Featured Articles

Journal of College & Character

VOLUME X, NO. 6, September 2009

Concepts of Social Justice as a Cultural Consensus: Starting Points for College Students of Different Political Persuasions
Andrew M. Guest, University of Portland James M. Lies, University of Portland Jeff Kerssen-Griep, University of Portland Thomas J. Frieberg, University of Portland1

______________________________________________________________________________
Abstract Promoting social justice is popular in American colleges, though the specific concepts and values associated with social justice tend to be inconsistently articulated. Noting that diverse possible definitions for social justice seem to underlie some controversies surrounding the concept, the authors conducted a study that employs a version of cultural consensus analysis to investigate actual college student definitions of conditions and actions they associate with social justice. Comparing students who identify as liberal politically with students who identify as conservative politically demonstrates more similarities than differences, with most students putting particular emphasis on equal rights, basic needs, education, and community service. At the same time, students who identify as liberal politically tended to put more emphasis on environmental issues while students who identify as conservative tended to put more emphasis on charity and just policy. Recognizing these commonalities and differences has implications for promoting values associated with social justice as part of a college education.

______________________________________________________________________________

cademic departments, community service offices, residential life programs, and other organizations concerned with college student development increasingly proclaim an interest in promoting social justice. Although conceptually this sounds like a noble goal, practical efforts to promote social justice within higher education are proving controversial for some. Recently, for example, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education abandoned its requirement that students demonstrate a commitment to social justice because of criticism that it was promoting a particular political agenda. In a related commentary the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (F.I.R.E.) noted, While nearly all of us believe in something that we could define as social justice, there is a problem: What does social justice actually mean? Vague, subjective, and politicized evaluation standards are dangerous (Lukianoff, 2007, p. B8). Mitigating this danger for purposes of developing moral and civic values during college requires first clarifying how students themselves understand the concept of social justice. In this article we overview the relevant possible meanings for social justice, offer an empirical method for analyzing how students understand the concept, and demonstrate how

Andrew M. Guest and Fr. James M. Lies, C.S.C. are assistant professors of psychology. Guest studies youth development and activities; Lies focuses on moral and religious development. Jeff Kerssen-Griep is associate professor of communication studies, studying skilled instructional facework's role in successful teaching-learning relationships across cultures. Thomas J. Frieberg is the former director of UPs Moreau Center for Service and Leadership. He currently is volunteer coordinator for Legacy Hospice Services, Portland, OR.

______________________________________________________________________________

2 Journal of College and Character

VOLUME X, NO.6, September 2009

students of different political persuasions understand the conditions and activities they think of as associated with social justice. The Meanings of Social Justice lthough there are entire academic journals devoted to social justice research, existing scholarship employs the concept in diverse and diffuse ways. The journal Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, for example, focuses on international affairs and armed conflict, while prominent efforts in teaching and higher education have focused on social diversity emphasizing issues of racism, sexism, heterosexism, anti-Semitism, and disability oppression (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997). Likewise, philosophical perspectives vary from an emphasis on distributive justice prioritizing more egalitarian societal conditions (Rawls, 1971), to an emphasis on individual ethics (Novak, 2000), to Catholic theological perspectives promoting the common good (Whitmore, 2005). While all these efforts focus on important social issues, they create a pastiche of possible meanings for social justice. As Caputo (2002) notes, social justice has multiple meanings, varying with perspectives on the nature of the self, the basis of moral law, the role of the state, and the relation between individual rights and the common good (p. 356). By considering some of the more prominent meanings for social justice, it becomes clear that promoting the general concept may evoke very different understandings among different college students. Conceptually, for example, promoting social justice might evoke attention to either inequalities in resources and opportunity or to the fair administration of legal systemsa distinction between what philosophers would call distributive justice and procedural justice (Rawls, 1971). Further, there are different ways of understanding each of those broad conceptual categories. Within the category of distributive justice, for example, students might focus on either a completely equal distribution of goods and resources or on unequal distribution according to a fair system of merit (Reisch, 2007). Further, recent philosophical perspectives with a liberal slant emphasize the importance of not only providing just distributions of material goods and resources but also of just efforts to develop human capabilities (Morris, 2002; Nussbaum, 2003). Philosophical perspectives with a more conservative slant, on the other hand, have emphasized social justice as an individual virtue dependent upon people taking responsibility for acting in moral ways (Novak, 2000). These diverse perspectives suggest that there is no one universally accepted way to think about social justice as a concept, and highlight the many different ways students might conceptualize social justice concepts. Within higher education applications of the social justice concept are equally diverse. In some cases, such as at Catholic institutions invoking Catholic social teaching, the emphasis is on the common good with particular attention to serving the poor and less fortunate (Bellah, 2004; Whitmore, 2005). In other cases the emphasis is on engaging with local communities and influencing public policy (Marullo & Edwards, 2000; Moely, Mercer, Ilustre, Miron, & McFarland, 2002). In still other cases the emphasis is on social diversity, with particular attention to addressing racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice (Broido & Reason, 2005; Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997) and to creating educational environments that value and serve diverse constituencies (Chang, 2005; Moses & Chang, 2006). Overall, the diversity of concepts associated with social justice raise the question of how one widely endorsed concept can simultaneously signify different concepts including world peace, fairness, liberty, equality, merit, virtue, capabilities, the common good, community engagement, diversity, and more? This diffusion of meanings may derive from general psychological dispositions. In discussing social justice in relation to classic research in social psychology, Hatfield and Rapson (2005) posit In all cultures, people are concerned with social justice, fairness, kindness and compassion . . . [but] people tend to perceive social justice, _____________________________________________________________________________

College Students Concepts of Social Justice 3

fairness, and kindness and compassion from their own point of view (p. 172). While people generally agree that society should be just, the pragmatic meaning of social justice is less a fixed concept and more of a cultural consensus. Although social psychologists have studied individual and group differences in justice reasoning, motives, and behaviors (Skitka & Crosby, 2003), there is little existing research offering comparisons of the ways that groups define social justice as a concept. For purposes of understanding how college students develop the values associated with social justice, it is therefore essential to begin with an understanding of students particular cultural perspectives. As such, our research posed the general question of how college students understand social justice. Recognizing that promoting social justice in higher education evokes some political controversy, and that political affiliations influence social justice attitudes (Haidt & Graham, 2007), this article focuses on comparing understandings of social justice between students of differing political persuasions. Further, because efforts to promote social justice involve not just conceptions of a just society but actions towards that end, we address both the conditions students associate with social justice and the activities and behaviors students think of as related to social justice. Our general suggestion is that understandings of social justice depend on cultural consensus, and any efforts to develop values associated with social justice among college students must account for those understandings. Methods Participants and Procedures The study was conducted at a small Catholic university in the West, in conjunction with the start of a new social justice minor for undergraduate students. Students in a variety of undergraduate courses participated in written surveys at two points during one semester, once during the first week and once during the final week. The students were given paper copies of the survey during a class meeting to complete on their own and return during the next class meeting. Students were given a small amount of extra credit for completing the surveys, but all surveys were coded numerically so that individual student responses were anonymous. In total, 134 students completed at least parts of both written surveys, including 16 students in courses specifically oriented to social justice education and 118 students recruited from introductory courses in the universitys core curriculum. The students were a reasonable reflection of the institutions demographics: all were between 18 and 22 years of age (M = 19.04, SD = 1.13), they were predominantly female (102 women and 32 men), 75% self-identified as European American / White, 80% self-identified as Middle Class, and 49% self-identified their religion as Catholic. Instrumentation The written surveys were originally designed to assess potential changes related to social justice attitudes over the course of one college semester. Towards that end, the written surveys comprised three general types of questions: basic demographic information (including political persuasions), open-ended questions addressing conceptions of social justice, and standardized items addressing attitudes and beliefs (the results of which are not reported in this article due to a focus on concepts of social justice). The survey responses were intended to provide both research data and curricular feedback. For purposes of this article and analysis, our focus is only on the survey questions addressing political persuasions and conceptions of social justice. In regard to political persuasions students were asked How would you characterize your political views: far left, liberal, middle of the road, conservative, or far right? In addition, in the end of semester survey, students were asked From your personal perspective, which set of _____________________________________________________________________________

4 Journal of College and Character

VOLUME X, NO.6, September 2009

political views is associated with a concern for social justice: far left, liberal, middle of the road, conservative, far right, or none (I dont think of social justice as associated with a particular set of political views)? In order to allow for comparisons with national averages, these political persuasion groupings were selected based on their use in the annual Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) national surveys conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Because very few students identify as either far left or far right, for purposes of our analysis, we focus on just three groups: liberal students (including both liberal and far left), middle of the road students, and conservative students (including both conservative and far right). In our sample, 40% self-identified as liberal, 40% self-identified as middle of the road, and 19% self-identified as conservative. According to the 2006 annual report on the American Freshman from CIRP data, approximately 31% of students nationally self-identify as liberal, 43% self-identify as middle of the road, and approximately 26% self-identify as conservative (Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz, Korn, Santos, & Korn, 2006). Thus our sample was somewhat more liberal than national averages but reasonably similar in regard to proportionality. These proportions are also reasonably representative of the general university culture, where the student body leans slightly, but not overwhelmingly, towards being liberal politically on a campus that promotes a mix of liberal and conservative religious values associated with most modern American Catholic universities. Analysis To analyze the written survey responses to the open-ended questions addressing conceptions of social justice we used a modified version of cultural consensus analysis. This procedure, which was originally designed for use in cultural anthropology, involves mixing qualitative and quantitative methods to identify shared values among social groups (Romney, Batchelder, & Weller, 1987; Romney, Weller, & Batchelder, 1986). The general procedure involves three steps. The first step is to ask individuals in social groups to respond to open-ended questions about their values or understandings. In our survey we used two open-ended questions: How would you define and/or describe social justice? and Please identify any social justice related activities and behaviors that you have engaged in during the last month. The second step is for researchers to group systematically the open-ended responses into categories that seem prominent. Thus, after responses to our open-ended questions had been recorded in a spreadsheet, an independent rater (a research assistant uninvolved with the study design) identified an initial list of conceptual categories based on all the individual responses to each question, and then a researcher reviewed the categories independently to verify conceptual clarity and accuracy in relation to the open-ended responses. The independent rater and the researcher then collaboratively pared the initial list to 11 reasonably distinct categories of social justice conditions identified by students in the initial surveys, and 10 reasonably distinct categories of social justice activities. The third step of cultural consensus analysis is to ask the individuals in the social groups to rate the derived categories numerically (from most to least representative) in relation to their values or understandings. Thus, in our second set of surveys the derived categories of social justice conditions and social justice activities were presented to students in two lists, and students were asked to rank order the categories according to personal understandings of social justice. Our specific instructions were: Please rank the following societal conditions from 1 to 11 in order of their importance to your understanding of social justice (or to how you imagine what social justice might look like) and Please rank the following activities from 1 to 10 in order of their importance to social justice (according to your personal perspective and/or your best guess). We chose to have students rank the items in comparison to each other, rather than rating each item individually, in order to ensure a sufficient range and basis for comparison between groups. Generally, rankings have advantages over _____________________________________________________________________________

College Students Concepts of Social Justice 5

ratings in establishing value hierarchies (Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989), and have been used successfully in other cultural consensus analyses (Brooks & Bull, 1999; Smith et al., 2004). The general intention of cultural consensus analysis is to allow meanings to emerge organically from distinct social groups without imposing the types of external understandings inherent to standardized instruments (Romney, Batchelder, & Weller, 1987; Romney, Weller, & Batchelder, 1986). Although cultural consensus analysis can be used in a variety of specific ways to distinguish groups, our particular purpose was to assess shared understandings. As such, our analysis focuses on the broad priorities for social justice conditions and activities that emerged as points of consensus among the college students we surveyed. Results e first considered whether students associated the general concept of social justice with politics. Table 1 reports the percentages of students who associated a concern for social justice with particular political views. While there was a trend to associate social justice with liberal politics, a significant minority of all the students did not link a concern for social justice with any political persuasion (29% of all students, 23% of liberal students, and 36% of conservative students). Students of the different political persuasions also tended to associate social justice with their own politics rather than the other end of the political spectrum. Where 71% of liberal students thought of social justice as a liberal concern, only 40% of conservative students viewed social justice as a liberal concern (in a z-test comparing these percentages, z = 2.51, p < .05). In contrast, where 16% of conservative students reported social justice as a conservative concern, only 2% of liberal students identified social justice as a conservative concern (in a z-test comparing these percentages, z = 1.84, p = .07). Overall, while students did generally associate a concern for social justice with liberal politics, there is enough variation to suggest that these students did not automatically think of social justice as liberal per se. Table 1. Percentage of students who associate a "concern for social justice" with particular political views Liberal Conservative Overall Students Students (N = 127) Associated with liberal politics Associated with middle of the road politics Associated with conservative politics Not associated with particular politics 56% 9% 6% 29% (N = 52) 71% 4% 2% 23% (N = 25) 40% 8% 16% 36%

Note: The difference between the proportion of liberal students and conservative students that associate a "concern for social justice" with liberal politics is significant at the p = .012 level, the difference between the association with conservative politics is close to statistical significance (p = .066), and the difference between no association with particular politics is not significant (p = .354).

The suggestion that students of all political persuasions share some concepts of social justice is also evident in student rankings of social justice conditions. Table 2 presents the overall average student rankings of the social justice conditions derived from student open-ended responses. There is reasonable similarity between the overall rankings for 130 students, the rankings for the 49 students who identified as liberal, and the rankings for the 25 students who _____________________________________________________________________________

6 Journal of College and Character

VOLUME X, NO.6, September 2009

identified as conservative; the correlation between the rankings for the students who identified as liberal and the rankings for the students who identified as conservative was significant, though not perfect (in a Spearman Rank Correlation Test comparing these groups, r = 0.82, p = 0.002). Table 2. Group Average Priority Rank Order (and Mean Rating from 1 as Most Important to 11 as Least Important) of the Conditions Associated with Social Justice Overall (N = 124) Everyone has equal rights Everyones basic needs are met (such as food, water, shelter, and education) Everyone has equal opportunities There is a fair legal system There is respect for diversity and an absence of prejudice and discrimination There is peace and an absence of violence Decisions and actions are undertaken in moral and ethical ways Those in need are empowered to change There is an equal distribution of resources and material goods There is a fair / just distribution of resources and material rewards according to merit People have an ethic of community service 1 (2.86) 2 (3.10) Liberal Students (N = 49) 2 (2.86) 1 (2.69) Conservative Students (N = 25) 1 (2.96) 2 (3.44)

3 (4.72) 4 (5.48) 5 (5.64)

3 (4.78) 6 (5.78) 4 (5.16)

4 (4.56) 3 (4.32) 6 (6.24)

6 (5.89) 7 (5.90)

5 (5.61) 7 (6.31)

7 (6.64) 5 (4.80)

8 (7.76) 9 (7.90)

9 (8.00) 8 (7.90)

8 (7.00) 11 (8.84)

10 (8.27)

11 (8.49)

9 (8.52)

11 (8.49)

10 (8.43)

10 (8.68)

Note: Comparing these rankings of the liberal students and the conservative students results in a Spearman rank correlation of r = 0.82, p = 0.002

_____________________________________________________________________________

College Students Concepts of Social Justice 7

In all cases, the two conditions students most associated with social justice were everyone has equal rights and everyones basic needs are met (such as food, water, shelter, and education). Thus, regardless of political persuasion, students tended to understand social justice as based on certain basic requirements for all people in society. At the same time, however, students did not necessarily indicate completely egalitarian leanings. In fact, the condition of an equal distribution of resources and material goods and the condition of a fair/just distribution of resources and material rewards according to merit ranked among the bottom three social justice conditions for all types of students. It is also noteworthy that all students ranked several conditions that scholars prominently associate with the concept of social justice in the middle of the rankings. For example, procedural justice (there is a fair legal system) and individual ethics (decisions and actions are undertaken in moral and ethical ways), while ranked slightly higher by conservative students, ranked between third and seventh for all the groups. Likewise, social diversity (There is respect for diversity and an absence of prejudice and discrimination) and world peace (there is peace and an absence of violence), although ranked slightly higher by liberal students, ranked between fourth and seventh for all groups. With this understanding of social justice conditions, how did students prioritize activities that might contribute to social justice? Table 3 presents the overall average student rankings of the social justice activities organized as categories derived from student open-ended responses on an earlier survey. Again, there seems to be a reasonable level of consensus among the groups as to the primary categories. Students of all political persuasions ranked educating oneself and engaging in community service activities as being most important to social justice. This makes sense for college students who are, by definition, in the process of educating themselves and who are regularly encouraged by schools, parents, and churches to get in the habit of community service. Overall, however, in the rankings of social justice activities the correlation between the rankings of liberal students and the rankings of the conservative students is not statistically significant (in a Spearman Rank Correlation Test comparing these groups, r = 0.55, p = 0.10). Thus, beyond the initial priorities there is more of a difference by politics for the activities associated with social justice than for the conditions. In other words, while students of all political persuasions tended to agree on what social justice looks like, they had some disagreement about what is required towards achieving that end. Among liberal students, for example, minimizing ones ecological footprint was the third-ranked activity. Among conservative students, however, it was ranked ninth out of ten. Liberal students seem to associate social justice with environmental concerns in a way that is not true of conservative students though it is worth noting that associating any environmental concern with social justice is not common in existing scholarship and may indicate something of a generational difference. Conservative students, on the other hand, ranked making donations and adhering to/enforcing public and organizational policies in the top half of their priorities (fourth and fifth respectively), while liberal students ranked those items at the bottom of their list (eighth and ninth respectively). Conservative students seem to associate social justice with capital and with social order in a way that is not true of liberal students. Also noteworthy is that petition signing/letter writing was the only activism related category raised by students, and it ranked last on average for all of the groups surveyed. Thus, although some might assume that social justice requires significant social change, the students in our sample did not mention or prioritize anything resembling radical actions. While this disinterest in activism may be particular to this institution or to this point in the life course, the students in our sample do not seem to think social justice requires significant change in the social order. _____________________________________________________________________________

8 Journal of College and Character

VOLUME X, NO.6, September 2009

Table 3. Group Average Priority Rank Order (and Mean Rating from 1 as Most Important to 10 as Least Important) of the Activities Associated with Social Justice Overall (N = 130) Educating oneself Engaging in community service activities Providing awareness to others Minimizing ones ecological footprint Having discussions regarding social justice issues Engaging in school related service Making donations Adhering to/enforcing public and organizational policies Making a professional commitment to social justice Petition signing/letter writing 1 (2.66) 2 (3.07) 3 (4.70) 4 (5.78) 5 (5.81) Liberal Students (N = 53) 1 (2.70) 2 (3.36) 4 (4.85) 3 (4.77) 6 (5.83) Conservative Students (N = 24) 2 (2.79) 1 (2.17) 3 (4.58) 9 (7.46) 7 (6.29)

6 (6.08) 7 (6.10) 8 (6.12)

5 (5.57) 8 (6.11) 9 (6.53)

6 (6.25) 4 (5.00) 5 (6.17)

9 (6.21)

7 (6.09)

8 (6.42)

10 (8.47)

10 (8.19)

10 (8.88)

Note: Comparing these rankings of the liberal students and the conservative students results in a Spearman rank correlation of r = 0.55, p = 0.10

Discussion

ecause there are a variety of diverse ways to define social justice, we premised our research on the idea that any effort to promote values associated with social justice among college students requires first attending to students initial understandings of the concept. In our analysis, although students did identify a wide range of possible conditions and activities that associate with social justice, many of those conditions and activities fit with existing scholarly perspectives. Similar to Rawlss (1971) perspective on distributive justice, for example, students

_____________________________________________________________________________

College Students Concepts of Social Justice 9

identified everyones basic needs being met, everyone has equal opportunities, an equal distribution of resources and material goods, and a fair / just distribution of resources and material rewards according to merit as possible conditions associated with social justice. Similar to the capabilities perspective on justice (Morris, 2002; Nussbaum, 2003), students identified everyone has equal rights and those in need are empowered to change as other possible social justice conditions. Similar to Novaks (2000) perspective on social justice as an individual ethic, students identified decisions and actions are undertaken in moral and ethical ways and people have an ethic of community service. In addition, some students identified social justice as associated with procedural justice in the sense of a "fair legal system," social diversity, world peace, and the common good. Further, although promoting social justice in higher education can become politically loaded (as is evident in the efforts of the F.I.R.E. to problematize promoting social justice; see Lukianoff, 2007), we found a significant degree of overlap between liberal and conservative students in how they understand the conditions and activities associated with social justice. While there was a general tendency to associate a concern with social justice with liberal politics, regardless of their political persuasions all of the students we surveyed seemed to associate social justice with issues of basic human rights, with meeting basic needs, with educating oneself regarding social justice related issues, and with community service. As such, when articulating values associated with social justice in college settings (such as, for example, in courses, service programs, or residential life settings), such concerns are likely to resonate immediately with all types of students. Other concerns, such as an equal distribution of resources, respect for diversity, and world peace, may not directly connect to how all types of contemporary students understand social justice. In fact, although social justice conditions such as procedural justice (there is a fair legal system), individual ethics (decisions and actions are undertaken in moral and ethical ways), social diversity (There is respect for diversity and an absence of prejudice and discrimination), and world peace (there is peace and an absence of violence) are prominent in scholarly literature, for the students we surveyed these four conditions were not as important as basic rights and needs being met. This finding offers a reminder that some of the social justice concepts scholars take for granted may require careful attention in working with students. As one example, students may not initially make the immediate association between social diversity and social justice that is assumed in scholarly volumes such as Adams, Bell, & Griffin (1997). Because concerns about basic rights and needs along with educating oneself and community service seem to cross political lines, these may be relatively comfortable starting points for any efforts to promote social justice among college students. There is, however, an important question regarding whether those concerns also should be a desired ending point. In our sample, for example, students did not seem to associate social justice with significant activism or social change. It is possible that they do not think such change is necessary, but it is also possible that they have not yet developed the critical thinking skills and knowledge base to critique social conventions. It is also worth noting that, although overall there was more agreement than disagreement among students of differing political persuasion, there were some social justice conditions and activities that associated more closely with either liberal or conservative politics. Liberal students in our sample, for example, disproportionately emphasized environmental concerns, while conservative students disproportionately emphasized making donations and adhering to existing policies. As such, these concerns may be more controversial if they become a point of focus for efforts to articulate values associated with social justice in college settings. Thus, for example, when faculty members want to emphasize social justice as part of classroom experiences, our results suggest it is more likely that emphasizing environmental concerns or emphasizing a strict _____________________________________________________________________________

10 Journal of College and Character

VOLUME X, NO.6, September 2009

adherence to organizational policies would evoke different reactions by liberal and conservative students. Both the similarities and differences we found in our research suggest the need for further research related to existing conceptions of social justice among college students. We suspect, for example, that a broader national sample would demonstrate some agreement about social justice conceptsbut that there would also be variation depending upon particular college contexts. It would be interesting to know empirically what social justice concepts provoke broad agreement and why some concepts seem to vary. Our research also offers a method for addressing such questions, and might prove useful to faculty and administrators interested in promoting values associated with social justice: using cultural consensus analysis to assess both qualitative and quantitative perspectives on social justice could inform educational initiatives by identifying points of agreement and disagreement on any campus. Higher education administrators, for example, could start to identify points of curricular focus or major outreach efforts oriented towards promoting social justice by surveying faculty and student values using versions of our methodology. Overall, our general suggestion is that promoting social justice as part of college student development requires recognizing that the concept has many potential meanings. As noted by Hatfield and Rapson (2005), most people are concerned about social justice, but primarily according to their own particular understanding of the concept. Thus, while we hope our findings provide one informative perspective on how college students understand social justice, we also expect that distinct groups of college students would demonstrate different understandings and priorities. Our research is limited by virtue of focusing on a specific group of college students, but also offers a potentially useful way to approach other groups and more genuinely promote the shared goal of a just society.

_____________________________________________________________________________

College Students Concepts of Social Justice 11

References Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge. Bellah, R. (2004). Education for justice and the common good. Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, 25, 28-37. Broido, E. M. & Reason, R. D. (2005). The development of social justice attitudes and actions: An overview of current understandings. New Directions for Student Services, 110, 17-28. Brooks J. E. & Bull S. J. (1999). Perceptions of the sport psychologist by female university athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 205-212 Caputo, R. K. (2002). Social justice, the ethics of care, and market economies. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83, 355-364. Chang, M. J. (2005). Reconsidering the diversity rationale. Liberal Education, 91, 6-13. Haidt, J. & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. Hatfield, E. & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Social justice and the clash of cultures. Psychological Inquiry, 16, 172-175. Lukianoff, G. (2007, March 30). Social justice and political orthodoxy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B8. Marullo, S. & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to justice: The potential of university-community collaboration for social change. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 895-912. Moely, B. E., Mercer, S. T., Ilustre, V., Miron, D., & McFarland, M. (2002). Psychometric properties and correlates of the civic attitudes and skills questionnaire (CASQ): A measure of students attitudes related to service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8 (2), 15-26. Morris, P. M. (2002). The capabilities perspective: A framework for social justice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83, 365-373. Moses, M.S. & Chang, M.J. (2006). Toward a deeper understanding of the diversity rationale. Educational Researcher, 35, 6-11. Novak, M. (2000). Defining social justice. First Things, 108, 11-13. Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9, 33-59. Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, J. S., Santos, J. L., Korn, W. S. (2006). The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Rawls, John (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.Reisch, M. (2007). Social justice and multiculturalism: Persistent tensions in the history of U.S. social welfare and social work. Studies in Social Justice, 1, 67-92. Rokeach, M. & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (1989). Stability and change in American value priorities, 1968-1981. American Psychologist, 44, 775-784. Romney, A. K., Batchelder, W. H., & Weller, S. C. (1987). Recent applications of cultural consensus theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 163-177. Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88, 313-338. Skitka, L.J. & Crosby, F.J. (2003). Trends in the social psychological study of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 282-285. Smith, C. S., Morris, M., Hill, W., Francovich, C. McMullin, J., Chavez, L. & Rhoads, C. (2004). Cultural consensus analysis as a tool for clinic improvements. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 514518. _____________________________________________________________________________

12 Journal of College and Character

VOLUME X, NO.6, September 2009

Whitmore, T. D. (2005). Catholic social teaching: Starting with the common good. In K. M. Weigert & A. K. Kelley (Eds.), Living the Catholic social tradition: Cases and commentary (pp. 59-85). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

_____________________________________________________________________________