History of Higher Education Final Question 1 Logan Franklin

Segmentation The federal government has played a very important role in the realm of higher education since pretty much the inception of the country. Through legislation and court decisions, the government has contributed to institutional segmentation. Segmentation is a way of organizing universities by type and mission. The first piece of legislation noted to have an impact on higher education was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The purpose of the Northwest Ordinance was to establish a system to allow the federal government to be sovereign and expand westward across North America by admitting new states, instead of expanding existing states as was allowed for under the Articles of Confederation (Sato, 1886). There were a few important aspects of the Northwest Ordinance. First, the Ordinance predates the United State Constitution by two years and contains many principles that shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (Academic American, 2011). Second, it established the Northwest Territory and the framework for a territory to become a state. Third, it was the first law passed on national education in the entire world (Academic American, 2011). Parts of the Northwest Ordinance allowed for township lands to be set aside for schools, and land grants were made to seventeen states through this ordinance (Thelin, 2011). This ordinance led states to follow suit and many state governments followed similar practices in appropriating land with the condition that it be used to establish and institution of higher education. The next major contribution made by the federal government was the Supreme Court case, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in 1818. In this case, the state of New Hampshire tried to take control of Dartmouths private charter from its board and founding family (Thelin, 2011). This was at a time when all charters existing before the establishment of the United State of America had to be reviewed by the states. Because of political differences between the state

legislature and the board of Dartmouth, New Hampshire wanted to revoke the private charter and make it a state institution (Thelin, 2011). In the decision, handed down in 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth College, stating that the Dartmouths charter qualified as a contract between private parties, which could not be interfered with by the state (Oyez Project, 2011). It would be an overstatement to say that this decision was landmark in providing for rights for private colleges, because at that time in the United States, there was no distinction between public and private institutions (Thelin, 2011). What the decision did do, however, is make any decisions that the state makes in regards to universitypublic or privatemust be made in accordance with the rules of the charter (Thelin, 2011). This helps with the segmentation of institutions by allowing an institution do establish mission through its charter, without fear of over-meddling by the state. The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 helped to establish the land-grant college through the appropriation of land to state governments for the establishment of collegiate programs in fields such as agriculture, mechanics, mining, and military instruction (Thelin, 2011). This act saw the creation of many A&M colleges (such as Texas A&M) or State schools (such as Michigan State University or Oregon State University) in addition to the universities already in place in many states (Thelin, 2011). This also provided the framework for institutions to have a utilitarian mission of training citizens to participate in the countrys economic and commercial life (Harper & Jackson, 2011). Because of the latitude given to state governments in the Act, some states used the land and funds to graft programs onto existing institutions and some used the encouragement to offer liberal arts to create liberal arts colleges (Thelin, 2011). The Morrill Act of 1890 renewed support for established land-grant institutions and helped in the establishment of additional land-grant institutions (Thelin, 2011). This act required

states to eliminate race as a criterion for admission, or designate a separate land-grant institution for people of color (Cornell University Law School, 2013). Because of this stipulation, the country saw the creation of most of todays Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The 1890 act also allowed for land grant institutions to establish research programs, which saw the expansion of many land-grant colleges into the large research institutions that they are today (Thelin, 2011). The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 upheld the separation of white and black students in higher education. This decision extended de jure segregation (segregation by law) and indirectly ensured that HBCU land-grants would be less funded than their white land-grant counterparts, making it difficult to conduct advanced research (Thelin, 2011). Later, however, through the separate but equal clause of the decision, the NAACP was able to challenge states and ensure the equal part and get more resources for HBCUs (Linder, 2013). The Truman Commission in 1947 drafted a list of recommendations to improve the quality of higher education in the United States, with the specific focus of increasing education opportunities for all young people (Thelin, 2011). One of the findings of the Truman commission was that 49 percent of the population had the ability to complete a minimum of two years of higher education (Gilbert & Heller, 2010, p. 1). The principle area where the Commission expected expansion to occur in the availability of education was in the two-year college system. Community colleges were an appealing method of student expansion because they could be constructed quickly and were viewed as being more cost-effective (Gilbert & Heller, 2010). In 1992, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities worked to convince Congress to formally recognize Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and appropriate federal

funds to those institutions. This was issued as an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. The established criteria for a HSI include: at least 25% Hispanic full-time undergraduate enrollment, high enrollment of needy students, offer at least two-year academic programs that lead to a degree, and not be a for-profit institution (USDE, 2011). Through the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 1994, tribal colleges became authorized as land-grant colleges (Webster, 2003). This established tribal colleges as a distinct segment of higher education and allowed them to receive more federal funds. Most tribal colleges offer two-year degrees, although some are four-year institutions, and two have masters programs (Webster, 2003). Student Diversity In addition to providing for institutional segmentation, the federal government has taken actions that have, either directly or indirectly, influenced student diversity and access to higher education. One great example is the Morrill Land Grant of 1862. As mentioned earlier, this act appropriated Western land for the purpose of creating institutions with a commitment to subjects like agriculture, mechanics, mining, and military instruction (Thelin, 2011). This act also had the effect of increasing access to higher education. As stated in the documentary, A Degree of Democracy How the Morrill Act Changed Higher Education in America, The land grand system released higher education from the grip of a privileged few, and opened it up to anyone with the talent and motivation to succeed (Vasos, 2012, 2:43). Before the act, students in higher education were white males mostly with the intention of becoming a doctor, lawyer, or minister. With the passage of the Morrill Act, females could now attend college and education was more practical and accessible to the industrial masses (Vasos, 2012). This was one of the first times that the country really saw a change in the demographic of students in higher education.

The follow-up to the 1862 act, the Morrill Act of 1890, extended more resources to land grant institutions and helped establish the HBCUs (Thelin, 2011). This was a great example of the gains and limitations of higher education at the time. While the act did allow many AfricanAmerican students the opportunity to attend college for the first time, it was done through the implementation of racial segregation (Thelin, 2011). As mentioned earlier the act required states to no longer include race as a criterion for admission or create a separate institution (Cornell University Law School, 2013). This was an attempt to reach out to former slaves and give them an opportunity at an education (Thelin, 2011). It may have been the result of racist policies in the states, but the creation of black land grant colleges did help increase access to education for a significant amount of the population. In 1944, as an attempt to adjust to soldiers coming home after World War II, Congress enacted the GI Bill, which would pay for soldiers to attend college based on the amount of time served, with a maximum of four years (Thelin, 2011). The big effect being that now millions of people had the opportunity to attend college absolutely cost-free. Not only did this appeal to potential students, but because the government was paying more for tuition than any institution was charging at the time, universities were actively recruiting soldiers to enroll (Thelin, 2011). The result of this is that universities were actually reaching out to students that they never would have even considered before. Because soldiers came from all walks of life, this meant that the dream of education was real to a larger audience yet another time. One important distinction, however, was that although black soldiers were just as eligible for GI Bill benefits, it did not prohibit colleges from continuing discriminatory practices, meaning black soldiers had to continue to attend HBCUs (Thelin, 2011). The Executive Order 9981 of 1948 was another push that expanded the education of African-Americans, although more indirectly. The Order

prohibited discrimination against African-Americans in the U.S. Military (Truman, 1948). Because of the Department of Veterans Affairs affiliation to the American Legion and VFW, they often denied the claims of black G.I.s, but the executive order put a stop to that, meaning that it indirectly allowed more black soldiers to attend college. In 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against segregation in public schools in a historic ruling that ended de jure segregation by declaring it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision increased access to education by African-Americans by making them eligible to attend all institutions (Harper & Jackson, 2011). The National Defense Education Act of 1958 was passed as an answer to the fear that American scientists were behind scientist in the Soviet Union, as evidenced by the Soviets launch of the Sputnik satellite (Thelin, 2011). This act established the National Defense Student Loan (NDSL) which was a loan to promising students with financial need who reveled in the areas of mathematics, engineering, or foreign languages (Flattau, Bracken, Van Atta, BandehAhmadi, de la Cruz, & Sullivan, 2006). This spurred the creation of federal and universityfunded college loan programs that persist to this day (Flattau, et al., 2006). These loan programs continue to give access to higher education to those without financial means. Later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and nationality. In Title VI of the Act, it restricted funding to institutions that practiced discrimination on these grounds (Thelin, 2011). This was a piece of legislation that strengthened the ruling of Brown v Board of Education, by giving the government the power to restrict funding to institutions that were noncompliant. This had the effect of more colleges and universities allowing black students for fear of loss of funding (Thelin, 2011).

The Higher Education Act of 1965 did more to increase access to low-income students across the country. It increased federal money given to universities, created scholarships, and gave low-interest loans to students (Harper & Jackson, 2011). It also created grants for lowincome students and helped to establish the FAFSA program, which allows untold numbers of students to participate in higher education. It should also be noted that this did more to increase the number of African-American college students than most acts before it, because of the common low-income status of African-American families (Thelin, 2011). In 1972, Title IX was added to the Higher Education Act, which dealt with increasing gender equity in higher education. Title IX prohibited discrimination in academic programs on the basis of gender. This applied to funding of athletic teams, which resulted in equal amounts of funding going to athletic programming for womens teams (Thelin, 2011). This is one of the more famous impacts of Title IX and was used to establish a more prominent place for womens athletics. This helped increase access to higher education for women by providing funding for athletics scholarships for women. In 1973, the Rehabilitation Act was passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs related to the federal government (ADA, 2009). Section 501 of the Act required affirmative action and nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, which allowed disabled students to attend institutions without fear of discrimination (ADA, 2009). The federal government has taken many steps that have resulted in both the institutional segmentation and student access to higher education. This paper has outlined the major instances in the history of this country that prove that point. A discussion of any phenomenon within higher education is not complete without a look at the ACPA/NASPA Competencies.

ACPA and NASPA developed ten professional competency areas in which skilled student affairs professional should be proficient. In the discussion of this topic, two competencies separate themselves from the pack: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; and History, Philosophy, and Values (Weiner, Bresciani, Hickmott, & Felix, 2010). Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion is a competency area that includes knowledge of diverse populations and how to best serve them in the college environment. There are two basic tenets of this competency area that very directly relate to discussion on this topic. First is: being able to articulate a foundational understanding of social justice and the role of higher education, the institution, the department, the unit, and the individual in furthering its goals (Weiner et al., 2010, p. 12). In considering this topic we have look at how the federal government has changed higher education in a way that better facilitates social justice. Another tenet is: being able to demonstrate fair treatment to all individuals and change aspects of the environment that do not promote fair treatment (Weiner et al., 2010, p. 12). Much of the actions taken by the federal government were done to change aspects of the environment in that do not promote fair treatment. As student affairs professionals, we should advocate for any other change made or considered by the federal government to further change the environment in a positive direction. The History, Philosophy, and Values competency is obvious in the consideration of this topic. As student affair professionals, being aware of these landmark incidences by the federal government is vital to understand the history of the profession. This competency area mentions knowing the history of inclusion and exclusion of various groups of people (Weiner et al., 2010). It also mentions being able to identify the historical contexts of institutional types, within higher education and student affairs (Weiner et al., 2010). These are two tenets that are strengthened by

an awareness of the federal governments role in institutional segmentation and increasing student access.

References Academic American (2011) The Northwest Ordinance, Retrieved from http://www.academicamerican.com/revolution/topics/northwestord.htm ADA. United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2009). A guide to disability rights laws. Retrieved from website: http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm Cornell University Law School. (2013). Racial discrimination by colleges restricted. Legal Information Institute, Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/323 Flattau, P. E., Bracken, J., Van Atta, R., Bandeh-Amadi, A., de la Cruz, R., & Sullivan, K. (2006). The National Defense Education Act of 1958: Selected outcomes. Science and Technology Policy Institute, Retrieved from https://www.ida.org/upload/stpi/pdfs/ida-d3306.pdf Gilbert, C., & Heller, D. (2010, November). The truman commission and its impact on federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2010. Association for the study of higher education, Indianapolis. Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/cshe/working-papers/CSHE Working Paper #9 Harper, S. R., & Jackson, J. F. L. (2011). Introduction to american higher education. (1 ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: Routledge. Linder, D. (2012). Separate but equal? The road to Brown. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm Oyez Project. (2011). Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law, Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/17921850/1818/1818_0/

Sato, S. (1886). History of the land question in the United States. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=PY0VAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage&hl=en Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Truman, H. S. (1948). Executive Order 9981. Retrieved from website: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/9981.htm United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2011). Definition of hispanic-serving institutions. Retrieved from website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/definition.html Vasos, J. (Director) (2012). A degree of democracy - How the Morrill Act changed higher education [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.colostate.edu/morrillact/ Webster, L. (2003). Tribal colleges and universities: Guided by tribal values, advancing academic study. Diversity Digest, 7(1 & 2), 3-5. Retrieved from http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/vol7no1-2/webster.cfm Weiner, L., Bresciani, M. J., Hickmott, J., & Felix, E. (under review). A document analysis of professional standards expected for student affairs practitioners. Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs.

History of Higher Education Final Question 2 Logan Franklin

The field of higher education is constantly evolving with the times in order to meet new demands and populations. As issues arise, actions are taken to try to resolve them. Whether the actions be at the departmental, institutional, state, or federal level, attempts are made to handle tough issues. There are some issues currently being played out that have some historical origins, and it will be interesting to see how the field attempts to deal with them. For the purposes of this paper, three issues will be highlighted: campus violence and safety, undocumented immigrants in higher education, and graduate student rights. These issues were chosen because of their pertinence to higher education today. The issues will be explained, historical patterns will be explained, and recommendations for future action will be made. Campus Violence and Safety August 1, 1966, University of Texas, November 1, 1991, University of Iowa, April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech University, February 14, 2008, Northern Illinois Universityweve all heard of these infamous campus shootings, not to mention the shootings at high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. As the shootings seem to become more frequent, more intense, and receive wider coverage, how is a university to reduce the risk? The incidents have brought increased scrutiny to campus security (Harwood, 2007). The issue of school shootings seems to be a relatively new one in the social consciousness, but gun violence on college campuses has been around since 1892. There are a number of strategies that universities have in dealing with the threat of campus violence. For example, Missouri State University has an Emergency Response Plan, with a section that addresses hostile intruder situations. This plan outlines recommended actions to be taken when a hostile person is causing death or serious injury on Missouri State grounds. For example, it is recommended to if possible leave the area of danger and summon help or play dead if others have already been injured or killed near you (Safety and

Transportation, 2010). Missouri State also issues safety and crime alerts on the university website and will notify all students, faculty, and staff via e-mail or text message when emergency situations arise (Safety and Transportation, 2010). Some state lobbyists and legislators have been attempting a new strategy of dealing with the threat of campus shootings. They have been calling for a repeal of university bans of firearms (Olson, 2012). Advocates posit that the Second Amendment protects every citizens right to bear arms, whether or not that person is on a college campus. University administrators, and campus safety officers fear that allowing concealed weapons on campus will cause more violence, not negate it (Olson, 2012). While advocates claim that the presence of concealed weapons on a campus will mitigate a campus shooter situation, campus police officers say that their problems would increase exponentially. One police chief said, My worry is that if our SWAT team enters a building where there is an active shooter, and the good guys have guns as well, we might inadvertently shoot and innocent person (Olson, 2012, par. 9). While campuses wrestle with their lawmakers on such an important subject, it is important to consider other possible solutions to decreasing these situations. One area that has received some increased attention lately is in the area of mental-health services in an attempt to prevent such dire situations, as opposed to merely reacting to them. Earlier this year, Congress passed $2.75-million of federal funds for a new National Center for Campus Public Safety, which will assist colleges with research, training, and best practices (Roy, 2013). While strides have been made in mental health services, many argue it is not far enough. Lucinda Roy, a professor of English at Virginia Tech, claims that [our] societyallows disturbed young people to have easier access to weapons than they do long-term mental-health treatment (2013, par. 10). She claims it is important to provide faculty with adequate training in

order to better identify at-risk students, without discriminating against students with mental health issues that are not threats (Roy, 2013). When considering the direction to take on this issue, it is important to consider the Ethical Professional Practice competency area (Weiner, Bresciani, Hickmott, & Felix, 2010). This competency states that: one should be able to recognize the legal influences of different functional areas and professions within student affairs (e.g., medical professionals, [and] counselors) (Weiner, et al., 2010, p. 14). As the public debate on how this issue will be resolved rages on, it is important to be aware of any existing policies and policy changes so that one understands the constraints and freedoms that one has in helping to best handle this issue on their own campus. Two perspectives have been presented as a possible solution to this problem: (1) repealing gun bans on university campuses, and (2) increased attention to mental health services. It is the opinion of this researcher that the most effective solution would be to increase attention on mental health services. Providing adequate training to faculty and staff to recognize potential at-risk students, and making sure that adequate care is provided for these students, has the potential to prevent these atrocities. Repealing gun bans on campuses is a fear response that at best can react to situations, and will likely make hostile situations much worse. Undocumented Immigrants and Higher Education There is a new generation of potential college students in this country known as dreamers after the DREAM Act, which is a legislative proposal that was introduced in 2001 (Love, 2012). Dreamers are undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and wish to attend college without the risk of deportation. Students brought illegally to the U.S face significant barriers to college education. Even when they do get degrees, because they have no authorization to work, these students end up with same low-wage jobs as their

parents (Love, 2012). President Obama decided last year to change the way immigration law is enforced which incorporated a small amount of the requests of the DREAM Act. Under Obamas new policy, those younger than 30 who came to the U.S before the age of 16, and pose no criminal threat can get a deferral of two years from deportation, if they are successful students or serve in the military (Cohen, 2012). The policy would also allow people the opportunity to apply for work permits. In order to be eligible, participants must also prove that they have lived in the United States for five years consecutively (Cohen, 2012). It is estimated that more than 800,000 young immigrants stand to benefit from this decision (Love, 2012). The DREAM Act or the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act was first proposed in August of 2001 and provides an outline for granting conditional permanent residency to certain undocumented immigrants. The updated version of the DREAM Act would grant qualifying participants a conditional status lasting six years to meeting the following criteria: (1) proof of arriving in the U.S. before age 16, (2) proof of residence in U.S. for five years, (3) if male, registered with Selective Service, (4) be between 12 and 35 at time of enactment, (5) graduated from an American high school, and (6) be of good moral character (Durbin, 2009). During this six year period they must graduate from a two-year college, be two years into a four-year degree, or serve two years in the U.S. military. If one of these conditions is met they are eligible for permanent resident status which would eventually allow them to become citizens (Durbin, 2009). During the six year period they would not qualify for grants such as the Pell grant, but would be eligible for student loans and work study (Durbin, 2009). It is clear that while President Obamas policy is a step towards the DREAM Act, but still falls short of all what is being asked for.

The issue at the heart of this debate is the risk of losing talented individuals who have grown up in this country to deportation. Proponents of the DREAM Act state that these children are essentially Americans and have received the preliminary stages of a quality American education. They believe that it should be continued so that these students from a multitude of diverse backgrounds should be given the opportunity to succeed in college and in the workplace and contribute to our American society. Opponents of the act say that it would incentivize illegal immigration and would contribute to unemployment, because it would take jobs away from American citizens (Cohen, 2012). Some states have already passed laws that would allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at their public institutions, most recently Colorado (DeSantis, 2013). This is a big step in the direction of helping undocumented students have access to higher education. When considering sides of this debate it is important to consider the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion competency area, which focuses on creating learning environments that are enriched with diverse views and people (Weiner, et al., 2010). One tenet is especially relevant to this discussion: one should be able to identify systemic barriers to equality and inclusiveness, and then advocate for and implement means of dismantling them (Weiner, et al., 2010, p. 12). When considering this perspective and what it means to be a good student affairs professional, it becomes clear that we should be supporting programs like the DREAM Act and instituting policies in our own institutions to make them more accessible to the plethora of diverse students that is the undocumented immigrant population. Graduate Student Rights Recent years have seen an upsurge in the amount of graduate students demanding a certain amount of rights within higher education institutions. One example of the is the Graduate

Student Bill of Rights and Responsibilities at UC-Davis which outlines rights that advocates believe should be afforded to all graduate students (duVair & Morris, 1990). Many of the rights listed are in accordance with university policies on privacy and nondiscrimination, but some others that stick out are: (a) right to refuse tasks that are not related to academic and professional development, (b) right to specific and concrete requirements for attaining an advance degree, and (c) right to be respected as a person of merit and junior colleague (duVair & Morris, 1990). The topic that has been most focused on recently is collective bargaining rights of graduate student employees. Various state laws differ on which subgroups of academic student employees may collectively bargain. At the heart of the debate is whether graduate student employees are to be considered employees or students (Patton, 2012). The current view of many employers and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is that work completed by graduate student employees so entwined in their professional education that it would harm the academic process to allow collective bargaining (Cavell, 2000). Administrators are afraid that graduate student unions will negatively affect the relationship between graduate students and universities, which could cause strikes and interruptions in education. They also fear that increasing pay for graduate students could lead to a need to raise student tuition (Cavell, 2000). Surprisingly, despite faculties strong efforts to unionize in the 1970s, many faculty members are against the unionization of graduate students. They fear the usurpation of faculty responsibilities and increased rivalry, as well as a loss of comradeship (Cavell, 2000). However, proponents of unionization argue that graduate employees work is primarily an economic relationship and point to the trend of using Teaching Assistants in place of full time, tenured faculty (Patton, 2012). The role of graduate assistants is increasingly resembling the roles of entry-level employees or faculty, without matching compensation levels (Cavell,

2000). It should be noted that for tax purposes, graduate student compensation is taxed as wages and not scholarship earnings. They also argue that because graduate students are increasingly used as instructors, it is tightening the already ultra-competitive job market (Cavell, 2000). Unionization proponents assert that, until we can reverse the chronic disinvestment in higher education and restore tenured positions as the norm, it is likely that universities will increase their exploitation of cheap labor as student enrollments expand(Cavell, 2000, par. 5). This impacts student affairs professionals, because they may bear witness to tempestuous times in higher education as graduate students continue to seek recognition for their work at institutions. It is also important to us starting work in the field at a time that is seeing a spike in the number of GA positions as opposed to lower level student affairs positions. This could potentially have the impact of making it harder for us to find jobs upon graduation. When considering the future of this topic, it is important to consider the competency area, human and organizational resources. One tenet of this competency that comes to mind is: be[ing] able to identify the pros and cons of various staffing patterns, supporting job descriptions and work process configurations related to ones work setting (Weiner, et al., 2010, p. 19). This includes evaluating your pattern to see if it is more beneficial to have a full-time staff member or a graduate student handling certain responsibilities. It may be more cost-effective to have GAs doing a bulk of the work, but is it more ethical? We must look beyond the budget numbers and look at the people who work with us and for us. It is the opinion of this researcher that until more funding becomes available to hire full-time faculty and staff that the utilization of more graduate assistants is just taking advantage of cheap labor where one can get it. The three issues discussed in this papercampus violence and safety, undocumented immigrants and higher education, and graduate student rightsare important issues facing the

field of higher education today. We will continue to see attempts to fix these problems over the years as we are starting our career in student affairs. It is important to keep our eyes on the ACPA/NASPA competencies so that we approach these issues as well-informed and ethical student affairs professionals.

References Cavell, L. J. (2000). Graduate student unionization in higher education. ERIC Digest, Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/graduate.htm Cohen, T. (2012, June 16). Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 DeSantis, N. (2013, March 08). Colorado lawmakers approve in-state tuition for immigrant students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/jp/colorado-lawmakers-approve-in-state-tuition-forimmigrant-students Durbin, R. J. 111th United States Congress, House of the Senate. (2009). Senate bill 729 (DREAM Act). Retrieved from website: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/s729_is.xml duVair, P., & Morris, S. (1990, November 07). The graduate student bill of rights and responsibilities. Retrieved from http://gsa.ucdavis.edu/Graduate_Student_Bill_of_Rights Harwood, M. (2007, August). Preventing the next campus shooting. Security Management, Retrieved from http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/preventing-next-campusshooting-00580?page=0,1 Love, J. (2012, July 02). Undocumented 'dreamers' in college welcome immigration shift. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Undocumented-Dreamers/132711/ Olson, G. A. (2012, June 13). Campuses under fire. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Campuses-Under-Fire/132223/

Patton, S. (2012, June 25). NLRB will revisit issue of graduate students' right to unionize. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/NLRB-WillRevisit-Issue-of/132583/ Roy, L. (2013, April 29). Communication and counseling are keys to a safer campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/CommunicationCounseling/138859/ Safety and Transportation. (2010, October 11). Hostile intruder situations. Retrieved from http://www.missouristate.edu/safetran/40556.htm Weiner, L., Bresciani, M. J., Hickmott, J., & Felix, E. (under review). A document analysis of professional standards expected for student affairs practitioners. Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs