Beck, C. T. (2014) Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for
nursing practice (8th Ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Porcelli, V. & Mohammadi, M. (2019, November 5). Graduate students protest NYU’s continued
employment of professor who sexually harassed a student. Washington Square News.
https://nyunews.com/news/2019/11/06/avital-ronell-protest-bobst-gsoc-sexual-
harassment/
Porcelli, V. (2019, September 6). NYU responds to GSOC petition that Avital Ronell be fired.
Washington Square News. https://nyunews.com/2019/09/06/news-avital-ronell-fire-
graduate-student-union/
Powell, M. (2021, Feb. 24). Inside a battle over race, class and power at Smith College. New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/us/smith-college-race.html
Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climates for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student
Services, 111, 17–23.
Ravitch, S. M. & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. Sage Publications.
Read, B. (2018, October 9). U. of Michigan disciplines professor who refused to recommend a
student heading to Israel. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-michigan-disciplines-professor-who-refused-to-
recommend-a-student-heading-to-israel
Redden, E. (2020, June 8). WSU Tech cancels Ivanka Trump commencement speech. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/08/wsu-tech-cancels-
ivanka-trump-commencement-
111

speech?fbclid=IwAR2f0dI0CQpOo95IB47F3o0OR6eTwsm-
pDC_2LuxQnn3QOz1nvk5U_Hq_Ig
Rhoads, R. A. (2016). Student activism, diversity, and the struggle for a just society. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 189–202.
Romo, V., Stewart, M., & Naylor, B. (2017, September 5). Trump ends DACA, calls on congress
to act. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/546423550/trump-
signals-end-to-daca-calls-on-congress-to-act
Rooney, P., & Smith, J. (2019). The impact of highly publicized campus scandals on college
outcomes. Contemporary Economic Policy, 37(3), 492–508.
Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (2012) Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd Ed.).
SAGE Publications.
Ryan, H., Hamilton, M., & Pringle, P. (2018, May 16). Complaints against USC gynecologist
accumulated; School let the doctor treat students despite repeated accusations of
misconduct from patients and staff. Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-doctor-misconduct-complaints-
20180515-story.html
Ryzik, M. (2018, June 28). How saying #meToo changed their lives. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/28/arts/metoo-movement-stories.html
Savoia, E., Testa, M. A., Biddinger, P. D., Cadigan, R. O., Koh, H., Campbell, P., & Stoto, M. A.
(2009). Assessing public health capabilities during emergency preparedness tabletop
exercises: reliability and validity of a measurement tool. Public Health Reports, 124(1),
138–148.
112

Schlissel, M. (2018, September 20). Statements regarding boycott of Israeli universities.
University of Michigan. https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/statement-regarding-
boycott-of-israel-universities/
Schmidt, M. S., & Apuzzo, M. (2015, April 7). South Carolina officer is charged with murder of
Walter Scott. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-
officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html
Scott, B. A. (1983). Crisis management in American higher education. Praeger Publishers
Seltzer, R. (2018, January 11). Report on colleges' ability to handle reputational risk. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/01/11/report-colleges-
ability-handle-reputational-risk
Shaw, M. D. (2017). Pathways to institutional equilibrium after a campus disaster. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(2), 103–113.
Silverstein, J. (2018, September 18). University of Michigan professor refuses to write letter for
student to study abroad in Israel. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-
of-michigan-professor-john-cheney-lippold-refuses-to-write-letter-for-student-to-study-
in-israel/
Smith, D. G. (2020). Diversity's promise for higher education: Making it work. JHU Press.
Smith, L. L. & Millar, D. P. (2002). Before crisis hits: Building a strategic crisis plan.
Community College Press.
Snyder, L. (1983). An anniversary review and critique: The Tylenol crisis. Public Relations
Review, 9(3), 24–34.
113

Sourine, K. (2018, September 18). ‘U’ comments on professor refusal to recommend study in
Israel. The Michigan Daily. https://www.michigandaily.com/community-
affairs/controversy-regarding-decline-recommendation-letter-claims-anti-semitism/
Squire, D., Nicolazzo, Z., & Perez, R. J. (2019). Institutional response as non-performative:
What university communications (don't) say about movements toward justice. The
Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 109–133.
Stepteau-Watson, D. (2012). Infusing student activism into the college curriculum: A report of a
service-learning project to bring awareness to sexual violence. College Student Journal,
46(4), 788–794.
Takahama, E. (2021, April 21). Seattle Pacific University faculty votes ‘no confidence’ in
leadership after board upholds discriminatory hiring policy. Seattle Times.
https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/seattle-pacific-university-faculty-votes-no-
confidence-in-school-leadership-after-board-upholds-discriminatory-hiring-policy/
Tarnopolsky, N. & Etehad, M. (2017, October 18). A global primal scream: #MeToo
(#YoTambien #QuellaVoltaChe # ונחנאםג نﺎﻤﻛ_ﺎﻧأ #). Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-global-me-too-20171018-story.html
Taylor, D. B. & Morales, C. (2020, June 21). Professor who asked student to ‘Anglicize’ her
name is put on leave. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/us/phuc-
bui-diem-nguyen-laney-college.html?fbclid=IwAR0OGxuRbplCE_fRPa-
dtYUP7Jo5CBJlWpY0B1SMevFH6mhoLB5Qh71BMp8
Tevis, T. (2020). Exploring whether White male postsecondary presidents respond to
racism. Whiteness and Education, 5(1), 91–111.
114

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (n.d.). Campus Racial Incidents.
https://www.jbhe.com/incidents/
Tiede, H. "Letter regarding John Cheney-Lippold." Received by Schlissel, M. S. October 16,
2018. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Michigan-Cheney-Lippold.pdf
Trotter, J. (2015, March 10). Sooners recruit explains decision. ESPN.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/12454429/oklahoma-
sooners-recruit-jean-delance-explains-decommitment
Tulsa World. (2021, March 9). Six years ago: OU's Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity banned from
campus. https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/history/six-years-ago-ous-sigma-alpha-
epsilon-fraternity-banned-from-campus/collection_68267fb0-5ae7-5860-857d-
2abd23623429.html#15
Tynes, B. M., & Markoe, S. L. (2010). The role of color-blind racial attitudes in reactions to
racial discrimination on social network sites. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
3(1), 1–13.
Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Markoe, S. L. (2013). Extending campus life to the Internet: Social
media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 6(2), 102.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition
of Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144).
University of California, Berkeley (2018, December 3). Settlement reached in free speech case.
Berkeley News. https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/12/03/settlement-reached-in-free-speech-
case/
115

University of California, Berkeley (n.d.-a). Chancellor Dirks: Open letter regarding Milo
Yiannopoulos campus visit. https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellor-dirks-open-letter-
regarding-milo-yiannopoulos-campus-visit
University of California, Berkeley (n.d.-b). How to protest safely. https://sa.berkeley.edu/protest-
safely
USACBI. (n.d.). PACBI guidelines for the international academic boycott of israel.
https://usacbi.org/guidelines-for-applying-the-international-academic-boycott-of-israel/
Walker, R. (2020, June 23). The emptiness of administrative statements empathetic gestures
erase the people they’re meant to comfort. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-emptiness-of-administrative-
statements?fbclid=IwAR3WNXsGvTDuhsQFeKWw9JLDMygxdbxM5pFMnyrkbZoMk
OzTvPQNeMmWnpM&cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in
Wang, J., & Hutchins, H. M. (2010). Crisis management in higher education: what have we
learned from Virginia tech?. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 552–572.
We the Protesters. (n.d.). https://www.thedemands.org/
Wexler, B., & Flamm, A. (2017). Lessons learned from an active shooter full-scale functional
exercise in a newly constructed emergency department. Disaster medicine and public
health preparedness, 11(5), 522–525.
Whitford, E. (2020, May 6). Who holds professional positions in higher ed, and who gets paid?
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/06/report-details-gaps-
women-and-minority-professionals-higher-ed
Williams, D. A. (2008). Beyond the diversity crisis model: Decentralized diversity planning and
implementation. Planning for Higher Education, 36(2), 27.
116

Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in
higher education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Wong, A. (2015, May 21). The renaissance of student activism. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/05/the-renaissance-of-student-
activism/393749/
Wootson Jr., C. R. & Wong H. (2018, April 18). After calling Barbara Bush an ‘amazing racist,’
a professor taunts critics: ‘I will never be fired’. The Washington Post. 2018-04-18
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/04/18/after-calling-barbara-
bush-an-amazing-racist-a-professor-taunts-critics-i-will-never-be-fired/
Yao, C. W., Briscoe, K. L., & Rutt, J. N. (2021). In the aftermath of a racialized incident:
Exploring international students of color’s perceptions of campus racial climate. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 386–397.
Zdziarski, E. L. (2006). Crisis in the context of higher education. Crisis management:
Responding from the heart, 3–24. Pace, C. R. (1968). The Measurement of College
Environments.

117

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
This appendix contains the interview protocol for this study, including the questions used
during the interview. Following each interview question is a parenthetical note referencing the
research question and theoretical framework concept that are being addressed by the interview
question.
Introduction to the Interview
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today and agreeing to participate in this
study, which is part of my doctoral program in Organizational Change and Leadership in the
Rossier School of Education at USC. As I shared with you previously, the purpose of the study is
to better understand the experiences of senior leaders in relation to campus flashpoints. A
campus flashpoint is an incident occurring at an institution of higher education that causes
significant disturbances in the community, including trauma, heightened levels of activism,
media coverage, and public scrutiny. Of particular interest in this study are flashpoints related to
cultural identities such as ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation, race,
and religion. We will be talking about the recent campus flashpoint that occurred at your
institution in which a racist slur was used by a student group, which was followed by a student
town hall and a list of student demands submitted to the administration.
This interview will take about an hour. Your participation in the interview is entirely
voluntary. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer, and you may stop this
interview at any time. Your participation will also be entirely confidential. Your name will not
be disclosed to anyone and will be known only to me specifically for this data collection. In the
final products of this study, I will use a pseudonym for the institution, and while I may use a
direct quote from you, I will not provide your name. I will also remove or change the details of
118

any information you provide that may be used to identify you, the institution, or other
individuals. I will gladly provide you with a copy of the final dissertation upon request.
I will record this interview for the sole purpose of generating a transcript to help me
capture your responses accurately and completely. This recording will not be shared with anyone
else. I will delete the video recording after the transcript has been generated. If you would like
me to stop recording at any point, just let me know and I will do so. Do you have any questions
before we begin? May I have your permission to begin recording? May I have your consent to
begin the interview?
Interview Questions
1. I would like to begin by learning more about you and your work. Can you start by
describing your role and how you see your responsibilities in relation to the rest of the
institution? (RQ1: knowledge)
a. Potential Probes:
i. Tell me more about that component.
2. Campus flashpoints are often related to issues of diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI).
What is your perspective on DEI in the context of higher education? (RQ1:
knowledge)
a. Potential Probes:
i. What makes you feel that way?
3. Thinking back to the recent campus flashpoint that occurred at your institution, please
describe how you first became aware of the flashpoint. (RQ2: knowledge and people)
a. Potential Probes:
i. How was that communicated to you?
119

ii. Who shared that information with you?
iii. How would you describe your working relationship with that person?
4. Describe your response to the flashpoint? (RQ2: behavior)
a. Potential Probes:
i. What did you do next?
ii. How did you respond as the flashpoint continued to unfold?
iii. Walk me through that experience.
5. Describe how other stakeholders responded to the flashpoint. (RQ2: behavior and
people)
a. Potential Probes:
i. What about other senior leaders?
ii. What about your direct reports?
iii. What about students?
iv. What about staff?
v. What about faculty?
vi. What about external stakeholders such as alumni or media?
6. What existing policies or protocols did you invoke when responding to the flashpoint,
if any? (RQ1 and RQ3: knowledge and environment)
a. Potential Probes:
i. How was that policy or protocol helpful, if at all?
ii. If you didn’t use existing policies or protocols, how did you decide what to do
next?
120

7. Which of your decisions and actions related to the flashpoint do you think were
successful, if any? (RQ1 and RQ4: behavior)
a. Potential Probes:
i. Why did you choose that as an example of a successful decision or action?
ii. What was it about that decision or action that made it successful?
iii. Are there any other decisions and actions that you found to be successful?
8. Which of your decisions and actions related to the flashpoint do you think were less
successful or you would change in retrospect, if any? (RQ1 and RQ4: behavior)
a. Potential Probes:
i. Why did you choose that as an example of a less successful decision or
action?
ii. What was it about that decision or action that made it less successful?
iii. Are there any other decisions and actions that you found to be less successful?
9. Now, I’d like to shift our conversation a little to talk about campus climate. Campus
climate is defined as the current, common experience of individuals and groups at the
institution, including the quality of the interaction between these individuals and
groups; given this definition, please describe the campus climate prior to the
flashpoint. (RQ3: environment)
a. Potential Probes:
i. Why do you describe it that way?
ii. Can you tell me more about that?
10. In what ways did the campus climate prior to the flashpoint influence your decisions
and actions related to the flashpoint, if at all? (RQ3: environment and behavior)
121

a. Potential Probes:
i. You mentioned that the campus climate before the flashpoint was ______.
How did that influence your decisions and actions?
11. In what ways do you think the flashpoint affected the campus climate afterwards?
(RQ3: environment)
a. Potential Probes:
i. Please give me an example of that.
12. Thinking about current contexts like social media and the increasing connectivity and
spread of misinformation, what additional thoughts do you have about this campus
flashpoint as well as campus flashpoints and campus climate more generally? (RQ3:
environment)
13. What knowledge do you wish you had ahead of time, before the flashpoint, if any?
(RQ4: knowledge)
a. Potential Probes:
i. Why would that knowledge be helpful to have ahead of time?
ii. Is there anything else that would have been helpful for you to know before the
flashpoint occurred?
14. What proactive strategies do you think senior leaders can develop to prepare for and
respond to future campus flashpoints, if any? (RQ4: knowledge and behavior)
a. Potential Probes:
i. What makes you feel that way?
15. Can you share any additional thoughts on campus flashpoints and your role in
preparing for them and responding to them? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4)
122

a. Potential Probes:
i. Do you have any questions for me?
Conclusion to the Interview
That concludes the questions that I have for you today. Thank you so much for taking the
time to meet with me. I really appreciate your time and your perspective.

123

Appendix B: Information Sheet
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Senior Leadership Response to Campus Flashpoints
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: David T. Carreon Bradley, Ph.D.
FACULTY ADVISOR: Monique Datta, Ed.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to better understand the experiences of senior leaders in relation to
campus flashpoints. A campus flashpoint is an incident occurring at an institution of higher
education that causes significant disturbances in the community, including trauma, heightened
levels of activism, media coverage, and public scrutiny. Of particular interest in this study are
flashpoints related to cultural identities such as ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sex,
sexual orientation, race, and religion. We hope to learn more about how senior leaders can
prepare for and respond to future campus flashpoints to help minimize negative consequences.
You are invited as a possible participant because you are a senior leader who was involved in the
response to a recent campus flashpoint at your institution.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to take part in an interview where you will be asked
a series of questions related to campus flashpoints. The interview will take place over video
conference (e.g. Zoom) and will last for approximately 60 minutes.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

Your participation will be entirely confidential. Your name will be known only to the principal
investigator and will not be disclosed to anyone else. In the final products of this study, a
pseudonym will be used for your institution and your name will not be provided. Any
information that you provide during the interview that may be used to identify you, your
institution, or other individuals will be removed or the details will be obfuscated.

The interview will be recorded using the video conference software for the sole purpose of
generating a transcript to help the principal investigator capture your responses accurately and
completely. This recording will not be shared with anyone else. The recording will be deleted
124

after the transcript has been generated and verified. You can request to have recording stopped at
any point during the interview.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact David T. Carreon Bradley, Ph.D. at
dtbradle@usc.edu or 845.857.7831.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

PDF

Solving for the luck factor: leveling access to leadership through an organization-based sponsorship program

PDF

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

PDF

Life sciences executive leadership’s perspective on organizational change

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinas as K−12 school district superintendents: an evaluation study

PDF

Barriers in care access for the marginalized individual: a provider’s role

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

Navigating the profession of spine surgery: narratives from women on the front lines

PDF

I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students

PDF

Casualties of conflict: trauma and belonging in refugee and immigrant youth

PDF

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

Human resources and equity: the influence of HR on addressing the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Carreon Bradley, David T. (author)

Core Title Senior leadership response to campus flashpoints

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/22/2022

Defense Date 07/06/2022

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

Tag campus climate,crisis management,diversity,equity,flashpoint,Higher education,inclusion,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member), Slaughter, John Brooks (committee member)

Creator Email dtbradle@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111373705

Unique identifier UC111373705

Legacy Identifier etd-CarreonBra-10906

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Carreon Bradley, David T.

Type texts

Source 20220722-usctheses-batch-960 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu