Final Exam Essay

Reaching Back to Move Forward: The Historic and Contemporary Role of Student Activism in the Development and Implementation of Higher Education Policy

Katherine I. E. Wheatle, Felecia Commodore

The Review of Higher Education, Volume 42, Supplement 2019, pp. 5-35 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI:

For additional information about this article

Access provided at 29 Nov 2019 21:36 GMT from McNeese State University

https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0043

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/724909

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 5

The Review of Higher Education Special Issue 2019, Volume 42, Supplement, pp. 5–35 Copyright © 2019 Association for the Study of Higher Education All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162–5748)

Reaching Back to Move Forward: The Historic and Contemporary Role of Student Activism in the Development and Implementation of Higher Education Policy Katherine I. E. Wheatle and Felecia Commodore

Abstract: This article explores the history of collegiate activism and the influ- ence students have had on institutional, state, and federal policy in the U.S.

Katherine Wheatle is a Strategy Officer for Finance and Federal Policy at Lumina Foundation. Dr. Wheatle’s professional and scholarly interests focus on federal policies that have expanded access for historically oppressed student populations and directly support minority-serving institutions. She earned her Ph.D. in Higher Education from Indiana University.

Felecia Commodore is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education in the Darden College of Education and Professional Studies at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Felecia’s research focus area is leadership, governance, and administrative practices with a particular focus on HBCUs and MSIs. Felecia’s research interests also lie in how leadership is exercised, constructed, and viewed in various communities, and the relationship of Black women and leadership. She is the lead author of Black Women College Students: A Guide to Success in Higher Education. She earned her PhD in Higher Education from the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.

6 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

The paper presents a historiography of student activism that explores how historians have written about student activism, draws connections between the historical narrative and contemporary issues in student activism, and theorizes how higher education policy has shifted in response or opposition to student activism. Current higher education leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders can learn from historical examples of student organizing as they engage in creating campuses that serve students and communities well.

Keyword: student activism, policy, contemporary issues, student experiences

The 1960s is a hallmark decade in the history of student activism on U.S. college campuses. Across the country, students of all racial backgrounds found their voices during their “higher education” and forced the nation to live the democratic and moral ideals it espoused. Although many college administrators may not have seen it this way, student sit-ins and protests reflected teachings undergraduate students received in their elementary and secondary schooling about equality and morality and its misalignment with society’s reality. Mark Edelman Boren described 1968 as “The Year of the Student,” asserting, “no year has been written about more in relation to student activism, no year is more mythologized or brings more sighs of melancholic yearning to aging activists” (2001, p. 149). Students on campuses across the country staged demonstrations to realize social justice outcomes for their communities. Students organized demonstrations and sit-ins, voiced their opinions in campus-based publications, and led student organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the history of collegiate activism and the influence students have had on institutional, state, and federal policy in the U.S. The authors first present a historiography of student activism that explores how historians have written about student activism; construct- ing and deconstructing the dominant narrative about the movement for educational equality in the modern Civil Rights Era. Then, we describe the evolution of the historic canon about education in the modern Civil Rights Era and student protests, and how the canon was challenged, revised, and expanded. Second, we will draw connections between the historical narrative and contemporary issues in student activism. Lastly, we theorize how higher education policy has shifted in response or opposition to student activism.

Historical overview of collegiate activism during tHe modern civil rigHts era

The following historical overview is not meant to be an exhaustive exami- nation of all historical research about student activism in higher education. Historians and researchers have examined different aspects of student ac- tivism producing thousands of articles, books, and book chapters that have been captured in historiographies (Franklin, 2003a; Joseph, 2006). Instead,

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 7

the purpose of this survey of literature is to provide a more focused view of how historians have written about student activism that occurred during the modern Civil Rights Era and to set the stage for issues and tactics that today’s students employ to enact change. This examination is limited by works that cover the modern Civil Rights Era—usually bookended between 1954 to 1972—but specifically include a discussion of students organizing in 1968. We take this approach to focus the forthcoming analysis on issues around which students organized in the 1960s and draw connections to current ef- forts by student activists.

Generally, the history of higher education is written from the perspective of administration and faculty because archival documents of these constitu- ent groups are more accessible and complete. Student perspectives are best represented in the history of student activism. Scholarship of student protests during the modern Civil Rights Era provides a plethora of exemptions to this generality. Student activist scholars develop narratives that use oral history interviews and archival documents to center the perspectives, passions, and activities of students. Still, historians tend to focus narratives on leaders of campus movements and omit points of view of their “regular” peers.

Collegiate protests did not begin in the 1960s, rather students have pro- tested since the colonial era (Moore, 1997). However, student activism during the modern Civil Rights Era has garnered more attention from historians and scholars than any other era in the 20th century. The historiography of education during the Civil Rights Era has evolved over time. Earlier texts on education in during this period focused on Black, male, religious leaders (e.g., Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) who organized nonviolent mobiliza- tions in the Deep South. These texts narrowly defined the Civil Rights Era timeline as beginning in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education decision and ending with the passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. A popular narrative that arises from these texts is that “Black Power,” conceptualized by Stokely Carmichael of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), was the downfall of the Civil Rights Movement and ushered in a period of disorganization and violence (Carson, 1995). According to these texts, the fight for education was to gain access through desegregation.

As the literature base grew, historians moved beyond the previously de- fined canon and challenged it by shifting attention away from the Southern struggle for civil rights and education to writing the North into the narrative. Scholars troubled the idea of structured organizing and introduced more balanced accounts of organizing with personal and logistical challenges. Female protagonists were introduced, and historians complicated the roles that women played. In the second wave of education and civil rights histori- ography, women led. When women played supporting roles as recorders and bookkeepers, offering room and board to male leaders in male-dominated

8 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

and led organizations (e.g., Southern Christian Leadership Conference or SCLC), historians wrote the work as foundational and essential to the many moving parts of local and state-level demonstrations (Cole, 2009; Flowers, 2005; Holsaert et al., 2010; Springer, 2006). Women were strategists because their interests in educational progress were two-fold: as mothers and care- takers of Black children and students, and on their own behalf as members of the Black teaching workforce (Perrillo, 2012; Williams, 2006). Unknown and lesser-known leaders were written out of the shadows of more famous civil rights icons. Histories featured examples of activists exercising their Second Amendment rights while participating in nonviolent activities; chal- lenging previously held ideas that polarized nonviolence and self-protection of Black Power.

In the third wave of historiography, scholars debated the modern Civil Rights Era timeline, challenged the dominant canon of Black Power, rede- fined the goals of educational progress, and expanded the civil rights struggle beyond the Black-White racial binary (Biondi, 2012; Lowen, 2010; Martinez, 2010; Varela, 2010). For some historians, the “Civil Rights Era” is a misnomer in that the struggle for education and civil rights began long before the Brown (1954) decision and continued long after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision of 1978. The struggle for civil rights continues today and should not be arbitrarily bookended by policies or Supreme Court decisions. More recent histories de-vilify Black Power by amplifying community projects, like the Black Panther Party free breakfast programs for children, liberation schools, and other social and educational programs (Seale, 1991). African and liberation schools helped redefine the goals of educational progress from one of access and desegrega- tion to one of parental and community struggles for power and control of schools as well as the curriculum. Similarly, college students demonstrated on their campuses and demanded the curriculum reflect the student body’s diversity (Joseph, 2003; Rojas, 2010). Even students at the historically Black Howard University protested for a Black Studies curriculum (Azore, 2018; McDowell, Lowe, & Dockette, 1970).

Histories of student activism during the modern Civil Rights Era encom- pass a variety of institutional contexts. The first waves of literature focused on students who organized within the Southern struggle, using the activities of SNCC as a lens through which to examine changing social standards for equality and human rights (Lefever, 2005; Williamson, 2008). Black stu- dents from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were the backbone of many southern protests and sit-ins as they played prominent roles in SNCC projects across the South (Carson, 1995; Cole, 2018; Flowers, 2005; Franklin, 2003b). Students from HBCUs, thus, are often portrayed as the face of student-led resistance. For example, Harry Lefever’s (2005)

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 9

Undaunted by the Fight: Spelman College and the Civil Rights Movement 1957–1967 delivers a compelling oral history of the leadership, participation, and defiance of women students at Spelman College. Lefever (2005) provides a case study of student activism amid the conservative traditions of the private HBCU. Aligned with Lefever’s point of view, some historians wrote of the intra-racial dynamics that Black students at HBCUs faced by campus administration when they organized on and off campus. Whether public or private, HBCU administrators demonstrated varied reactions to student organizers when demands required changes to campus policies, practices, and traditions (Cole, 2018; Williamson, 2008). Bennett College (Brown, 1998; Chafe, 1980; Flowers, 2005), North Carolina A&T (Gibbs, 1966), and Howard University (Azore, 2018; McDowell, Lowe, & Dockette, 1970) were all sites where Black students resisted against their campus administrations and surrounding communities. At some campuses—like Grambling State University and Southern University—Black students were met with violence (Aiello, 2012). Yet, some historians have developed work that pushed back on the critique of conservatism at HBCUs. Historian Joy Ann Williamson (2008), for example, opens her text Radicalizing the Ebony Tower: Black Colleges and the Black Freedom Struggle in Mississippi with a critique of the literature on Black colleges and the Black freedom struggle. Williamson affirms Black colleges as epicenters for resistance and students from HBCUs as pivotal to the movement. Likewise, her text counters previous scholarship that depicts Black colleges as “bourgeois, conservative, and authoritarian environments where campus administrators restricted freedom of speech, association, and movement” (2008, p. 10) and answers critical questions regarding how students at Black colleges in Mississippi appropriated strategies and tactics to combat white supremacy. These texts illuminate inter- and intra-racial politics and dynamics at play for Black students at Black colleges.

More recently published texts on student protests offer insight on how students in other regions of the nation organized using nonviolence on predominantly White campuses and administrative responses (Biondi, 2012; Bradley, 2009; Cole, 2013, 2018; Rogers, 2012b; Williamson, 2012; Wynkoop, 2002). Martha Biondi’s (2012) The Black Revolution on Campus contributed several vignettes that illuminated the importance of campus contexts in how student activism was successful (or unsuccessful) at a variety of institutional types. As a volume of vignettes, Biondi offered a picture of student resistance in the Midwest at Northwestern University, strikes on the West Coast at San Francisco State College, protests of Black and Puerto Rican students against admissions policies across the City University of New York, and widespread dissent among graduate and undergraduate students at Howard University in Washington, D.C. In Black Power on Campus: The University of Illinois, 1965–75, Joy Ann Williamson (2012) examines the role of Black students

10 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in transforming campus culture, curriculum, policies, and demography through protest and resistance. Mary Ann Wynkoop’s (2002) Dissent in the Heartland: The Sixties at Indiana University is an important contribution to the history of student protest dur- ing the Civil Rights Era as it explores disagreement among student activists within a single campus context. Wynkoop focuses on the local context of Bloomington, Indiana and how in-state students, who had not traveled ex- tensively outside of the Midwest, interpreted the national movement of civil rights on their campus. The level of activity of student organizations across the Bloomington campus during the short period of 1968--1969 remains an important part of the history and institutional memory of Indiana University, both for its administrative responses to student unrest and the responses of students to each other (Shaw, 2012). Robert Rhoads’ (2000) Freedom’s Web: Student Activism in the Age of Cultural Diversity connects student activism from the 1960s to the 1990s. Breaking away from the top-down perspective of faculty and administrators in other histories, Rhoades’ (2000) multisite history amplifies activists’ perspectives and how identity politics influence their resistance: Native American, Chicano, women, gay, and Black.

These texts and others complicate the relevance of local context on the outcomes of student resistance during the 1960s. However, their narratives are primarily drawn from the interaction of student activists with adminis- trators and faculty. By focusing on the student-administration relationship, they leave more to be explored about how student advocates and activism changed state and federal policy.

contemporary issues

In the current context of U.S. higher education, many issues that were present on campuses in 1968 are still relevant. As society has (de)evolved, issues previously unaddressed or out of popular consciousness have arisen. Today’s higher education scholars, leaders, practitioners, and policymakers strive to understand and address campus issues to strengthen institutions and institutional effectiveness and to improve their ability to serve students and communities. This section uses a critical lens to explore the major contemporary issues on college campuses, the impact of these issues on the higher education landscape, and the role of student activism in the creation and implementation of policy at institutional, state, and federal levels in addressing these issues. Through this reflection, we provide insight on the role and scope of collegiate activism in higher education policy, and how policymakers have and have not responded to said activism.

Throughout its history, American higher education has responded to and wrestled with politics and policies from external stakeholders. As established

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 11

in the review of the historical literature, college campuses have always been responsive to sociopolitical happenings. At times, college campuses have intentionally and unintentionally set themselves apart from the larger com- munities in which they reside. Referred to by some scholars as “The Ivory Tower” or “The Ebony Tower,” college administrators often viewed their institutions as privileged enclaves filled with scholars and young people who were the exceptional subset of the general population (Bok, 2009; Brown & Ricard, 2008; Marable, 2000; Williamson, 2008). The expansion of access to more students required institutions to shift away from this elitist disposi- tion; though remnants of this privileged and separatist thinking can still be found across academia (Altbach, Gumport, & Berdahl, 2011; Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011; Saunders, 2010). Though traditional residential college and university campuses are viewed as insulated, in which faculty, students, and other institutional constituents are protected and isolated from what may lay outside of their manicured lawns and hallowed halls, the reality for most colleges and universities is that they are microcosms of the larger society in which they exist. Over time, as more students, faculty, and staff from diverse backgrounds entered American higher education, campuses were compelled to address societal ills, including lack of educational equity and disparate civil rights (Eisenmann, 2006; Harper, Patton, & Wooden, 2009; Yamane, 2001; Zamani, 2003). Hence, institutional leaders have historically and con- temporarily needed to navigate local, state, and federal policies and laws. Because of lawsuits and legislation, public institutions carefully developed and implemented institutional policy that aligned with constitutional law (Kaplan & Lee, 2013).

Likewise, as the demographics of college campuses have transformed, institutional administrations have had to confront the ways their campuses have enacted and perpetrated practices and policies that instill, enforce, and uphold discrimination, oppression, and inequity. Minoritized and oppressed student populations (i.e., racial/ethnic, sexualized, gendered minorities) have and continue to find ways to voice concerns with the goal of substantive im- pact on their campuses. Though there have been many issues around which students have organized throughout the lifespan of U.S. higher education, a few issues have recently taken center stage: free speech, racially hostile cam- pus climates, inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) students, immigration and citizenship policies, and the prevalence and handling of sexual assault. Exploring the role of student activism regarding these issues helps to understand how higher education stakeholders have addressed or not addressed these issues, the results of stakeholder action or inaction, and how this information can illuminate opportunities for policies and practices that are just and equitable for current higher education stakeholders.

12 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

Free Speech

Freedom of speech is a right and fundamental tenet of American democ- racy afforded by the U.S. Constitution. In fact, “freedom of expression,” often used interchangeably with freedom of speech and free speech, was adopted into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under Article 19 as a hu- man right (United Nations, 1948). The theory of freedom of speech/freedom of expression was supported with more standardized ideals of a democratic government and society, wherein people within that government are given freedom to use their voices, literally and figuratively, without fear of retribu- tion (Collier & Levitsky, 1997). Though freedom of speech is often taught, communicated, and presented as a cornerstone of American democracy and as a fundamental human right, a critical examination of this tenet of American democracy through a historical lens reveals that from its inception, freedom of speech came with limitations.

In the 18th century when the Constitution was written, a subset of the U.S. population was dehumanized as property, having no inalienable rights. The voices of enslaved persons, specifically enslaved Africans, were legally regarded as possessing no value. Freedom of speech and freedom of expres- sion was not their human right, as these kidnapped Africans were not con- sidered human by their White American captors. In fact, enslaved Africans were often grotesquely punished—even by death—for talking back; using their voices and agency as acts of resistance against slave masters and those in power (Friedman, 1994). The authority to dictate and dole out conse- quences for engaging in speech that was deemed unacceptable by those in power politically, economically, and structurally remained a constant, in various manifestations, throughout U.S. history. Members of minoritized groups often bore the brunt of this oppression (Friedman, 1994). Likewise, as this practice persisted, oppressed groups used this principle of free speech and the right to protest and peacefully assemble to push back against op- pressive actors. Even after the abolishment of slavery and enfranchisement of Black citizens, these actions were often met with forms of punishment: imprisonment, censorship, physical attacks, being blackballed or blacklisted, and lynchings, among other actions. However, suppression tactics did not deter oppressed groups from invoking their right to freedom of speech and expression to fight injustices. Members of oppressed communities have long employed freedom of speech as a tactic to garner the attention of legislators with a hope that they would enact and enforce more just laws. This tactic is currently used on college campuses.

Free speech has been a continual source of tension and a challenging area for higher education leadership (Altbach et al., 2011; Thelin, 2011). Throughout the colonial era of American higher education, students pro- tested everything from institutional practices to the political ideologies of

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 13

U.S. leadership (Thelin, 2011). Reflecting on 1968, several student protests arose that challenged the idealism of free speech and its acceptance and enactment on college campuses. During this time, college campuses and society wrestled with the in loco parentis role of the college for students (Kerr, 1991; Pollet, 2002; Sweeton & Davis, 2004). During student protests of the late 1960s, institutions were expected to be responsible for or, in some cases, discipline students who may have been viewed as speaking out of turn. Campus administrators were regarded as failing when students organized against local and state injustices. Administrators navigated a binary of treating students as full-functioning adults with according rights and privileges or as children who still needed guidance and boundaries. Students resisted in locos parentis by maximizing free speech tactics and filing lawsuits claiming First Amendment violations. These strategies forced institutions to review and revise campus policies regarding student conduct and students’ rights. Early free speech cases set a historical and legal precedence of First Amend- ment protections for student activists (Kaplan & Lee, 2013).

Contemporarily, the meaning of free speech and the First Amendment has been reshaped on college campuses (Chong, 2006; Munson, 2010). Munson (2010) described college campuses as “fertile ground for social movement activism” (p. 783) where free speech activities and policies can be tested, challenged, and tried. Earlier free speech cases on college campuses focused on usually more liberal activists or organizations that protested campus leadership and government and elected officials (Chong, 2006). As society transitioned out of the politically tumultuous 1960s and policies such as Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and affirmative action came to fruition, increased campus diversity refreshed the debate on free speech. According to Chong (2006), “The late 1980s and the 1990s generated intel- lectual debates on college campuses over the meaning of free speech within the First Amendment” (p. 30). Discussions and demonstrations focused attention on the fine line between “free speech” and “hate speech” or “racist speech” (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw, 1993). More pressure and attention were placed on college administrators regarding how they addressed on-campus instances of these “free speech” versus “hate speech” debates. Though a number of these early debates were sparked by racial cam- pus incidents, not all challenges to free speech were aligned with left-leaning activism (Munson, 2010). Munson (2010) observed that existing literature on student activism often focused on movements with progressive goals and ideals while failing to equally highlight current and significant organiz- ing of conservative activists. According to Munson (2010), “conservative mobilization at U.S. institutions of higher learning has always taken place alongside the better known (and often larger) mobilization of the left” (p. 782). Whether liberal or conservative, such critiques forced administrators to

14 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

define and implement free speech protections on their campuses (Chokshi, 2018; Gurman, 2017; Knight Foundation, 2018).

Early institutional uprisings and student protests eventually led several campuses to develop and introduce campus speech codes (Chong, 2006; Majeed, 2009). Campus speech codes are regulations set in place to limit, restrict, or ban speech beyond the legal limits of freedom of speech or press (Majeed, 2009). These codes prohibit expression that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment (FIRE, 2018b). Institutions and campus administrators faced a crossroads: create more inclusive campus climates or quiet bad press for stakeholders. In response, they drafted policies they believed addressed issues arising on their campuses. Student uprisings and grievances led to policy changes. However, the speech code policies themselves became the focus of further student protests.

Since 2006, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has published annual reports that survey speech codes at more than 400 American colleges and universities. These reports highlight campuses with restrictive speech codes or campus stakeholders that infringe upon the free speech rights of students (FIRE, 2018a). In September 2017, conservative personality Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the University of California, Berkeley for “Free Speech Week.” A former employee of the right- wing website Brietbart, known for pushing White-supremacist propaganda, Yiannopoulos’ scheduled appearance on the campus sparked protests by students who felt his rhetoric was “hate speech,” and he should not be al- lowed on campus (Steinmetz, 2017). Protestors against Yiannopoulos sparked counter-protests by students and others who supported Yiannopoulos’ mes- sage and right to free speech (Steinmetz, 2017). Including both students and non-students, the protests became physical, and campus leadership cut the talk short to maintain safety and civility on campus. However, it does not appear that Berkeley ever drafted any formal policy to address campus speak- ers and free speech. This event did spark widespread conversation regarding how campuses would uphold and protect free speech on their campuses while addressing “hate speech” that creates unwelcoming and unsafe campus climates for minoritized student populations.

The role of media must also be considered in a discussion about how campuses are navigating the free speech debate. The media has played a role in how news of student protests has been communicated and perceived by external campus constituents both historically and contemporarily (Chong, 2006). However, the modes (i.e., print and visual media) and messaging have varied over time. Recently, the use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have afforded student movements and campus protesters a broader and more rapid reach than in previous eras. Increased access to knowledge about these uprisings and protests bring more widespread atten-

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 15

tion to issues and concerns as well as elevating and empowering a new group of external stakeholders who previously did not have the opportunity to buy-in and support localized protests and movements. The reach and impact of social media have also increased public knowledge of campus policies.

Though the fight for freedom of speech on college campuses has been long-standing, the fight has changed in its purpose and motivation. Chong (2006) raised a critical question: Does “promotion of regulations on hate speech lead to a retrenchment in tolerance for hate speech contrary to the predominant trend in recent decades toward increased tolerance?” (p. 30). Chong argued that the free speech protests of the late 1960s laid the groundwork for the shift in political tolerance for unpopular groups. Further, political lenience created fertile ground for the rise of hate speech and hate groups not only to exist on college campuses but to fight for their right to expression (Chong, 2006).

Though campuses may have developed and implemented policies that resulted from protests, campus-based activism did not always translate to state and federal legislation. In 2017, according to the American Associa- tion for State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), lawmakers in at least 22 states introduced legislation that would address free speech provisions on campuses (AASCU, 2018). These bills varied substantially, ranging from removal of free speech zones to prescribing specific sanctions against disrup- tors of public speeches. Nonetheless, few of these bills have passed. Instead, additional pressure was placed on campus administrations and boards to add or amend existing institutional policies (AASCU, 2018; Peters, 2018). Campuses continue to contend with how much impact their policies have on the development of state and federal laws, especially public colleges and universities. Campuses also contend with how to craft policies that support students’ rights while creating inclusive environments and climates for all students.

Racial Climate

The racial climate on campuses has continued to be at the forefront of conversation in recent years (Griffin, Cunningham, Mwangi, & Chrystal, 2016; Hurtado, Alvarado, & Guillermo-Wann, 2015; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Since the desegregation of college campuses, there have been chal- lenges to how Black students and other students of color have been treated, on and off campus. Protests ranged from advocating for desegregation to the establishment of Black Studies programs (Rogers, 2012a; Williamson, 1999). As previously discussed, many student protesters focusing on equal rights and treatment were concentrated on HBCU campuses, though they were met with mixed reactions by HBCU administrations (Harper & Gasman, 2008). Although much of the discussion and coverage of student activism focused on issues that centered Black students, it is important to note that

16 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

these issues were not, nor have ever been, the only issues of race discrimina- tion on campuses. With the rise of xenophobia, Islamophobia, and racism in the current climate of the country, Latinx, Asian American, and immigrant student groups have demonstrated across U.S. campuses.

Research by Jones and Reddick (2017), Leath and Chavous (2017), and Logan, Lightfoot, and Contreras (2017) connect student identity as a motiva- tor towards activism, particularly on historically White institutions. Accord- ing to Logan et al. (2017), hostile campus climates threaten student safety and students’ perception of their “place” on campus, and this threat drives students toward activism as a means of “survival” (p. 258). White-Johnson (2012) found that Black college students who had more frequent experi- ences of racial microaggressions also reported more frequent participation in civic engagement in the Black community and a greater sense of civic responsibility. In other words, racist events on college campuses are defin- ing students’ racial and civic identities. Drawing from racist experiences on campus, students make connections between their individual experiences and societal ills at large and seek to hold institutional and governmental administrations accountable for structural inequities (Jones & Reddick, 2017; Leath & Chavous, 2017). Recent federal and state policy changes have acti- vated communities of color and increased the urgency with which students and other advocates must defend civil rights priorities in higher education (The Leadership Conference Educational Fund, 2018; Logan et al., 2017).

Brought to consciousness due to the rise of racial tensions in the broader U.S. context, college campuses proved, as they often do, to be a microcosm of the societal climate. In recent years, high profile racially charged cases such as the murders of Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown fueled the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) Movement. Founded in 2013 by three Black women, two identifying as Queer and one hailing from a Nigerian immigrant family, BLM was created as a Black-centered politi- cal will and movement building project (“Herstory,” 2018). The movement grew to what is now a member-led global network of more than 40 chapters (“Herstory,” 2018). A number of these chapters or offshoots of this move- ment found themselves on college campuses across the U.S. (Sandhya, 2015).

Though BLM was not founded exclusively for college students or college- educated persons, campuses have been fertile ground for the rise and growth of the movement and its chapters, much like the Black Panther Party in the late 1960s (Hope, Keels & Durkee, 2016; Somashekhar, 2015). BLM and BLM-aligned groups have engaged in campus protests that have led to ad- ministrative resignations, the establishment of intercultural centers, funding of minority student supports, diversification of campus press and commu- nications, and the renaming of buildings and removal of other edifices that honor racist figures.

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 17

The most notable of these demonstrations was by a group known as “Con- cerned Student 1950” on the campus of the University of Missouri. A series of protests ensued on the University of Missouri’s campus in reaction to a lack of response from campus administration to repeated racist and hate crime incidents. These protests played an instrumental role in the resignation of the institution’s chancellor and board members. The actions of “Concerned Student 1950” reflected those of a number of Black student protest groups in 1968–1969 and were used to produce a semblance of change on campus, often administrative.

In 2010, two White students at the University of Missouri were found to have scattered cotton balls outside the campus’ Gaines/Oldham Black Culture Center. Deputy Chancellor Michael Middleton’s response to the incident was that the, “incident was much more, in our view than a childish prank” (Sunne, 2010, para 15). The perpetrators were fined and sentenced to community service for littering. Several Black students felt that the ac- tions of their White peers were not just a mere case of littering and that in some ways, the campus administration had not done their due diligence in ensuring the perpetrators felt the full responsibility and the consequences of their conduct (Sunne, 2010). This incident shed light on the racial tensions present on the campus.

Approximately four years later, about 117 miles away from the campus in Ferguson, Missouri, a police officer shot and killed an unarmed Black teen- ager named Michael Brown. The story of Michael Brown’s death reopened fresh wounds connected to the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida two years earlier. Similar to the outcome of the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman (2013) case where the accused was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter, the grand jury decided not to indict Michael Brown’s killer and the U.S. Department of Justice found that the officer killed Brown in defense. Brown’s story gained national attention drawing in protestors from across the U.S. and breathed more life into existing BLM demonstrations, including those on college campuses. In fact, during the mid-2010s, 61 out of 160 incidents at universities nationwide specifically focused on racism and police violence (Johnston, 2014). On September 12, 2014, about a month after the Michael Brown shooting, Payton Head, the Student Government President at University of Missouri and a Black man, shared “his frustration with bigotry, anti-homosexual, and anti-transgender attitudes at the school” (Pearson, 2015, para. 3) on Facebook. This expres- sion of anger came after Head had experienced people riding in the back of a pickup truck screaming racial slurs at him. Head exclaimed in his post, “For those who wonder why I’m always talking about the importance of inclusion and respect, it’s because I’ve experienced moments like this multiple times at THIS university, making me not feel included here” (Pearson, 2015, para

18 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

5). Later that month, Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin called the incidents of discrimination deplorable (Pearson, 2015).

Nevertheless, student protests continued with the feeling that university officials still had done nothing to address their concerns (Pearson, 2015). In October 2014, students held a second “Racism Lives Here” rally on cam- pus. Another incident between White and Black students occurred when a White student interrupted a Black student group and used a racial slur when asked to leave. Chancellor Loftin addressed the issue by stating that “racism is clearly alive at Mizzou” (Pearson, 2015, para. 9). Loftin ordered diversity and inclusion training for students and faculty. However, Black students criticized the chancellor for not acknowledging their work in developing diversity programs or campus racial issues in general. On October 10, pro- testors blocked University of Missouri System President Tim Wolfe’s car for not responding to their complaints. Reports indicate that Wolfe allegedly tapped a protestor with his car and “smiled and laughed during the protest” (Pearson, 2015, para 11). This incident was a pivotal moment, sparking the emergence of the student group Concerned Student 1950, named for the year African American students were first admitted to the university.

Concerned Student 1950 issued a list of demands including an apology from Wolfe, his removal from office, and a more comprehensive racial aware- ness and inclusion curriculum overseen by minority students and faculty. Wolfe met privately with the members of Concerned Student 1950 but would not agree to their demands. Jonathan Butler, a graduate student, launched a hunger strike, and students boycotted to support Butler in his efforts. Both Butler’s hunger strike and the student boycott garnered national media at- tention. Wolfe eventually issued an apology to Concerned Student 1950, but his letter angered protestors who questioned if he knew what “systematic oppression” was; students responded, “ . . . Systematic oppression is because you don’t believe that you have the equal opportunity for success” (Pearson, 2015, para 17).

In response, the University of Missouri’s Black football players announced that they would not practice or play until Wolfe was removed. The players were supported by White players, the Athletic Department, and the team’s coach (Pearson, 2015). The next day the Missouri Students Association’s executive cabinet called for Wolfe’s firing and hours later Wolfe resigned. After Wolfe’s resignation, the chancellor of the university’s main campus also resigned. In following months, the University addressed other student demands regarding diversifying the curriculum and faculty.

The University of Missouri and Concerned Student 1950 case highlights an unprecedented type of student protest that included student-athletes from a revenue-generating sport as well as a student protest that accomplished leadership turnover. In ways, the student protestors of Concerned Student

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 19

1950 showed the power that students can have in pushing institutions to address hostile racial climates for students. These students, much like their predecessors, were able to get campus administrators to consider program- matic ways to address students’ concerns.

Aligned with findings by Jones and Reddick (2017), the University of Mis- souri case is an example of how university administrators rely on student- initiated resistance to make substantive changes to campus climate, policy, and leadership. According to Jones and Reddick (2017), administrators may provide endorsements through promises for reform—as were the cases for both President Wolfe and Chancellor Loftin—but these assurances do not always translate into the structural reforms that would improve campus climate and student safety concerns. However, in this case, university ad- ministration responded through both programming and structural changes. The Missouri case demonstrates student protest as a credible strategy for substantive change.

Also notable in this case were the roles of social media and Black student athletes, specifically NCAA Division 1 football players. This student pro- test garnered widespread attention that was largely fueled by social media reporting and coverage. Social media allowed what may have just been a campus-contained protest to become a movement supported by external actors across the U.S. The football players’ participation—publicly supported by their White peers and coaching staff—incited public dialogues about the power and agency of student-athletes of major, revenue-generating sports to influence institutional policy and action. There is now increased conversation regarding student-athlete activism, how student-athletes are empowered or disempowered to be activists, and the impact of student-athlete activism on social and racial justice on campus.

Although the University of Missouri protests were able to influence the leadership of the university system through the resignation of its system presi- dent, impacts on state-level policy otherwise remains unclear. This outcome points to the challenges of student activism to hold state systems, legislatures, and governing boards accountable for student needs and outcomes.

Many governing boards and state legislatures do not have structures ame- nable to accountability for student outcomes. Without clear levers to pull or opportunities for input during the policymaking process, opportunities to change campus climates and state policy through student organizing are limited.

Historically and contemporarily, students on college campuses have pushed and protested campus administrators, state legislators, and federal policymakers to address issues of inclusion and climate for racially minori- tized and other underrepresented groups. The case of Concerned Student 1950 and University of Missouri have exemplified how student movements have progressed, but also the ground that still needs to be covered.

20 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

Inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans* Students

Racially minoritized groups are not the only underrepresented groups to have protested issues on campuses. LGBT students have always been present on college campuses, but these students have not always been able to engage fully in campus life due to their sexual orientation or gender identity (Dugan, Kusel, & Simounet, 2012; Renn, 2010). Just as climate issues have a serious impact on students from racially minoritized groups on campus, members of the LGBT communities have had their college experiences affected by their institutions’ overt or covert hostile climate issues regarding sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

Queer rights activism at colleges such as Columbia and Cornell Universi- ties played a critical role in the foundations of the LGBT rights movement that emerged following the Stonewall riots of the late 1960s (Beemyn, 2003). Though there have been various protests on college campuses as part of the overall LGBT rights movement, contemporary LGBT student protests have increased in visibility as legislation and policy have brought sexuality and gender issues to the forefront of much of the nation’s collective conscious (Renn, 2007, 2010; Swank, Woodford, & Lim, 2013). LGBT students have pushed the discourse in American higher education forward across all in- stitutional types, even religiously affiliated institutions.

In 2014, a small group of LGBT students at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts pushed to shift the institution’s anti-gay culture. For several years, Gordon College, a small, non-denominational, Christian liberal arts college, required students to sign an agreement that stated they would not engage in homosexual activities of any kind. In July 2014, Gordon Col- lege’s president, D. Michael Lindsay, was one of fourteen college leaders who signed on to a letter to then President Barack Obama in opposition to a proposed executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The letter asked President Obama to include language that would exempt religious organizations from having to comply with the order. Such language would allow religious-affiliated institutions like Gordon College to avoid conse- quences for factoring a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity into decisions like employment. The college’s stance was met with loss of major contracts within the surrounding Wenham community, and a petition with nearly 4,000 signatories called for President Lindsay to rescind his letter to the White House.

At the same time, a group named “OneGordon,” founded in 2012, trans- formed its website and Facebook page into an online community for dia- logue and information. “OneGordon,” as described by one of its founders, is “a handful of the many people making sure that President Lindsay is held accountable for his signature on the letter and its impact on Gordon’s reputa-

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 21

tion, academic community, and student body, which includes a number of LGBT students” (Francis & Longhurst, 2014, para 7). The group provided great support to students, but the battle between the college’s administration and its LGBT community continued.

Gordon College administrators met to strategize how to suppress stu- dent protests to President Lindsay’s anti-LGBT stance. At the height of the protests, the institution agreed to convene a working group consisting of administrators, students, faculty, staff, and trustees. This group engaged in 18 months of study regarding the issue and consulted with alumni, sociolo- gists, and theologians (New, 2015). In March 2015, after much scrutiny and critique, Gordon College announced that its policy stating students or faculty engaging in sex outside of heterosexual marriage would not change (New, 2015). However, the college simultaneously announced that it would roll out a series of initiatives that would prevent the bullying of LGBT students and encourage tolerance (New, 2015). Gordon created a focus group on human sexuality and the college claimed to strengthen its anti-bullying policies and conduct biennial climate surveys to “assess the well-being of students as it relates to sexuality and sexual identity” (New, 2015, para 12).

Like Gordon College, many institutions must navigate negative media at- tention while responding to opposing interests of competing constituencies (i.e., students and donors). Gordon’s leadership developed several initiatives, programming, and conversations related to the topic central to students’ protests, but did not actually address the policy that initially sparked the outrage. Though programmatic responses like Gordon’s may placate groups and quell negative press, it does not result in actual change for the group being affected. Implementation of and reliance on programmatic responses alone can leave an institution legally vulnerable and having to confront the issue again, and in some instances, with a stronger resolve than the initial reaction. Because Gordon College implemented programs that did not ad- dress system-level change, the college would again confront its homophobic and transphobic campus environment.

In March 2017, a sociology professor at Gordon College filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. After receiving a recommendation from faculty, she claimed that she was denied promo- tion due to her LGBT advocacy. Similarly, a former philosophy professor at Gordon filed a suit alleging that she was disciplined due to her criticism of President Lindsay’s anti-LGBT stance (Shellnut, 2017). Lindsay denied both professors’ claims. The following month, seven Gordon College faculty mem- bers resigned. All members of a committee in charge of recommending faculty promotions and tenure, these professors asserted that the administration was ignoring their suggestions. Without referring to specific cases, the faculty expressed that they could no longer trust the tenure and promotion process

22 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

at the institution (Shellnut, 2017). Though it seemed that protests forced Gordon College to address an environment that was not supportive or af- firming for its LGBT students, faculty, or allies, the demonstrations did bring issues back to the surface that the administration had not fully addressed in the past. The Gordon College case is an example of how institutional type plays a role in response to student unrest and federal antidiscrimination policies. As a private, religiously affiliated college, Gordon was still subject to antidiscrimination entities. The “OneGordon” movement inspired similar movements on other campuses. These movements included “OneGeorgeFox” at George Fox University in Oregon (Francis & Longhurst, 2014).

Unlike private colleges, public institutions are more directly subject to compliance with antidiscrimination policies. For example, in 2016 the North Carolina legislature passed a law that required people to use bathrooms that aligned with their birth-assigned gender. This policy became a challenging law to enforce when it came to the state’s public higher education institutions and those institutions’ trans* students. In fact, Margaret Spellings, the Univer- sity of North Carolina System President, expressed how the North Carolina colleges and universities were caught in the middle of an unenforceable law (Anderson, 2016). When two students and one faculty brought a lawsuit against the University of North Carolina system regarding the transgender bathroom law, U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder temporarily blocked the University of North Carolina from making the three plaintiffs follow the restroom provision. As a result of the anti-trans* law, associations like the NCAA refused to hold tournaments in the state, which created challenges for schools that gained revenue from tournaments as well as opportunities for student-athletes. The bathroom law was repealed in early 2017. However, the catalyst for change seemed to come more from pressure from the NCAA and potential loss of revenue for the state than from the institutions. Though this one case cannot be generalized, the incident in North Carolina makes a point concerning sexuality and gender issues. Institutions often find themselves responding reactively instead of proactively to state policy.

Immigration and Citizenship Policies

Much like LGBT student groups, there recently has been increased con- versation about immigration and undocumented students in the U.S. Col- lege campuses must ensure that institutional policies are aligned with and responsive to federal and state laws and regulations. Institutions face a new challenge of navigating between retaliatory immigration policies and how to best serve undocumented students. Though undocumented students are not a new population on U.S. college campuses, they are a frequent and pertinent topic in higher education circles. During the Obama administration, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy was introduced in response to Congress’ inability to pass the DREAM Act (Gonzales, Terriquez,

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 23

& Ruszczyk, 2014). DACA is a policy that allows some individuals, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, to receive a renewable two-year pe- riod of deferred action from deportation and makes them eligible for a U.S. work permit. Approximately a quarter of a million undocumented students are pursuing higher education (Teranishi, Suárez-Orozco, & Suárez-Orozco, 2015). DACA, however, does not provide participating individuals a path to citizenship. Even if undocumented students are successful in attaining a college education, legal employment post-college is often constrained by permanent citizenship status (DeAngelo, Schuster, & Stebleton, 2016). Prior to DACA while the DREAM Act stagnated in Congress, undocumented students—known now as “Dreamers”—and their allies began to organize. Despite the Trump administration’s attempts to abolish the program and no action from Congress to pass the DREAM Act, DACA remains in place to protect the safety and success of undocumented students included under the policy (National Immigration Law Center, 2018). Student activism regard- ing access, success, and the future of undocumented students continues on college campuses across the U.S.

Most broadly, activism signals the need for internal and external change as students attempt to secure rights for both themselves and the larger undocumented community (DeAngelo et al., 2016). In 2016, students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) protested the election of Donald Trump and pushed their institution to address the safety and other concerns of undocumented students. Students feared that the protections for DACA students established by the Obama administration would disappear under the Trump administration—a fear that was later realized. In 2017, after the Trump administration announced its intention to let DACA expire for millions of people, students at UCLA continued to organize. A student known as “Yael,” a leader of IDEAS, a student-led group for students to support students without legal status, declared herself “Undocumented and Unafraid” and pushed for a viral campaign for educators and institutions to stand with undocumented students. Students also joined with community members and marched in Los Angeles to protest the presidential administra- tion’s threat to end DACA. Several students spoke on the steps of City Hall as part of their protests (Wynter, 2017). UCLA students also led a forum to discuss DACA and undocumented student issues. UCLA was not the only California institution to experience protests. California State University-Long Beach and the University of Southern California also had student-organized protests regarding DACA. Not only did these protests gain national atten- tion due to social media, they also put pressure on institutional leaders to openly state their position on DACA. This push for UCLA to declare itself a “sanctuary campus” later spread across the U.S.

The University of California community responded to student protests in a few ways. Several faculty and administrators joined the protests and

24 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

circulated a petition for UCLA to become a sanctuary campus. The petition addressed members of the academic senate, Chancellor Gene Block, and Ex- ecutive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh. It included demands that the university reaffirm its commitment to protect members of the campus community, reaffirm policies regarding the admission of undocumented students and non-cooperation with federal ICE authorities, and denounce hate speech (“Petition for UCLA to become a sanctuary campus,” n.d.)

Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California (UC) system at the time, was leery of using the word “sanctuary,” expressing that it was too vague (Preston, 2017). Rather, UC decided to publish detailed principles of support for undocumented students. These principles included assurances that campus policies would not question students solely about their immi- gration status or join any cooperation agreements with federal immigration authorities (Preston, 2017). Through the UC Davis Law School, the system organized legal help for students detained for deportation. Napolitano stated, “We want to do everything we can so students are safe on our campuses, so they can focus on what they are there to do, which is to study” (Preston, 2017, para 6). UC also created a policy that any undocumented students, including any losing DACA, would continue to pay in-state tuition and be eligible for state financial aid and for a revolving loan program funded in part by the university (Preston, 2017).

California led the way for other states by adopting policies that support undocumented students. California educates a large proportion of U.S. stu- dents and graduates a sizeable portion of U.S. undocumented high school seniors (Contreras, 2005; Oliverez, Chavez, Soriano, & Tierney, 2006). The first legislation to aid undocumented students came through Assembly Bill 540 in 2001. This bill allowed undocumented students who attended and graduated from California high schools to pay in-state tuition at public col- leges and universities (DeAngelo et al., 2016). In 2011, the California DREAM Act was signed into law and increased the opportunity for students who were eligible for Assembly Bill 540 (2011) by permitting access to scholarships and financial aid at public colleges and universities (DeAngelo et al., 2016). Scholars have noted that student protests played a major role in the passing of the Act (DeAngelo et al., 2016). However, it is not clear how much influence the repeal of DACA and subsequent student protests will have in future state policies on undocumented students in California or elsewhere in the country.

Sexual Assault

Undocumented students, LGBT students, and students of color are not the only student groups concerned with how the enforcement of policies affect their well-being. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) was an act to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the General Education Provisions Act (originally en-

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 25

acted as Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and other related federal legislation. Title IX, adopted in 1972, has often been taught as legislation that ushered in gender equity in higher education by focusing on equity in sports opportunities and educational access. Title IX became synonymous with the prevention of sex discrimination. However, other issues regarding the reporting of sexual harassment and sexual violence came to fruition in the 1990s. In the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions that indicated that Title IX would require schools to respond appropriately to reports of sexual harassment and sexual violence against students.

In response to both student experiences and campus practitioners’ need for more guidance, the Obama administration put forth several federal mandates and initiatives to assist campuses in addressing sexual assault. In April 2011, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) that provided guidance to campuses on requirements of Title IX and handling of sexual assault. The letter also included proactive measures schools could take to prevent sexual harassment and violence (United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (USEDOCR, 2011a). Beyond the guidance and examples the DCL provided, the letter articulated the responsibility colleges had in effectively responding to reports of sexual violence, and the active role the federal government would play to enact remedies and enforcement strate- gies (Hurtado, 2018; USEDOCR, 2011b). The letter put forth sexual violence statistics to frame sexual assault as a pervasive public health issue, and every campus was “implicated in its perpetuation” (Hurtado, 2018, p. 7). In 2013, the Obama administration worked with Congress so that the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 explicitly addressed the needs of college students. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act of 2013is a set of amendments to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, or Clery Act, of 1990 which expanded the scope of reporting, response, and prevention education require- ments including rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking (Campus SaVE Act, 2014). SaVE mandates that any institution receiving federal student financial assistance funds under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (including the Pell grant and federal loans) must provide prevention education to all incoming students and report sta- tistics on the occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking incidents reported to campus or local police authorities (American Council on Education, 2014; Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, 2013). In 2014, President Obama created the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, an interagency task force charged with disseminating best practices and increase transparency, enforcement, and public awareness

26 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

toward the goal of protecting and supporting survivors (The White House, United States Government, 2016).

In recent years, this application of Title IX has become the cornerstone in the conversation regarding sexual violence on college campuses. As more scholars and practitioners began to explore the experiences of sexual assault survivors on campuses as well as the reporting systems in place, campus con- stituents and the federal government began questioning several institutions’ handling of sexual assault cases. In The Hunting Ground, by Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering (2016), later turned into a documentary, chronicled the experi- ences of campus sexual assault survivors through the reporting process and their attempt to find justice for their assaults. Dick and Ziering (2016) also illuminate how this network of survivors worked together to push the federal government to investigate how institutions handle assault cases. Much of this movement was sparked by student protests. One of the protests that served as an early catalyst to this movement began on the campus of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill).

In 2012, two political science majors at UNC-Chapel Hill embarked on a historic student activism demonstration. Annie Clark and Andrea Pino, two young women who were both violently raped as students, felt the university’s response was very lax after they reported the assaults to UNC administration and authorities (Grigoriadis, 2014). These two students engaged in an act of student activism that did not reflect the more publicized and romanticized demonstrative protests of the late 1960s, but did reflect the cross-campus networks created to push legal decisions, policies, and legislation as seen with groups such as SNCC and SCLC in the late 1950s and early 1960s during the U.S. Civil Rights Movement.

Clark and Pino began working with a network of activists across the U.S., collecting data and information regarding sexual assaults on college campuses. The two women educated students about their Title IX rights and aided them in filing complaints (Grigoriadis, 2014). Because of Clark and Pino’s leadership, 78 colleges were under investigation by the U.S. De- partment of Education Office of Civil Rights. By making clear connections between campuses, student activists made the case that this was a systemic, prevalent issue across higher education and not a problem contained to an individual campus. Clark stated,

Like at Penn State, when things aren’t connected, it’s so easy to say, “Okay, here are four people doing things wrong. We’ll fire them, and the issue goes away.” We reframed the debate as, “What’s happening at one school is a microcosm of what’s happening everywhere” (Grigoriadis, 2014, para. 20).

The activists also benefited from increased media coverage and pop culture discussion of rape culture and high-profile college rape cases (Grigoriadis, 2014).

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 27

The activism that Clark and Pino engaged in is unique in that the mo- tivation for their creating a multi-campus network was a response to the non-responsive nature of their individual institution to their complaints and concerns. The UNC Chancellor eventually entered into a resolution agree- ment to review and, if necessary, revise its Title IX procedures to ensure they were clearly explained and all parties involved were notified of the status of their cases. The institution also agreed to provide a better description of its informal resolution process (Mangan, 2018). These actions occurred only after the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found the institution in violation of Title IX and of mishandling sexual assault cases. The Depart- ment decided a similar fate for several other institutions, thanks to the work of Clark and Pino’s network building and cross-campus advocacy. As reflected in student concerns described earlier in this article, many institutions de- veloped programming focusing on how to bring awareness to, prevent, and stop sexual assault and rape. These programs include but are not limited to “Take Back the Night” and the “Green Dot” bystander education program.

Unfortunately, the change of presidential administration brought with it changes in policy direction. Although SaVE continues to be law, compliance is determined and enforced by the Department of Education’s Clery Act Compliance Division. Furthermore, the current administration has rescinded the crucial guidance the Obama administration published (Saul & Taylor, 2017; USED, 2017). In the current federal policy environment, student activ- ism and student-focused organizations like It’s On Us are ever more urgent.

As our understanding of these issues continues to grow, we must question what ends are reached because of this student activism. Has collegiate activism directly influenced higher education policy? The answer is not conclusive. There have been gains at the institutional and state levels. Yet, there is still progress to be made as many issues college students and campus stakeholders fought to address in 1968 are still present and perpetuated today.

conclusion

History can provide a lens to understand various issues and trends in higher education. Though history is often used to extract lessons for the present state of higher education, it can also aid in our understanding of how contemporary issues may be addressed. In 1968, student activism played a pivotal role in pushing new thought, policy, and practices across the higher education landscape. Students used their voices to attain social justice on campuses, in communities, and in the larger society.

Student activism in the 1960s is often romanticized when compared to current generations. Taking a closer look at some of the hallmark movements, intricate details unveil that these movements were not always met with sup-

28 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

port nor were they supported by most students. Likewise, when examining some of the current issues facing college campuses, there is much left unre- solved from the 1960s. This deeper examination aids in understanding ways student activism can and will play a role in addressing current injustices and inequities in higher education.

Today, connections between efforts of student activists and institutional and state-level policy change are much more direct than to federal policy and legislative change. Nevertheless, the work of student activists has had some national wins (e.g. campus sexual violence and assault) and has been particularly influential on public discourse and opinion of issues they seek to influence.

As higher education scholars, practitioners, and policymakers look toward the next era of U.S. higher education, the role of student voice remains as important as it did in 1968. As expansive as the student activism literature base is, there is still much to be explored. Literature on civic engagement among college students remains limited in its analysis of civic participation among students of color and their sense of belonging on a campus (Leath & Chavous, 2017). Student engagement research would do well by more explicitly considering race in analyses and broadening assessment tools and definitions to include student activism and protest, as these activities likely motivate retention for some students of color. The changing demographics of 21st century students will continue to require the current system of higher education to transform its practices, pathways to credentials, and policies. While demands for diverse faculty and staff, representation in the curricu- lum, and improvements to campus climate are student demands that have echoed through the decades, issues like affordability, gun control, campus sexual assault, and increases to student support and wraparound services are growing more critical for the success of today’s students.

Students are active stakeholders and change agents in achieving an equi- table and student-focused system. Though students are more transient in comparison to other institutional constituencies, historical and contempo- rary examples of student activism reflect students’ transformative insights on how institutions can better serve today’s students and their communities. Shared governance models and legislative development that takes student input seriously will do well in ensuring higher education practices and poli- cies that improve student outcomes. The history of student activism is full of clear examples of the ways students have used their voices and organized to bring about changes in policy, practice, and politics. Current higher educa- tion leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders can learn from these examples as they engage in creating campuses that serve students and communities well.

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 29

references

American Association of State Colleges and Universities [AASCU]. (2018). Top 10 higher education state policy issues for 2018. Retrieved from http://www.aascu. org/policy/publications/policy-matters/Top10Issues2018.pdf

American Council on Education. (2014). New requirements imposed by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Retrieved from www.acenet.edu/news- room/Documents/VAWA-Summary.pdf

Aiello, T. (2012). Violence is a classroom: The 1972 Grambling and Southern riots and the trajectory of Black student protest. Louisiana History: The Journal of Louisiana Historical Association, 53(2), 261–291.

Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Berdahl, R. O. (Eds.). (2011). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Anderson, N. (2016, November 2). UNC president on the “bathroom law” and higher ed reform. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/11/02/unc-president-on-the-bathroom-law- and-higher-ed-reform/?utm_term=.834d39ca07d2

Azore, K. (2018, March 31). 50 years later: The demonstration that changed Howard and the legacy it left. The Hilltop: The Student Voice of Howard University. Retrieved from www.thehilltoponline.com/2018/03/31/50-years-later-the- demonstration-that-changed-howard-and-the-legacy-it-left/

Beemyn, B. (2003). The silence is broken: A history of the first lesbian, gay, and bi- sexual college student groups. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 205–223.

Biondi, M. (2012). The Black revolution on campus. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boren, M. E. (2001). Student resistance: A history of the unruly subject. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bradley, S. M. (2009). Harlem vs. Columbia University: Black student power in the late 1960s. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Brown, L. B. (1998). The long walk: The story of the presidency of Willa B. Player at Bennett College. Greensboro, NC: Bennett College.

Brown, M., & Ricard, R. (2008). Ebony towers in higher education: The evolution, mission, and presidency of historically black colleges and universities. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Campus SaVE Act. (2014). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from www.cam- pussaveact.com/faq/

Carson, C. (1995). In struggle: SNCC and the Black awakening of the 1960s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chafe, W. H. (1980). Civilities and civil rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black struggle for freedom. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chokshi, N. (2018, March 12). What college students really think about free speech. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/ us/college-students-free-speech.html

30 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

Chong, D. (2006). Free speech and multiculturalism in and out of the academy. Political Psychology, 27(1), 29–54.

Cole, II, E. R. (2009). African American women at historically Black colleges during the Civil Rights Movement. Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel Association, 42, 20–28.

Cole, II, E. R. (2013). Speaking of race: College presidents’ speeches and student unrest in North Carolina, 1960–1964 (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (UMI: 15155960)

Cole, II, E. R. (2018). College presidents and black student protests: A historical per- spective on the image of racial inclusion and the reality of exclusion. Peabody Journal of Education. 93(1), 78–89.

Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451.

Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act of 2013, S. 128, 113th Cong. (2013). Contreras, F. E. (2005). The reconstruction of merit post-Proposition 209. Educa-

tional Policy, 19(2), 371–395. DeAngelo, L., Schuster, M. T., & Stebleton, M. J. (2016). California DREAMers: Ac-

tivism, identity, and empowerment among undocumented college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 216–230.

Dick, K., & Ziering, A. (2016). The hunting ground: The inside story of sexual assault on American college campuses. New York, NY: Hot Books.

Dugan, J. P., Kusel, M. L., & Simounet, D. M. (2012). Transgender college students: An exploratory study of perceptions, engagement, and educational outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 53(5), 719–736.

Eisenmann, L. (2006). Higher education for women in postwar America, 1945–1965. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE]. (2018a). Speech code reports. Retrieved from https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/reports/

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE] (2018b). What are speech codes? Retrieved from https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/what-are-speech- codes/

Flowers, D. B. (2005). The launching of the student sit-in movement: The role of Black women at Bennett College. Journal of African American History, 90, 52–63.

Francis, P., & Longhurst, M. (2014, July 23). How LGBT students are changing Chris- tian colleges. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/educa- tion/archive/2014/07/gordon-college-the-new-frontier-of-gay-rights/374861/

Franklin, V. P. (2003a). Introduction: African American student activism in the 20th century. The Journal of African American History, 88(2), 105–109.

Franklin, V. P. (2003b). Patterns of student activism at Historically Black Universi- ties in the United States and South Africa, 1960–1977. The Journal of African American History, 88(2), 204–217.

Friedman, L. (1994). Crime and punishment in American history. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gibbs, W. T. (1966). The history of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brook Book Company.

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 31

Gonzales, R. G., Terriquez, V., & Ruszczyk, S. P. (2014). Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the short-term benefits of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). American Behavioral Scientist, 58(14), 1852–1872.

Griffin, K. A., Cunningham, E. L., Mwangi, G., & Chrystal, A. (2016). Defining diversity: Ethnic differences in Black students’ perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(1), 34–49.

Grigoriadis, V. (2014, September 21). Meet the college women who are starting a revolution against campus sexual assault. The Cut. Retrieved from https://www. thecut.com/2014/09/emma-sulkowicz-campus-sexual-assault-activism.html

Gurman, S. (2017, September 26). Sessions says free speech “under attack” on college campuses. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/ d72c5252daf94f51867e2c8a0ea7e0a4

Harper, S. R., & Gasman, M. (2008). Consequences of conservatism: Black male undergraduates and the politics of historically Black colleges and universities. The Journal of Negro Education, 77(4), 336–351.

Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 389–414.

Herstory. (2018). Retrieved from https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/herstory/ Holsaert, F. S., Noonan, M. P. N., Richardson, J., Robinson, B. G., Young, J. S., &

Zellner, D. M. (Eds.). (2010). Hands on the freedom plow: Personal accounts by women in SNCC. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Hope, E. C., Keels, M., & Durkee, M. I. (2016). Participation in Black Lives Matter and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: Modern activism among Black and Latino college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 203–215.

Hurtado, S., Alvarado, A. R., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Thinking about race: The salience of racial identity at two-and four-year colleges and the climate for diversity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(1), 127–155.

Hurtado, S. S. (2018). Addressing sexual violence on campus: Exploring the role and responsibility of faculty members (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Disserta- tions and Theses Global. (UMI: 10824680).

Johnston, A. (2014). American student protest timeline, 2014–15. Retrieved from https://studentactivism.net/2014/12/04/american-student-protest-time- line-2014–15/.

Jones, V. A., & Reddick, R. J. (2017). The heterogeneity of resistance: How Black students utilize engagement and activism to challenge PWI inequalities. The Journal of Negro Education, 86(3), 204–219.

Joseph, P. E. (2003). Black Studies, student activism, and the Black Power Movement. The Journal of African American History 88(2), 182–203.

Joseph, P. E. (2006). Introduction: Toward a historiography of the Black Power Movement. In P. E. Joseph (Ed.), The Black Power movement: Rethinking the Civil Rights-Black Power (pp.1–26). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaplin, W., & Lee, B. (2013). The law of higher education: Vol. 2 (5th). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kerr, C. (1991). The great transformation in higher education, 1960–1980. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

32 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

Knight Foundation. (2018, March 11). Eight ways college student views on free speech are evolving. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/informed- and-engaged/8-ways-college-student-views-on-free-speech-are-evolving- 963334babe40

Leadership Conference Educational Fund, The. (2018, April 26). Forty-eight groups introduce civil rights principles for Higher Education Act reauthorization. Retrieved from https://civilrights.org/48-groups-introduce-civil-rights- principles-higher-education-act-reauthorization/

Leath, S., & Chavous, T. (2017). “We really protested”: The influence of sociopolitical beliefs, political self-efficacy, and campus racial climate on civic engagement among Black college students attending predominantly white institutions. The Journal of Negro Education, 86(3), 220–237.

Lefever, H. (2005). Undaunted by the Fight: Spelman College and the Civil Rights Movement 1957–1967. Mercer, GA: Mercer University Press.

Logan, G., Lightfoot, B. A., & Contreras, A. (2017). Black and Brown millennial activism on a PWI campus in the era of Trump. The Journal of Negro Educa- tion, 86(3), 252–268.

Lowen, M. (2010). I knew I wasn’t White, but in America what was I? In F. S. Holsaert, M. P. N. Noonan, J. Richardson, B. G. Robinson, J. S. Young, & D. M. Zellner (Eds.), Hands on the freedom plow: Personal accounts by women in SNCC (pp. 540–551). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Majeed, A. (2009). Defying the Constitution: The rise, persistence, and prevalence of campus speech codes. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 7, 481.

Mangan, K. (2018, June 26). How a student used Title IX to force her college to change its response to cases of sexual assault. The Chronicle of Higher Educa- tion. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-Student-Used- Title-IX-to/243763

Marable, M. (2000). Dispatches from the ebony tower: Intellectuals confront the African American experience. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Martinez, E. S. (2010). Neither Black nor White in a Black-White world. In F. S. Holsaert, M. P. N. Noonan, J. Richardson, B. G. Robinson, J. S. Young, & D. M. Zellner (Eds.), Hands on the freedom plow: Personal accounts by women in SNCC (pp. 531–539). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Matsuda, M., Lawrence, III, C. R., Delgado, R., and Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words that wound: Critical Race Theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment. New York, NY: Routledge.

McDowell, S. F., Lowe, G. A., & Dockette, D. A. (1970). Howard University’s student protest movement. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(3), 383–388.

Munson, Z. (2010). Mobilizing on campus: Conservative movements and today’s college students. Sociological Forum, 25(4), 769–786.

Moore, K. M. (1997). Freedom and constraint in eighteenth-century Harvard. In L. F. Goodchild & H. Wescler (Eds.), The history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 108–114). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster.

National Immigration Law Center. (2018). Status of current DACA litigation. Re- trieved from https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/status-current-daca-litigation/

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 33

New, J. (2015, March 17). Keeping a ban, offering support. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/03/17/gordon-college- maintains-ban-homosexual-practice-creates-human-sexuality-task-force

Oliverez, P. M., Chavez, M. L., Soriano, M., & Tierney, W. G. (2006). The college and financial aid guide for: AB540 undocumented immigrant students. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California. Retrieved from https://pullias.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2006_ Oliv%C3%A9rez_et._al._The_College__Financial_Aid_Guide_for.pdf

The White House, United States Government. (2016). The Administration’s record on violence against women. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives. gov/1is2many/about/federal-efforts

Pearson, M. (2005). A timeline of the University of Missouri protests. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-protest-timeline/index. html

Perrillo, J. (2012). Uncivil rights: Teachers, unions, and race in the battle for school equity. Chicago, IL: The University Press of Chicago.

Peters, J. W. (2018, June 14). In the name of free speech, states crack down on campus protests. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html

Petition for UCLA to become a sanctuary campus. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:// actionnetwork.org/petitions/ucla-to-become-a-sanctuary-campus

Pollet, S. (2002). Is in loco parentis at the college level a dead doctrine. New York Law Journal, 228, 4.

Preston, J. (2017, January 26). Campuses wary of offering ‘sanctuary’ to undocu- mented students. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2017/01/26/education/edlife/sanctuary-for-undocumented-students. html

Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 311–330.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.

Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Freedom’s web: Student activism in an age of cultural diversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rogers, I. H. (2012a). The Black campus movement and the institutionalization of Black Studies, 1965–1970. Journal of African American Studies, 16(1), 21–40.

Rogers, I. H. (2012b). The Black campus movement: Black students and the racial re- constitution of higher education, 1965–1972. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rojas, F. (2010). From Black Power to Black Studies: How a radical social movement became an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2011). “To serve a larger purpose”: Engagement for de- mocracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Sandhya, S. (2015, November 17). How Black Lives Matter, born on the streets, is rising to power on campus. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https:// www.washingtonpost.com/national/how-black-lives-matter-born-on-the-

34 The Review of higheR educaTion Special iSSue 2019

streets-is-rising-to-power-on-campus/2015/11/17/3c113e96–8959–11e5- be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html?utm_term=.b82b4c90948c

Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 41–77.

Saul, S., & Taylor, K. (2017, September 22). Betsy DeVos reverses Obama-era policy on campus sexual assault investigations. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/devos-colleges-sex-assault.html

Seale, B. (1991). Seize the time: The story of the black panther party and Huey P. Newton. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic Press.

Shaw, M. D. (2012). The influence of campus protest on student conduct policies: The case of Indiana University Bloomington. Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel Association, 2012 edition, 14–26.

Shellnut, K. (2017, April 12). Gordon College’s entire faculty senate resigns. Chris- tianity Today. Retrieved from https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/ april/gordon-college-faculty-senate-resigns.html

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggres- sions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73.

Somashekhar, S. (2015, November 17). How Black Lives Matter, born on the streets, is rising to power on campus. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https:// www.washingtonpost.com/national/how-black-lives-matter-born-on-the- streets-is-rising-to-power-on-campus/2015/11/17/3c113e96–8959–11e5- be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html?utm_term=.898e181d9553

Springer, K. (2006). Black feminists respond to Black Power masculinism. In P. E. Joseph (Ed.), The Black Power movement: Rethinking the Civil Rights-Black Power (pp. 105–118). New York, NY: Routledge.

Steinmetz, K. (2017, October 12). The fight over free speech on campus isn’t just about free speech. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4979235/the-campus- culture-wars/

Sunne, S. (2010, April 29). Students centered for cotton ball incident. The Maneater. Retrieved from https://www.themaneater.com/stories/campus/students- sentenced-cotton-ball-incident

Swank, E., Woodford, M. R., & Lim, C. (2013). Antecedents of pro-LGBT advocacy among sexual minority and heterosexual college students. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10(4), 317–332.

Sweeton, N., & Davis, J. (2004). The evolution of in loco parentis. Journal of Student Affairs, 13, 67–72.

Teranishi, R. T., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2015). In the shadows of the ivory tower: Undocumented undergraduates and the liminal state of immi- gration reform. The UndocuScholars Project, The Institute for Immigration, Globalization, & Education, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/83640

Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

The United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Wheatle and Commodore / Reaching Back to Move Forward 35

United States Department of Education [ED]. (2017, September 22). Department of Education issues new interim guidance on campus sexual misconduct. Re- trieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education- issues-new-interim-guidance-campus-sexual-misconduct

United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights [OCR]. (2011a). Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual violence. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights [OCR]. (2011b). Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual violence background, summary, and fast facts. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl- factsheet-201104.pdf

Varela, M. (2010). Time to get ready. In F. S. Holsaert, M. P. N. Noonan, J. Richardson, B. G. Robinson, J. S. Young, & D. M. Zellner (Eds.), Hands on the freedom plow: Personal accounts by women in SNCC (pp. 552–571). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

White-Johnson, R. L. (2012). Prosocial involvement among African American young adults. Journal of Black Psychology, 38(3), 313–341.

Williams, R. Y. (2006). Black women, urban politics, and engendering Black Power. In P. E. Joseph (Ed.), The Black Power movement: Rethinking the Civil Rights- Black Power (pp. 79–104). New York, NY: Routledge.

Williamson, J. A. (1999). In defense of themselves: The Black student struggle for success and recognition at predominantly White colleges and universities. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 92–105.

Williamson, J. A. (2008). Radicalizing the ebony tower: Black colleges and the Black freedom struggle in Mississippi. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Williamson, J. A. (2012). Black power on campus: The University of Illinois, 1965–75. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Wynkoop, M. A. (2002). Dissent in the heartland: The sixties at Indiana University. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Wynter, K. (2017, September 5). Thousands march in downtown Los Angeles after Trump ends DACA program. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://ktla. com/2017/09/05/thousands-march-in-downtown-los-angeles-after-trump- ends-daca-program/

Yamane, D. (2001). Student movements for multiculturalism: Challenging the curricular color line in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zamani, E. M. (2003). African American women in higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 2003(104), 5–18.