Running head: QUEERING PRACTICES IN STUDENT ACTIVITIES AND INVOLVEMENT

Queering Practices in Student Activities and Involvement

Shelby J Hearn

Loyola University Chicago

 2

Introduction

The importance of offices overseeing and facilitating student activities can easily be

summed up in Alexander Astin’s (1984) student involvement theory, in which he posits that

active engagement in the campus environment facilitates student development (as cited in Patton,

Renn, Guido & Quaye, 2016). Using Astin’s argument, a student activities office facilitates

myriad avenues of student development from cognitive development to spiritual. However, the

assimilationist position of Astin’s theory, suggesting that students are responsible for socially

integrating themselves, does not consider the perspectives and experiences of historically

marginalized students and the ways institutions and their peers might communicate that

involvement is exclusive[PD1] . Some may see this issue and seek to enact strategies that will

make marginalized students feel accepted or welcomed on campus. In their article “Punks,

Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics” Cathy J. Cohen

(1997) writes, “...strategies built upon the possibility of incorporation and assimilation are

exposed as simply expanding and making accessible the status quo for more privileged members

of marginal groups” (p. 443). Practices seeking to integrate students without taking a critical look

at the institutional status quo will not make involvement truly accessible. Instead of asking “why

aren’t X students involved at our institution?” we in student activities should ask “how can we

change the structure of our office/activities/policies so that they do not perpetuate an exclusive,

oppressive culture?”

In essence, how can we queer our practices? In this essay, I utilize Reason and Kimball’s

(2012, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido, and Quaye, 2016) theory-to-practice model and Cohen’s

(1997) perspective on queerness—that to be queer encapsulates so much more than sexuality, but

any identity that deviates from socially constructed norms—to consider the ways in which
 3

student activities practitioners can translate student development theories into queered practices.

I will focus primarily on Schlossberg’s (1989, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye, 2016)

transition theory and theory on marginality and mattering, Chickering’s (1993) seven vectors,

Abes, Jones and McEwen’s (2007) Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity

(RMMDI), Rendon’s (1994, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye, 2016) validation theory,

and Baxter Magolda’s (2008) elements of self-authorship. I will address the varying instances in

which student involvement facilitates development along these theories, and the queered

practices that can be applied in those instances.

Context

When putting theory into practice, institutional context is critical to Reason and

Kimball’s model as educators “cannot apply theories without considering their particular

contexts, students, institutional norms, cultures, and values” (Patton, Renn, Guido, and Quaye,

2016, p. 59). Context plays a critical role in many theories themselves, such as the RMMDI

including contextual influences when considering student’s self-perceptions of identity

dimensions (Abes, Jones, and McEwen, 2007). As such, the practices addressed in this essay will

take place in a particular institutional context: Northwestern University, where I work in student

activities. Northwestern is a private, elite research university with an endowment of $7.5 billion;

the tuition cost for undergraduate students in the 2017-18 academic year was $52,678.00, the

undergraduate population is at about 8,000 students (U.S. News & World Report, 2018), and the

office of Student Organizations and Activities boasts over 400 registered student organizations,

42 of which are fraternity and sorority chapters. The class of 2021’s racial demographics break

down as follows: 19% Asian American, 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 10% Black or

African American, 12% Hispanic or Latinx, 48% White. In the class of 2021, 10% of the
 4

students are first-generation and 19% are Pell Grant recipients (“Class of 2021 Facts and

Figures”, 2018). In a conversation with my supervisor in Student Organizations and Activities,

Tracey Gibson-Jackson, we discussed the institutional context further. Northwestern’s student

population comprises those who were first and second in their high school classes who are now

contending with an entirely different environment and level of competition inside and outside the

classroom; many students equate success with struggle (T. Gibson-Jackson, personal

communication, April 16, 2018).

Advising

Working in student activities, advising student groups and their individual officers is the

most student-facing activity I engage in. When I consider my role as an advisor, I recognize a

few formal student development theories in my practice. Being involved in a student

organization, and particularly leading one, provides ample potential for psychosocial

development. Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) theory for developmental direction using seven

vectors of development is a simple model to consider from an advisor’s role. Depending on the

category of organization, involvement can develop each area of competency: intellectual,

physical, and interpersonal along with a sense of accomplishment in oneself. Being a part of an

organization may involve meeting students from diverse backgrounds and the opportunity for

important connections, providing the space for developing mature interpersonal relationships in

which they can appreciate difference and foster nurturing relationships with peers. Leaders in an

organization must be able to manage their emotions, the second vector, in cases of conflict

management or should something for an event not go as planned. Organizations also act as

spaces in which students develop purpose, be that vocational goals or developed passion for

certain causes. When advising students for the first time, the seven vectors serve as “maps to
 5

help […] determine where students are and which way they are heading” (Chickering and

Reisser, 1993, p. 139).

Schlossberg’s (1989a, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye, 2016) transition theory

is of import when advising student organizations as well. Leadership transitions at Northwestern

University occur in student groups at least every two years, oftentimes more. Positioning that

timing in Schlossberg’s first S of transition, Situation, the transition is usually expected, involves

a role change, and is typically the transitioning individual’s choice. Occasionally, however, these

transitions are more sudden, triggered by a previous leader’s departure from the organization or

the institution entirely. For Northwestern students who transition into a new group or into new

leadership roles, their transitions have a significant impact on their daily life due to the time

commitments and expectations placed on their shoulders. Often, students hold leadership

positions in multiple organizations. In these transition periods, students can look to their group

advisor as a source for the third S, Support. An advisor supporting students and groups in

transition should provide “affect, affirmation, aid, and honest feedback” (Patton, Renn, Guido,

and Quaye, 2016, p. 39). As interviews for officer positions are conducted, advisors should

provide feedback where asked, especially in the event where students are struggling to make a

decision. Advisors should be knowledgeable enough about group practices to aid new leadership

as they transition into their new role and should be sure to provide affirmation when they see

their student succeeding.

As Chickering and Reisser acknowledge, their vectors are simply a map meant to guide

educators (1993). That does not mean their map is the best route for all educators to follow, nor

does it best describe each student educators encounter. Additionally, Schlossberg’s transition

theory can be troubled in different contexts and with different students. When applying either of
 6

them to work with student organizations, I believe queering practices to take into account power

and how it functions within organizations and in one’s relationship with students is critical in

moving towards changes across student organization and involvement culture. Abes and Kasch

(2007) suggest viewing student organizations as “sites of resistance rather than only [a] means to

help students” (p. 634). From that perspective, the existence of student organizations—especially

those like Student Government or Black Student Unions—stands in opposition to the educator-

student power differential. In the case of student government at Northwestern University, the

students are literally governing themselves in that they develop and enforce many policies

pertaining to themselves. The Northwestern black student group, For Members Only, was born

out of institutional racism at the university and students’ active resistance against it. All student

groups are effectively their own small governments.

Even those governments should be troubled, however. At Northwestern, it is still

common for groups to organize themselves in a hierarchical manner, with roles of President and

Vice President demarcated from other roles as those with power. Hierarchical models of

leadership are products of heteronormativity and whiteness and should be queered. Educators in

student activities have the influence to begin changing the delineation of power in student

groups. When new organizations are forming, the office should transition into asking for primary

contact(s) information rather than that of a President or Vice President. As groups transition

leadership and constitutions are revisited, an advisor can question the organization’s structure,

taking on an extra responsibility as a source of support in Schlossberg’s transition model (1989a

as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye, 2016). The primary organization I advise, NU

Nights, came to an obstacle when no one applied for the President position. My co-advisor and I

asked if that position was truly necessary, outside of signatory privileges for financial
 7

transactions. The students acknowledged that it was not, that in fact the role of President often

created an imbalance in responsibility in the organization. The students chose to adjust their

leadership model to a board style, evenly distributing power and responsibilities. In these

moments, it is important that an advisor work with their students in identifying ways to begin

deconstructing the status quo.

Finally, when supporting students who transition into leadership whose Self,

Schlossberg’s second S of transition (1989a, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye, 2016),

looks different from those traditionally in those roles, advisors should again see these

organizations and experiences as sites of resistance (Abes and Kasch, 2007). At an affluent,

predominantly white institution like Northwestern, these moments are crucial. If in the student

government a black woman steps into a leadership role historically held by white men and

women, and she is surrounded by other white men and women leaders, the instinct of an advisor

may be to be grateful that she has integrated, and that her involvement will positively affect her

development and college experience. Instead of adopting Astin’s assimilationist stance, advisors

should recognize the position this student is in, their potential for feeling marginalized

(Schlossberg, 1989b, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye, 2016), and act as a source of

support and also validation (Rendon, 1994, as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido, and Quaye, 2016).

Empowering this student and students in similar situations actively moves against systems that

have historically rewarded identities that conform to certain norms and punished those who dare

to step outside of those norms (Abes and Kasch, 2007[PD2] ).

Access

Often when we consider access in relation to higher education, we think of financial barriers to

attending college. The majority of research on college students from low socioeconomic
 8

backgrounds is focused on this, while the experiences of these students once they enter college is

“virtually nonexistent in the literature, policy, and practices of colleges and universities”

(Steinmertz, 2008 as cited in Martin, 2015, p. 472). If we consider student involvement to be

critical to a student’s development and college experience as Astin (1984 as cited in Patton,

Renn, Guido, and Quaye, 2016) argues, then we must ask ourselves how low SES student can be

expected to engage when involvement can potentially cost—especially at an institution like

Northwestern University--$1,000 a year? Greek organizations collect dues, intramural sports

expect members to pay for equipment and transportation to competitions, academic groups pay

for travel and conference registrations. The expense lists go on. Interviews with affluent college

students conducted by Aries and Seider (2007) indicated that these students are able “to do

things that [they] are interested in regardless of financial restraints (p. 269). Joining a Greek

organization with quarterly dues of $300 or attending an out of state academic conference with a

costly registration fee in their first year is a simple choice for more affluent students. For a

student of lesser economic means, involvement might mean choosing between sorority dues and

required textbooks. Can student affairs educators truly continue to tout the import of involvement

when it is to the deficit of student’s education and wellbeing?

There are some costs that student activities offices have no control over. However, a

university with a $7.5 billion endowment and a generous and deep alumni pool, such as

Northwestern, can eliminate out-of-pocket expenditures for low SES students. Providing students

with scholarship money towards activities and organization involvement is a significant step

towards ending a campus’ perpetuation of classism and economic barriers. Marketing this

scholarship as simply one for anyone who wants to participate in an activity with a financial

component and branding it firmly within the student activities department is crucial to preventing
 9

the marginalization of students the scholarship is intended to help most. Schlossberg’s theory on

marginality and mattering indicates that students who perceive themselves as not fitting in can

become self-conscious (1989 as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido, and Quaye, 2016); that self-

consciousness can factor into a student not even applying for the scholarship for fear of it

marking them as “other” in their organization or activity. This scholarship should be open to any

student, but a student’s status with Financial Aid should play a role in the award process, along

with a narrative of some form, recognizing that need index scores do not always accurately

represent a student’s financial status. Northwestern University currently provides a student

activities scholarship, but the practice could be improved upon. Currently, students receive a

reimbursement for the activity related expense. This requires students to have some way of

paying the money up front and the ability to wait for a reimbursement from the university to

make up for funds lost. This practice comes with the assumption that students have the funds,

have someone else with funds, or have a means of payment like a credit card to initially cover

the cost. An ideal practice in this instance assumes nothing about the student other than what

their need index states and what the student has offered when applying and pays for the expense

up front, be that through a pre-paid card given to the student, use of a chart string, or a physical

check.

Cost alone is barrier enough to involvement, but we must also recognize that students

from low SES backgrounds lack capital beyond economic, but the social and cultural capital

deemed necessary in a collegiate setting as well. Lower- and working-class college students

often experience college as exclusive and difficult to navigate (Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye,

2016). Upon entering a university, students from low SES backgrounds can find that their

identities are in flux, like those attending an elite private college Aries and Seider interviewed
 10

(2007). In fact, research has shown that “upwardly mobile working class individual struggle with

alienation” from their families and their class-identities, while they also “lack a feeling of

belongingness in the middle-class worlds that they have entered” (Lubrano, 2004; Wentworth

and Peterson, 2001, as cited in Aries and Seider, p. 266). Schlossberg’s marginality and

mattering discusses a student’s new roles and potential alienation at college but does not consider

the potential for marginality on both sides. A lower- or working-class student in college may

begin to assimilate to the cultural norms of academia, but at the cost of their own cultural

background and identity. They may feel pulled in two directions; on one side the college asks

them to get involved and integrate into the campus culture, on the other side their families feel

disconnected from them as they adopt the language and activities common at college.

The issues presented here exist on a more complex plane than simple cost. In the context

discussed in this essay, this is an issue of a campus culture at a place historically attended by

more affluent students, thus promoting the values and expectations of upper-class identities.

Cohen’s (1997) understanding of queer practices includes classism as a structure within

heteronormativity, therefore noting classist university practices as ones to be queered. As this

culture is one that reaches beyond a student activities office’s sphere of influence, this is not an

effortless process. It begins with modeling as a department. If we believe that student

involvement is critical to student development, then financial barriers should not exist for the

involvement opportunities directly facilitated in a student activities office. In the context of

Northwestern University, the student activities office can justify its budgetary needs through

anecdotal evidence, surveys, and program assessments (T. Gibson-Jackson, personal

communication, April 16, 2018). As a result, the office can expose students to enriching

activities in the arts, recreation, and entertainment while fostering an inclusive Northwestern
 11

community. Additionally, a student activities office has the ability to alter its attitudes about

class. Rather than approaching work and programs targeting students from low SES backgrounds

from a deficit perspective, the office and practitioners should aim for “intentionally cultivating

an environment where one’s social class is celebrated rather than something to overcome”

(Martin, 2015, p. 485). Educators in student activities should also have the RMMDI (2007) in

mind. Acting with the knowledge that different contextual influences pass through individual

students’ meaning-making filters, impacting the salience of their identity dimensions (Abes,

Jones, McEwen, 2007). Before attending university, a student’s social class identity may not

have been salient, and it may take time for the contextual influence of campus culture to

potentially change that. With student organization fairs typically happening the first week of the

academic term, students may not yet know that they desire a community of people who share

their background. Student activities educators should focus on increasing the visibility of

organizations for low-income and first generation students, or if there are none, should aid in

their development based on feedback from their students.

Once some modeling and attention towards departmental attitude has been established,

begin aiming to affect the practices of organizations that do not explicitly serve low-income

students. As previously noted, Northwestern’s student government wields significant power and

is often the body developing policies that dictate the behavior of student groups. Their buy-in to

queering classist practices will be necessary. Begin conversations with leadership using data

from student’s narratives, assessments, and surveys. Work with them to identify classist barriers

to involvement noting that cost is one but requiring interviews, time commitment requirements,

and implicit need for social connections also act as barriers to lower- and working-class students.

Alongside students, begin meeting with student groups and work with them to examine their
 12

current recruitment processes, to consider why it is they do things the way they do. Like many

systems designed to exclude and oppress, students will typically say, “This process has been in

place for years, we don’t know why” (T. Gibson-Jackson, personal communication, April 16,

2018). In that case, student activities educators can work with student groups to identify

strategies to begin deconstructing the current status quo and removing barriers to

involvement[PD3] .

Queering Culture

Cohen (1997) asks that when queering political work, we start “from the recognition that

multiple systems of oppression are in operation and that these systems use institutionalized

categories and identities to regulate and socialize” (p. 458). In queering educational work, we must

start with the same recognition. We cannot consider development theories without also considering

the systems of oppression in which they will be applied, and then we must queer the practices

informed by those theories. We must look at the systems in our institutions and, within our spheres

of influence, begin to deconstruct them. In doing so within student activities, I believe educators

can foster an environment in which they can better facilitate a mode of development I consider to

be very important: self-authorship.

Baxter Magolda (2008) defines self-authorship as “the internal capacity to define one’s

beliefs, identity, and social relations” (p. 269). Baxter Magolda also suggests that self-authorship

should be “a key focus of a college education,” as it is a “a capacity that allows young adults to

better meet the challenges of adult life” (2008, p. 282). Addressing Baxter Magolda’s theory with

Pizzolato’s (2003) research on self-authorship in high-risk—low income, first generation, etc.—

students and Abes and Kasch’s (2007) ideas on queer self-authorship, practitioners can recognize

how deconstructing norms with students will be to their benefit. Pizzolato’s research noted that
 13

while many high-risk students were further along in their self-authorship journeys before the start

of college than Baxter Magolda’s pathways suggest, the shift in context triggered students’

reconsideration of the questions “Who am I?” and “How do I know?” (2003). Consider then, what

beginning to shift an institutional context might do for students of all identities. I posit that the

answers to the question of epistemology, “How do I know”, and thus a student’s internal

foundations will see a shift. Pizzolato later suggests that the process of self-authorship may be

“more interpersonal than autonomous” as was previously suggested by Baxter Magolda’s study of

White college graduates (2012, p. 673). An interpersonal process of self-authorship includes

questions of “Who am I in relationships with others” and “Who are we?” (2012).

As student activities educators work with students to examine their power structures or to identify

barriers to inclusion, we facilitate students’ ability to ask those questions and to establish

foundations that may be more rooted in social consciousness and valuing interpersonal and group

relationships. working with students on deconstructing status quos facilitates movement into a

crossroads phase of self-authorship, when they recognize that “this is how things have always

been” should not dictate their actions (Baxter Magolda,, 2008). Furthering this queer perspective,

students are empowered to reconstruct “external authority by resisting […] and destabilizing” the

original structures (Abes and Kasch, 2007, p. 629). Students can begin to change the entire

meaning of student involvement on their campus. Encouraging students to examine practices also

moves them towards the capacity to choose their beliefs and cultivates their internal voices (Baxter

Magolda, 2008). These reflective conversations are essentially about making meaning.

Conclusion

Perspectives on student activities and involvement and their critical role in student development

begin with Astin’s student involvement theory (1984 as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido and Quaye,
 14

2016), an assimilationist stance on student involvement that expects students to integrate

themselves into a campus’ culture. In this essay I have discussed a few instances in which such a

perspective is not to student’s benefit, most notably class, but there are many more examples of

ways in which institutional cultures of heteronormativity prevent students from being fully and

healthily engaged. Using Cohen’s (1997) perspective on queering practices, I posit that student

activities educators can work with their students to deconstruct heteronormative status quos on

their campus, thus opening the doors for important development down the road, while actively

facilitating processes of self-authorship along the way.

 15

References

Abes, E.S., Jones, S.R., McEwen, M.K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the Model of Multiple

Dimensions of Identity: The Role of Meaning-Making Capacity in the Construction of

Multiple Identities. Journal of College Student Development. V48. pp. 1-22.

Abes, E.S., Kasch, D. (2007). Using Queer Theory to Explore Lesbian College Students’

Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Journal of College Student Development. V48. pp. 619-

636. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Aries, E., Seider, M. (2007). The Role of Social Class in the Formation of Identity: A Study of

Public and Elite Private College Students. Journal of Social Psychology. V147. pp. 137-

157.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2008) Three Elements of Self-Authorship. Journal of College Student

Development. V49. pp. 269-284. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Chickering, A.W., Reisser, L. (1993). The seven vectors. Education and Identity. 2nd ed.

pp. 34-52. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, C.J. (1997). Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer

Politics. GLQ. V3. pp. 437-465.

Martin, L.G. (2015). “Always in My Face”: An Exploration of Social Class Consciousness,

Salience and Values. Journal of College Student Development. V56. pp. 471-487. Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Northwestern For Counselors. (2017). Class of 2021 Facts and Figures. Retrieved from

http://admissions.northwestern.edu/documents/Class%20of%202021%20Facts%20and%

20Figures.pdf
 16

Patton, L.D., Renn, K.A. Guido-DiBrito, F. & Quaye, S.J. (2016) Student development in

college: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand.

Pizzolato, J.E. (2003). Developing Self-Authorship: Exploring the Experiences of High-Risk

College Students. Journal of College Student Development. V44. pp. 797-812.

Pizzolato, J.E., Nguyen, T.K., Johnston, M.P., Wang, S. (2012). Understanding Context:

Cultural, Relational & Psychological Interactions in Self-Authorship Development.

Journal of College Student Development. V53. pp. 656-679. Johns Hopkins University

Press.

U.S. World and News Report. (2018). Northwestern University. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/northwestern-1739