Diversity Challenges Paper – Student-Athletes & Non-Student Athletes
Tamara Bell Boyle, August 07, 2017
This paper will provide two definitions for the term diversity. Then discuss how an anonymous college meets their diversity challenges for wheelchair bound students and dyslexic students. Followed by explaining how the college created a divide in the student body; thus, created a diversity challenge. Then the paper will discuss the leadership style the college utilizes. Followed by explaining social justice elements. Then exploring Shapiro paradigms. Next, the paper analyzes the facts in the discussion. Followed by providing two suggestions. The first suggestion will remove the divide. Whilst the second suggestion will assist the college in making better decisions that are more aligned with social justice.
Defining Diversity
Rev. Jamie Washington highlights how many individuals perceive diversity to mean race (i.e.,“black and white”) (Washington, n.d.). However other authors view diversity differently. Diversity is “the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another” (Robbins & Judge, 2016: 349). However, the authors continue and highlight that “diversity appears to increase group conflict” (Robbins & Judge, 2016: 349). Within an organization diversity is “the mix of gender, age, disabilities, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, lifestyles that characterize the organization’s workforce and potential labor pool” (Cummings & Worley, 2015: 786).
Meeting the Needs for Wheelchair Bound Students and Dyslexic Students
Treating people equal whilst creating an equal playing ground is important for the college. Diversity creates challenges for treating all students and all staff equal. The college has given students different supports to make create equality. For example, the college has elevators, handicap ramps, and other accessibilities for students that are wheelchair bound. Another example, of support the college offers, is providing voice recognition computer software for students with dyslexic. These are examples of how the college meets the standards of the American with Disabilities Act and Amendments to the Act.
How the College Created a Divide in the Student Body
The college sent an email to all professors. The email stated all professors needed to know who the student-athletes were in their courses. The professors were advised, per the email, to make an announcement on the first day of class requesting for all student-athletes to identify themselves. The email also indicated that professors were required to monitor the student-athletes’ progress to ensure the student-athletes complete all their assignments and pass the course. In addition, per the email, the professors were to excuse the student-athletes if they were late to class, needed to leave class early, or missed the class for practice and/or games.
The decision to monitor the student-athletes could be driving from “the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association] and the media focus more attention on athletes’ academic performance” (Oppenheimer, 2015). The NCAA is currently driving academic reforms for student-athletes. The NCAA tracks the graduation rate of student-athletes. In 1995 the NCAA implemented a new measuring tool (e.g., grades, minimum credit hours per year and progress towards earning a degree) (NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA, n.d.). Since the implementation of the new measuring tool “19,496 more student-athletes have graduated from college” (Hosick, 2016). Roderick J. McDavis, Chair of the Division I Committee on Academics and President of Ohio University stated, “The purpose of increasing academic standards, maintaining an academic performance program and tracking the academic successes of our students is to keep more college athletes on track to graduate” (Hosick, 2016). Division III institutions are requested to report data to the NCAA on a voluntary basis (Academic | NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA, n.d). According to the NCAA, 80% of student-athletes are earning their college degrees (NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA, n.d.). The anonymous college is a 2-year, Division III, public higher education institution. Why Student Athlete Continue To Fail (Oppenheimer, 2015) discussed how student-athletes themsleves stereotype themselves and their teammates. The stereotype is student-athletes do not care about the academics. However, a survey found student-athletes care more about academics than athletics, 9 and 8.5 on average (on a scale of 1 to 10) respectively (Oppenheimer, 2015).
Leadership Style at the College
The college utilizes an autocratic leadership style. An autocratic leadership is when a manager/leader makes all decisions and has all of the control. Manager/Leaders do not allow or want the input of subordinates (Russell, 2011). In addition, the college projects some characterists of Theory X style of leadership. The Leadership Styles and Practices (n.d.) text states Theory X as “command and control” form of leadership. Managers/leaders will micro-manage their subordinates in order to produce work result (Leadership Styles and Practices, n.d.). At the college, Officers and Deans make all the decisions and have all the control. The information is passed down to subordinates via email. The autocratic leadership style was illustrated in the email because there was no invitation of an open collaborative discussion. The Theory X leadership style was illustrated with the email containing essentially directions of job duties (i.e., professors monitor the student-athletes’ progress) that will lead to the desired work results (i.e., student-athletes completing all their assignments and pass the course).
Social Justice Elements
According to Adams, Bell and Griffin (2007) social justice is a process and a goal. “The goal of social justice education is full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society that is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure”. Dr. Nancy J. Evans, from Iowa State University, states the
“core belief of social justice approach [is] rather than attempting to “fix” people with disabilities so that they will “fit” into an ableist society, advocates of the social justice model promote addressing the oppressive culture so that all individuals are accepted as they are, diversity of the human experience is accepted, and there is no such thing as “normal” ” (Evans, n.d.).
There are six elements of social justice: self love and knowledge; respect for others; issues of social injustice; social movements and social change; awareness raising; and social action (Picower, 2012).
Six Elements of Social Justice Curriculum Design for Elementary Education
1. Self-love and Knowledge:
• Teachers provide students opportunities to learn who they are and where they come from.
• Students study different aspects of their identities and the histories associated with it.
• Negative stereotypes about student identities are deconstructed.
• Classroom activities include: Where I’m from poems (Christensen, 2000), self-portraits that include skin tone identification, name poems, family interviews, grandparent guest speakers, cultural ABC books.
2. Respect for Others:
• Teachers provide students opportunities to share knowledge about their own cultural background with their classmates.
• A climate of respect for diversity through students’ learning to listen with kindness and empathy to the experiences of their peers is created.
• Students deconstruct stereotypes about their peers’ identities.
• Classroom activities include: Sharing cultural ABC books, diverse family structures (including LGTB families), field trips to cultural museums, guest speakers from children’s families and cultural centers.
3. Issues of Social Injustice:
• Teachers move from “celebrating diversity” to an exploration of how diversity can be experienced as oppression that has differently impacted various groups of people.
• Students learn about the history of racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, religious intolerance and how these forms of oppression have affected different communities.
• Teachers make links between the historical roots of oppression and the impact it has on lived experiences and material conditions of people today.
• Classroom content can include: Native American genocide, slavery, the Holocaust, anti-immigration policies and sentiment, media (mis) representations, issues that face their own communities such as gentrification or police brutality.
4. Social Movements and Social Change:
• Teachers share examples of movements of iconic and everyday people standing together to address the issues of social injustice they learned about in Element Three.
• Teachers help students understand that working together, ordinary people have united to create change.
• Classroom content can include: Abolitionism, civil rights movement, the L.A. janitors’ strikes, various labor movements, 1968 and 2006 Chicano student walkouts.
5. Awareness Raising:
• Teachers provide opportunities for students to teach others about the issues they have learned about.
• Classroom activities include: Newsletters, public service announcements, letter writing campaigns, creating documentaries, blogging.
6. Social Action:
• Teachers provide opportunities to take action on issues that affect students and their communities.
• Students identify issues they feel passionate about and learn the skills of creating change firsthand.
• Classroom activities include: Letter writing campaigns, petitions, linking with local grassroots organization campaign
Source: Picower (2012)
Shapiro paradigms
There are four paradigms written by Shapiro. The four paradigms are Ethic of Justice, Ethic of Critique, Ethic of Care, and Ethic of Profession.
Ethic of Justice
Shapiro & Stefkovick (2016, p. 12) references Sergiovanni (1992) work, which perceives ethic of justice revolving around everyone receiving the same equality, dignity, and fair play from the college (Shapiro & Stefkovick, 2016, p. 12). Shapiro & Stefkovick (2016, p. 13) further states ethic of justice should look at the law, rights, and/or policy that relates to the circumstances. If there is no law,consider if there should be a law, right, and/or policy for similar circumstances. Therefore, considering internal aspects first. The college’s mission states the college
“is a comprehensive community college that is accessible, learning-centered and dedicated to serving a diverse community of learners and employers through quality, innovative programs and services. The College is committed to student success and completion, and to the core elements of liberal arts, transfer, career, technical, professional and community education”.
Part of the college’s goals are to “improve student success rates”. According to the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) “Student-athletes must be making satisfactory progress within an approved college program or course listed in the college catalog” (Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018, 2017). Therefore, the college should monitor the student-athletes’ progress. However, the follow-up question is – should the professors monitor the student-athletes’ progress? If the professor monitors the student-athletes’ progress more than non-student-athletes the classroom will not have a level playing field. In addition, one could argue the non-student-athletes are not being given the same equality, dignity, and fair play that student-athletes are receiving because the professor is monitor the student-athletes’ progress more than the non-student-athletes’ progress.
Ethic of Critique
The ethic of critique “asks educators to deal with hard questions regarding social class, race, gender, and other areas of difference, such as: Who makes the laws? Who benefits from the law, rule, or policy? Who has the power? Who are the silenced voices? (Shapiro & Stefkovick, 2016, p. 15). There are many differences (e.g., time the student devotes to their academics, the NJCAA and NCAA monitors student-athletes, how the college/university projects their feelings of sports) between a student-athlete and a non-student-athlete. Robert J. Sternberg, Provost at Oklahoma State Univeristy, believes the negative side of college athletics are “the time athletes take away from academics” (Sternberg, n.d.). Some student-athletes take time away from their academics to play their sport whilst some non-student athletes devote all their time to their academics. Some student-athletes receive scholarships to play their sport for the college/univeristy whilst some non-student-athlete go into major debt to attend the college/university. The NJCAA monitors student-athletes progress “within an approved college program or course listed in the college catalog” (Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018, 2017) and the NCAA monitors the graduation rate of student-athletes (NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA, n.d.). But who monitors the non-student athlete’s progress? One could argue the United States Federal Student Aid. However, the counter argument would be—the United States Federal Student Aid (FSA) only monitors students who take out a loan; therefore, what about non-student-athletes who do not take out a FSA loan? Who is monitoring the non-student-athletes that do not take out a FSA loan?
Another difference is the amount of money colleges/universities spend on athletics. In 2004, 48 athletic departments spent approximately $2.65 billion in their athletic departments. In 2014, the spending increased to approximately $4.45 billion (Hobson & Rich, 2015). David Ridpath, a Business Professor at Ohio University stated “College sports is a bug business” (Hobson & Rich, 2015). Furthermore, the avgerage salary in 2009-2010, at Mississippi State Univeristy (MSU), for their professors was $92,700; however, Dan Mullen, MSU Head Coach, made approximately $2.65 million per year (Flynn, 2011). Therefore, one could argue colleges/universities views the athletic departments and student-athletes as an important part of their college/university.
In references to – Who has the power? and Who are the silence voices? Sternberg also felt some student-athletes have “a sense of entitlement” (Sternberg, n.d.). Student-athletes would have more of the professor time compared to non-student-athletes; thus, student-athletes would more power. On November 9, 2015, football players at the University of Missouri demand the removal of President Tim Wolfe. The football players refused to participate in any football activities. The players wanted the removal of President Wolfe “due to his negligence toward marginalized students’ experience” and some black students had complained of other students publicly using racial slurs, however, there was no investigation (Pearson & Sutton, 2015). In addition, shortly after the protest started, additional players and Gary Pinkel, the football coach, supported their teammates (Pearce & Raab, 2015). President Wolfe did resign and the football players were prepared to return to practice on Tuesday. But here is a question – Did the university ask President Wolfe to resign because he did not investigate the allegations or was it because it “would have cost the university in excess of $1 million” to cancel the game on Saturday?” (Son & Madhani, 2015). Therefore, one could argue that student-athletes have more power than non-student-athletes and the non-student-athletes are the silence voices.
However, the NJCAA and the NCAA have strict eligibility requirements regarding whether or not a student-athlete is allowed to participate in games. For example the NJCAA states, a student-athlete must be enrolled as a full-time student (12 or more chredit hours), in addition, “Full-time enrollment must be established on the 15th calendar day of the beginning of the regular term as listed on the college academic calendar and maintained” (Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018, p. 3). Furthermore, there is a minimum GPA the student-athlete must maintain, which is based on the student-athlete year (Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018, p. 3).
Ethic of Care
The ethic of care considers the consequences of the decisions and actions made by the individual. The ethic of care considers: If we do this or that who will benefit? If we do this or that who will be hurt by the decision? What are the long-term effects of this and that decision? “This paradigm also asks individuals to grapple with values such as loyalty and trust” (Shapiro & Stefkovick, 2016, p. 18). The student-athletes may perceive that they cannot fail the course because the college told the professors to monitor the student-athletes. The college will be able to inform the NCAA and NJCAA that they requested for all professor to monitor the student-athletes to ensure the student-athletes pass their courses. Hence, the student-athletes and the college will benefit from the college’s decision to have the professor monitor student-athletes progress. However, the non-student-athletes could feel no one is looking after their best interest and perceive the college favors the student-athletes. Thus the non-student-athletes would be hurt from the decision of having the professors monitor the student-athletes. In addition, the non-student-athletes could lost trust with the professor and college if they realize the professor is monitoring the student-athletes’s progress.
Ethic of Profession
The ethic of profession addressed the follow questions: What would the profession expect the professor to do? What does the community expect the professor to do? And what should the professor do in the best interests of the student, “who may be diverse in their composition and their needs?” (Shapiro & Stefkovick, 2016, p. 27). Dr. Richard A. Stevens, Jr., Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Director of Residence Life at Shepherd University, stated “Generally, a professor will not go back and check on you to say have you started your project yet” (What Should I Expect From My Professor, 2009, 00:24). In Interviews at Community Colleges by Lydic (2009) states two-year colleges hirer teachers that love to enter the classroom,
“Are reflective practitioners and flexible teacher-scholars; Center their classrooms on the student; Understand diversity and teaching to diverse ethnic, economic, and ability populations; Challenge their students; Ground their teaching in theory and research; Collaborate with colleagues in developing curriculum; Actively serve their colleges and their communities; [and] Participate in professional community through conferences, presentations, publications, and ongoing scholarship” (Lydic, 20009).
In What Student Expect from Instructors, Other Students by Weimer (2010) a group of students expected their professor to
“Give students their papers back in a timely way; Give students lots of criticism and feedback on their work; Have passion for the material; Listen and respond to students concerns; Care not only about academics but also about students as people; Realize that students have a life outside of class and not make unreasonable demands on them; Not stick only to the class readings for discussion; Take all questions seriously and not fake answers; [and] Provide inspiration to student so that they will want to change their minds” (Weimer, 2010).
Therefore, one could argue that monitoring the student-athletes’ progress is not part of the job descriptionfor a professor at a college. However, the counter argument would be what is stated in the contract and the faculty handbook. Another argument, against professor monitoring student-athletes’ progress, would be with current technology makes it easier then every for all students to monitor their own progress.
Discussion
The main point one must consider is Should the college monitor student-athletes’ progress? There are strict eligibility requirements from the NJCAA and the NCAA regarding whether or not a student-athlete is allowed to participate in games. In addition, the NJCAA monitors student-athletes progress “within an approved college program or course listed in the college catalog” (Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018, 2017) and the NCAA monitors the graduation rate of student-athletes (NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA, n.d.). Therefore, the college should monitor the student-athletes’ progress.
The next point one must consider is Should the professors monitor the student-athletes’ progress?The ethic of profession considers whether monitor the student-athletes’ progress is or is not part of the professor’s job description. Which depending upon what is writing in the professor’s contract and faculty handbook would determine if monitor the student-athletes’ progress is or is not part of their job description. The ethic of care illustrates if the professor is required to put forth more attention to the student-athletes compared to the non-student-athletes, the non-student-athletes could feel no one is looking after their best interest and perceive the college favors the student-athletes. Ethic of justice questions if all students are receiving the same equality, dignity, and fair play from the college or in this case the professor (Sergiovanni (1992) in Shapiro & Stefkovick, 2016, p. 12).
The following point one must consider is determining whether or not having the professor monitoring the student-athletes’ progress is a systemic barrier. A systemic barrier is something “affecting or relating to a group or system (such as a body, economy, or market) as a whole, instead of its individual members or parts” (Systemic, n.d.). The ethic of critique highlighted some differences (e.g., time devoted to academics, monitors students’ progress, feelings towards sports) between a student-athlete and a non-student-athlete. If a professor monitors the student-athletes’ progress and not the non-student-athletes’ progress the non-student-athletes would not be receiving the same equality, dignity, and fair play. Having the professor monitor the student-athlete’s progress could be seen as a systemic barrier. Therefore, the professor should not monitor the student-athletes’ progress. Thus, we are presented with new questions, is there another person or department who could monitor student-athletes’ progress without impacting non-student-athletes’ equality, dignity, and fair play?
Suggestions
Removing the Divide
The college should monitor student-athletes’ progress, because there are strict eligibility requirements for student-athletes from the NJCAA and NCAA. In addition, the NJCAA and the NCAA monitors student-athletes progress and graduation rate (Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018, 2017; NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA, n.d.). However, the professor teaching the course should not monitor student-athletes’ progress. Because non-student-athletes would not be receiving the same equality, dignity, and fair play are student-athletes. There are several options for either another person or department to monitor student-athletes’ progress without impacting non-student-athletes’ equality, dignity, and fair play. The college could have an academic advisor, someone in the athletic department, or another professor monitor the student-athletes’ progress. If the college utilized any of these three options the non-student-athletes would not be impacted.
Moving the College Towards Making Better Decisions That Are More Aligned with Social Justice
To be more aligned with social justice the college should treat everyone equal—everyone receiving the same equality, dignity, and fair play. The college should consider the consequences of their decisions and actions, in addition, whether or not their decisions will have consequences for another group. In addition, the college should not stereotype a group. This case illustrates how the college stereotyped the student-athletes. The college assumed all student-athletes were going to fail and needed to be monitored. However, according to Oppenheimer (2015) student-athletes care more about their academics compared to athletics. Lastly, and most important, the college should consider if there is a systemic barrier. Followed by learning if the systemic barrier can it be removed.
Conclusion
This paper explained the term diversity. Followed by discussing how an anonymous college meets their diversity challenges for wheelchair bound students and dyslexic students. Then described how the college created a divide in the student body; thus, created a diversity challenge. Followed by the paper stating the leadership style the college utilizes. Then the paper explained social justice elements. Followed by explaining Shapiro paradigms. Then the paper analyzed the facts in order to by provide two suggestions. The first suggestion stated how the college could remove the divide and the second suggestion explained how the college could make better decisions in the future that are more aligned with social justice.
References:
Academic | NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA. (n.d.). Retrieved August 05, 2017, from NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA: http://www.ncaa.org/about/what-we-do/academics
Adams, M., Bell, L., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (Second Edition ed.). New York, New York, United States of America: Routledge.
Eligibility Rules Pamphlet | National Junior College Athletic Association 2017 - 2018. (2017, August 01). Retrieved from NJCAA | National Junior College Athlietic Assoication: http://mvp.njcaa.org/DocumentsAndFiles/njcaaforms/170522_10_2017-2018%20Eligibility%20Pamphlet.pdf
Evans, N. J. (n.d.). A Social Justice Approach to Disabilitylity in Higher Education. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahead.org%2Fconf%2F2016%2FHandouts%2FAward%2520Luncheon%2FEvans-A%2520Social%2520Justice%2520Approach%2520to%2520Disability.pptx
Flynn, B. (2011, April 06). College Sports vs. Academics. Retrieved from Jackson Free Press: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2011/apr/06/college-sports-vs-academics/
Hobson, W., & Rich, S. (2015, November 23). Playing in the Red. Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/?utm_term=.171ea26b3a82
Hosick, B. M. (2016, November 15). African-American Men’s Basketball Players Succeeding in the Classroom at Highest Rates Ever. Retrieved from NCAA: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/african-american-men-s-basketball-players-succeeding-classroom-highest-rates-ever
Leadership Styles and Practices. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2017, from http://samples.jbpub.com/9781284021738/Chapter2.pdf
Lydic, D. (2009, May 01). Interviews at Community Colleges. Retrieved from Insider Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2009/05/01/interviews-community-colleges
NCAA.org - The Offical Site of the NCAA. (n.d.). Retrieved August 05, 2017, from NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA: http://www.ncaa.org/
Oppenheimer, D. (2015, April 20). Why Student Athletes Continue To Fail. Retrieved from Time: http://time.com/3827196/why-student-athletes-fail/
Pearce, M., & Raab, L. (2015, November 08). University of Missouri football team and coach join protest to oust university leader. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missouri-protest-20151108-story.html
Pearson, M., & Sutton, J. (2015, November 09). Black football players at Missouri: We'll sit out until system president resigns. Retrieved from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/08/us/missouri-football-players-protest/index.html
Picower, B. (2012). Using Their Words: Six Elements of Social Justice Curriculum Design for the Elementary Classroom. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(1). Retrieved from http://ijme-journal.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/484/677
Russell, M. (2011, Spetmber 08). Leadership Theories and Style: A Transitional Approach. Retrieved February 06, 2017, from United States Army Combined Arms Center: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/repository/dcl_SecondPlaceEssay_1102.pdf
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovick, J. A. (2016). Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education (Fourth Edition ed.). New York, New York, United States of America: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Son, C., & Madhani, A. (2015, November 09). Missouri President, Chancellor Quit After Football Team Walks Out. Retrieved from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/09/mizzou-faculty-walks-out-student-association-calls-presidents-removal/75448392/
Sternberg, R. J. (n.d.). College Athletics: Necessary, Not Just Nice to Have. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from National Association of College and University Business Officers: http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Bonus_Material/College_Athletics_Necessary_Not_Just_Nice_to_Have.html
Systemic. (n.d.). Retrieved August 06, 2017, from Business Dictionary: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/systemic.html
Washington, J. (n.d.). Social Justice in Higher Education: From Awareness to Action. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from http://kaleylindquist.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/0/8/23085840/social-justice-in-higher-education.pdf
Weimer, M. (2010, March 23). What Students Expect from Instructors, Other Students. Retrieved from Faculty Focus: https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/what-students-expect-from-instructors-other-students/
What Should I Expect From My Professor. (2009, June 16). Retrieved from Monkeysee.com: http://monkeysee.com/what-should-i-expect-from-my-professors/