Running Head: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 1

Student Development Case Study

Grace Hymel and Autumn Jager

Miami University
 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 2

The case study analysis presents a complex situation with several individuals on a

Student Leadership Board (SLB), who are all at different developmental stages. When viewing

both Dillon and Tim’s reactions to their personal and interpersonal conflicts through the lens of

Baxter Magolda and King’s (2012) Self Authorship Theory, it is evident that Dillon and Tim are

at very different stages in their journey towards self-authorship. Additionally, the integration of

both Helms’ (1990) White Identity Development and Cross’ (1991) Black Identity Development

theories highlights that Dillon and Tim are both situated at different places in their respective

racial identity developments. As advisors to Tim and Dillon, we will design a plan to encourage

their development towards self authorship using the Baxter Magolda’s (2004) Learning

Partnerships Model and further both their racial identity development.

Dillon and Tim’s developmental differences influences their difficulties difficulties in

communicating and understanding each other. In terms of the journey towards self-authorship,

Baxter Magolda and King (2012) separate this path into three different structures, with each

structure made up of three positions. The first structure, External Meaning-Making, is made up

of three positions that reflect different levels of reliance on external sources to make meaning of

their experiences, with varying degrees of awareness of the problems inherent in this approach

(Baxter Magolda & King, 2012). Dillon is currently situated in the first position, Trusting

External Authority. Individuals in this position tend to rely solely on external sources to make

meaning of their experiences, relying on the beliefs and values they are most familiar with to

guide their identities (Baxter Magolda & King, 2012). Through his behavior, it is evident that

Dillon leans heavily on authority figures for help with life decisions and the “right” answers.

When confronted with Tim’s proposition about the funding reallocation from the Engineering

Ball (E-Ball) to a diversity event, Dillon grows angry and notes that everyone “expects this to be
 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 3

good”- the people in his classes, the Dean, and the alumni. He does not appear to even consider

Tim’s proposal, which is evidence of a characteristic of individuals in this position: they look to

authority figures when making decisions because they feel that these individuals can give the

correct or most predictable answers, and because they lack trust in their own ability to find a

solution. In this case, the authority figures appear to be the attendees, specifically the Dean of

the college. Dillon knows the expectations of the alumni and the Dean and he planned the E-ball

event in accordance with those guidelines.

Dillon’s reliance on the expectations of his authority figures also illustrates a lack of any

strong internal criteria for why he wants the E-ball event to happen. He clearly trusts the Dean

and alumni’s ways of knowing, and uses this as a way to avoid even considering Tim’s request.

This avoidance of conflict and the use of authority figures to resolve feelings is also

characteristic of someone who uses the Trusting External Authority approach (Baxter Magolda

& King, 2012). His lack of recognition of the shortcomings of his reliance on the expectations of

external authority figures is evidence that he is utilizing the Trusting External Authority

approach, and has not yet moved into the next phase, Tensions with Trusting External Authority.

Finally, Dillon appears to be strongly committed to success, and his intense reaction to

the proposal also hints at another characteristic of this position: individuals who make meaning

through Trusting External Authority tend to build relationships with others who are similar to

them and may be hesitant to interact with those they view as different. Dillon’s resistance to

engage with Tim in a rational and open dialogue regarding Tim’s request illustrates this

tendency. Dillon argues that there are enough resources for Black students already, compared to

people “like himself,'' referring to white students. His avoidance of the racial dynamics at play in

this scenario is also an indicator of Dillon’s own racial identity development.

 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 4

Dillon, as a White man, can also be analyzed according to Helms’ Theory of White

Identity Development (1990). Dillon’s development is characteristic of the first status, contact,

where individuals subscribe to colorblind mentality and deny the existence of both individual

and institutional racism (Helms, 1990 as cited in Tatum, 2017). Dillon exemplifies a colorblind

mentality by suggesting that E-Ball is a diversity event because it is “for everyone” and openly

describes how he treats black people like everyone else. His argument lacks an awareness of the

students of colors’ experiences and an understanding of institutional racism that serve as a

foundation for Tim’s request. Dillon’s perspective is likely grounded in his experience in the

SLB over the three previous years, where he worked with previous Diversity Chairs. All of the

Diversity Chairs have been white women who have mainly focused on diversity events for

women rather than people of color, seemingly without any challenge from the rest of the SLB.

Therefore, Dillon’s involvement with previous diversity events, whether active or passive, likely

strengthened Dillon’s conviction that Tim is focusing too much on race as SLB has been

“successful” in their diversity events in years prior.

Furthermore, Dillon’s feelings of victimization and denial also suggest that he remains in

the contact status. He openly expresses feelings of being targeted by Tim’s suggestion that

White people do not care about people of color, which he attempts to counter with his colorblind

ideology. Simultaneously, Dillon also feels threatened by the suggestion of taking resources that

he feels rightfully belongs to E-Ball. Dillon’s arguments are also grounded in meritocracy as a

way to dismiss the systematic disadvantages that people of color face and therefore, justify his

argument further. It is notable to consider that Helms’ (1990) second status, disintegration, is

characterized by feelings of guilt and shame rather than denial. Dillon is not displaying either

guilt or denial, signaling that he is still in the contact status.

 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 5

Finally, Dillon demonstrates a lack of awareness of racism, which is upheld through the

influences of his environment. Authority figures, such as Dean Pawelski, have not explained the

need for or the role of the Diversity Chair, or provided any expansive resources to support

diversity initiatives over the last eight years. Dillon’s peers and other authority figures, who are

overwhelmingly White, have not challenged Dillon to think more critically about diversity and

inclusion as they are likely not forced to confront this reality themselves. As a result, Dillon is

able to escape any examination of his racial identity, and racism more broadly, that would

accelerate his growth according to Helms’ White Identity Development Model (1990).

In contrast, Tim is situated in the second structure of Baxter Magolda and King’s (2012)

Theory of Self-Authorship, in Entering the Crossroads. His development places him in the

Constructing the Internal Voice position. Individuals who use this approach are beginning to

actively construct new ways of meaning making, but still tend to fall back into earlier externally

defined positions (Baxter Magolda & King, 2012). Tim clearly has both internal and external

meaning making structures present, as is evident in his decision to choose the major his parents

wanted and also his realization that he is drawn towards social justice topics like diversity, which

drove him to make the proposal to the SLB about a new event. He is finding ways to act out his

passion for social justice, but cannot seem to separate himself from the influence of his parents

enough to change his major.

As is often the case with individuals in this position, Tim’s internal voice is dominant in

some contexts, such as in his decision to propose a new diversity event, but his external

influences still often override his internal voice. He is fighting to find ways for this internal self

to take over, as is evident in the frustration he voices to his advisor about the reactions to his idea

and the racial climate on campus and within his major. Tim is able to clearly articulate what he
 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 6

wants to do, but it is difficult for him to act on it. This is evidence that he is still in the Entering

the Crossroads stage, as he seems to be less aware of how he is influenced by others’ points of

view and does not take responsibility when he does so- he wants to switch to a social justice

major, but is afraid that he won’t be able to find a job with that major, an idea stemming from his

parents’ desires for him. Once he is aware of how those outside forces affect him, and takes

responsibility when this occurs, he can move into the Leaving the Crossroads structure, where

his internal voice will begin to be more prominent (Baxter Magolda & King, 2012).

There are outside forces besides parents that are influencing Tim’s development,

especially his racial identity development. As the only Black man and one of two students of

color on the SLB in a predominantly White field at a predominantly White institution, Tim

serves as the Diversity Chair and is tasked with aiding efforts to recruit and retain diverse

students in the College of Engineering. Tim exhibits behaviors characteristic of the fourth stage

of Cross’ Theory of Black Identity Development (1991), internalization, which is evident by a

security in ones’ black identity and an open and outward expression of that racial identity.

Through his behavior, Tim demonstrates an awareness of the dominance of White culture and

the impact of racism on an institutional level, such as the lack of resources for students of color

on his campus, which is necessary in order to move beyond the first two stages. Tim also

demonstrates an understanding of his own racial identity, which is illustrated through his interest

in the social justice major to study race and his advocacy efforts as Diversity Chair.

It is evident that Tim demonstrates comfort and openness in his pro-black attitudes and

racial identity. For example, Tim is able to present a thoughtful argument for the reallocation of

funding from the Engineering Ball that is both reasonable and accessible to the rest of the SLB.

In his request, he also expresses explicit support for E-Ball and other non-diversity events that
 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 7

the SLB hosts. He also offers to collaborate with other people of color and to take on a

significant portion of the work to do so. This approach functions to soften the appearance of his

pro-black attitude to an audience who may be unreceptive or become defensive at his

suggestions, while not wavering on his request. Ultimately, Tim uses this strategy to increase his

chances of cultivating support for programs that will meet the needs of students of color.

Additionally, the internalization stage is characterized by a “a willingness to establish

meaningful relationships with Whites, who are respectful of this new self-definition,” (Tatum,

2017, p. 167) while the prior stage, immersion/emersion, is characterized by an active avoidance

of whiteness. Tim’s decision to actively participate in predominantly White spaces like the SLB

illustrates that he is further grounded in the internalization stage. Although Tim expresses

frustration when his request for funding for events for students of color is met with resistance,

his response is grounded in his pro-black attitude. While his reaction could be interpreted as an

unwillingness to have meaningful relationships with White people, it is clear that the White

people in the situation were unaccepting of Tim’s black identity. As a result, Tim grows

frustrated and expresses a desire to retreat to his community with other people of color. Because

of these factors, Tim’s development can not be measured according to his relationships with

other White people.

Tim still demonstrates room for growth into Cross’ (1991) final stage of racial identity

development, internalization-commitment stage. This stage is characterized by a prolonged plan

of action and advocacy for the black community. It is also notable that Tim did not ask for

permission from his advisors to request some of Engineering Ball’s funding, which indicates his

awareness of the unsupportive nature of his environment and that reality that his request might

be swiftly denied. However, this closed approach could have limited his efficiency as we could
 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 8

have provided more support or helped troubleshoot his approach. When his approach is met with

resistance, Tim claims that he is “at the end of his rope,” signaling some type of defeat. This

comment may be a result of other unsuccessful attempts to advocate for students of color on the

Student Leadership Board or in other spaces. The internalization-commitment stage requires a

sustained commitment to advocacy that would not waiver as quickly as Tim’s comment suggests

that he will. Therefore, Tim is most likely still at the internalization stage of Cross’ Theory of

Black Identity Development (1991).

It is clear that both Dillon and Tim have plenty of room for growth, in various aspects of

their identities. Baxter Magolda’s (2004) Learning Partnership Model provides a framework for

both support and challenge through its key principles and assumptions. The principles, or

supports, include validating learners’ capacity to know, situating learning in learner’s experience,

defining learning as mutually constructing meaning and the assumptions, or challenging include

portraying knowledge as complex and socially constructed, demonstrating that the self is central

to knowledge construction, sharing authority and expertise (Baxter Magolda, 2004).

As advisors, we plan to use the Learning Partnership Model (2004) key assumptions to

challenges to encourage Dillon’s development, specifically in regards to his internal voice and

his white identity. To challenge Dillon’s reliance on external authority and move him to the next

stage of external meaning making, Tensions with Trusting External Authority, we will begin to

provide a counter-narrative to the narratives that Dillon is receiving from Dean Palowski and the

alumni. While Dean Palowski’s opinion has not yet been shared on the Diversity Chair and the

redistribution of funding, his perceived silence and emphasis on the importance of E-Ball can

contribute to Dillon’s insistence on retaining the funding to ensure it means Dean Palowski’s

expectations. In contrast, we use our position as authority figures to initially highlight areas of E-
 STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 9

ball that are problematic or unnecessary, and take a vocal stance about the importance of the

Diversity chair on the SLB and of diversity-related initiatives generally. Through this

conversation, we will create an opportunity for Dillon to see that not all authority figures share

the same opinions, causing tension in his total reliance on external authority by requiring him to

discern his own thoughts on the topic.

Utilizing Dillon’s reliance on external authority, we will also facilitate conversations

about whiteness and racism to help shift Dillon from the contact to disintegration status in

Helms’ (1990) White Identity Development Model. As two white female authority figures, we

can model curiosity and open-mindedness and engage in authentic conversations with him about

race. We also will practice patience and grace by giving him space to learn about his own racial

identity and privilege without causing harm to people of color. Challenge is especially important

here, as his participation and willingness to share his experiences will help Dillon see that

knowledge is socially constructed and increasingly complex. Additionally, we will also use

examples of other marginalized identities to help him think more critically about privilege and

oppression broadly, especially related to his marginalized identities, such as his socio-economic

status, to highlight the complexity of knowledge and involve him in the creation of knowledge

using his own lived experience.

After these preliminary conversations in which we present Dillon with alternative

opinions, we also plan to engage Dillon in a dialogue regarding his opinions about the

reallocation of funding for E-Ball. We will ask Dillon to justify his beliefs and probe with open-

ended questions that counter his opinions to challenge him to think more complexly. This plan

will simultaneously expand Dillon’s ability to think critically about his beliefs and the external

forces that influence him, as well as challenge assumptions about his white identity.
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 10

In contrast, when thinking about Tim’s need for a stronger and more resilient internal

voice, the most important thing that he needs is support. This will allow him to begin to leave the

Crossroads structure and move into the Listening to the Internal Voice position. This support

comes in several important ways. As advisors, our role is to help strengthen and validate this

voice and his capacity to know. It is apparent that this is already beginning to happen, as we

have discussed and been supportive of his ideas for a diversity event, but there are other

important ways that this needs to occur. Validating and encouraging his passion for social

justice in all areas of his life, such as his choice of major and career, are also very important for

Tim’s growth and development into the next phase in his journey towards self-authorship. This

also means connecting him with resources and mentors outside of the SLB, such as other alumni

who have obtained a degree in social justice and are working in their field post-graduation.

Additionally, our role as advisors places us in a unique position to begin to help Tim see how the

expectations and viewpoints of others influence him. He already feels the weight of his parents’

expectations, and he is clearly cognizant of the expectations of the other SLB members, but

helping him see the ways in which those viewpoints have influenced how he sees himself and the

world around him will help him not only develop further towards self-authorship, but also in his

development within Cross’ (1991) Theory of Black Identity Development.

Tim’s Black identity development is closely tied to building his resilience to various

forms of resistance that he may experience in his advocacy to help him develop into the Cross’

(1991) internalization-commitment stage. As white women, we are aware that we do not share

Tim’s identity, so we will connect him with black activists and mentors, who can share more

tangible resources and experiences in persisting through white resistance. In doing so, we hope

to help Tim build resilience and other coping mechanisms for resistance as well as a community
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 11

of belonging to balance his frustration of constantly navigating predominantly White spaces. We

will also validate his internal voice through our support for him individually and his proposal,

while also asking that he approach us in the future with his ideas so that we can aid him in

preparing to present an idea and troubleshooting anticipated pushback.

In the final stage of our plan, we will facilitate a conversation with Tim and Dillon

together. We would allow them to lead the conversation, but would guide when we want to

prompt more complex thinking, to monitor the tone, or to prevent harm from happening.

Through this discussion, we will demonstrate our outward support for Tim’s initiatives, but only

when necessary. Our hope is that this conversation will allow them to mutually construct

meaning and make a cohesive decision regarding the reallocation of E-Ball funding with both

support and challenge from us.

In conclusion, through the implementation of Baxter Magolda’s (2004) Learning

Partnerships Model, we hope to further develop both Dillon and Tim through the lenses of self

authorship and racial identity development. As a result, we hope that not only do Dillon and Tim

both develop more cognitively and intrapersonally, but they also develop further interpersonally

by learning to work together effectively on the Student Leadership Board and with those who

have different experiences and identities more broadly.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY 12

References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning Partnerships Model: A framework for promoting

self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships:

Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp. 37-43). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2012). Assessing meaning making and self-authorship:

Theory, research, and application. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(3). (pp. 53-99)

San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tatum, B. D. (2017). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?: And other

conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books.