# data[].attributes.body
As a first generation student, my passion for equal access and success in higher education has developed through past and current experiences, both personally and professionally. Because of this I have decided to pursue a Master of Education in Student Development and Leadership in Higher Education. Upon completion of my degree, I hope to be employed as a college adviser at a high school or as an academic adviser, preferably in a student support program, in a university setting.

# data[].attributes.body
For this assignment I have decided to focus on free speech on campus. I selected this topic due to the current political climate and topics which have triggered more controversial discussions. If a student does not feel comfortable sharing their thoughts then it doesn't allow for productive conversations to happen. However students, should also be aware of what and how they express their thoughts. they are saying.

# data[].attributes.body
Free speech on a college campus can be seen as the umbrella term for the many discussion made on those campuses. It can range from students protesting and standing up for what they believe in to a university or an organization on a college campus inviting speaker with controversial views. In an article found in the Journal of Law and Education, author L. Combs discusses the many faces free speech has, such as the ones listed above. Combs goes on to explain the consequences of preventing intense, thought provoking conversations such as having a controversial speaker on campus. However, Combs offers solutions to these issues such as requiring schools for those types of speakers be in a panel discussion with other panelists of different views.

As someone who is looking to be an advisor in a high school or university setting, the most we can do is to ensure our students are engaging in productive conversations as well as ensuring they understand what that means. It is important for educators to be aware of this topic because students “now often come to college having rarely — or never — interacted with someone with a different opinion or lifestyle,” (Tugend, p. 1, 2018). Educators at the high school level must do everything in their power to ensure students know they will interact with other students who have vastly different views.

Free speech is a topic which is directly related to the First Amendment. As students, we all learn the amendments our constitution has, but does that necessarily mean we understand it? While I do believe the students of today understand their amendments, it is important as educators, we ensure they are not using the term “free speech” as a scapegoat to say hurtful and uninformed comments. As mentioned above, as an academic advisor there may not be many instances where will have to mediate these conversations with students. Nonetheless, the advisor plays a role in the growth of the students. A situation that may arise with an advisor and students is the possible uninformed comment which can be made in passing. If said in the presence of the advisor, we are able to create a space where it can be further discussed and hopefully contribute to the knowledge and growth of the student.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education Dive - Schools as Sanctuary Zones

# data[].attributes.subject
Education Dive - Schools as Sanctuary Zones

# data[].attributes.body
In this article posted on Education Dive, the topic of immigration and undocumented students is at the center. Recently, the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, stated it was up to a school's discretion if they wished to released the status of their students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dive Brief:

Asked at a Tuesday Senate hearing if school staff could report undocumented students to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos replied, "I don't think they can," Chalkbeat reports.

DeVos previously commented at a House hearing that it was "a school decision" whether to report undocumented students to ICE, which prompted responses from civil rights groups that the statement stood in opposition to Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 ruling that schools must educate undocumented students .

On Tuesday, however, DeVos mentioned Plyler, though Chalkbeat reported that she also sidestepped several opportunities to reply "yes" or "no" to the undocumented student question. Her spokesperson, Liz Hill, said, "She did not avoid the question and was very clear schools are not, and should not ever become, immigration enforcement zones."

Dive Insight:

The ever-changing, highly charged political landscape has left administrators and educators stymied over what they legally can and cannot do when it comes to undocumented students. Thornier still are the practical and ethical issues swirling around the situation.

The official policy of the U.S. Department of Immigration is that it can't undertake enforcement action in "sensitive areas." These include places of worship, hospitals, funerals, weddings and schools. That said, civil rights activists have called out immigration authorities for making arrests in neighborhoods near schools, thus pushing undocumented students away from classrooms.

When administrators provide information to district families on their rights under federal, state and district policies, it may be worth keeping in mind that legal experts maintain that referring to a school as a "sanctuary" may be taken literally. That could cause families to believe schools can give them greater legal protection than is actually the case.

For instance, in Clark County, Nev., and several other districts, administrators limit ICE school access by processing requests through a district lawyer or the superintendent's office. Yet, as required by law, the school authorities will assist agents if called upon to do so, reports Education Week. ICE is a federal agency with legal authority to enforce immigration law, so there could be situations in which they can gain access to a school after making a strong enough case that it's necessary.

Back in 2004 in Albuquerque, N.M., Border Patrol Agents questioned undocumented students at a school, resulting in a suit from the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and subsequent settlements. Now, Albuquerque officers are prevented from "stopping, questioning, detaining, investigating, or arresting" minors on or in the vicinity of public school grounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DeVos tells Senate schools shouldn't become ICE enforcement zones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asked at a Tuesday Senate hearing if school staff could report undocumented students to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos replied, "I don't think they can," Chalkbeat reports. DeVos previously commented at a House hearing that it was "a school decision" whether to report undocumented students to ICE, which prompted responses from civil rights groups that the statement stood in opposition to Plyler v.

# data[].attributes.body
The rights of transgender people is a topic that is being widely discussed, and for good reason. However, this topic also sparks the conversation of the rights of students who are transgender. This article, posted on EdWeek, highlights a couple cases which are being reviewed by the Supreme Court that are claiming sex-discrimination by local school policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rulings trend against emerging Trump position

Two recent federal court rulings add to the growing body of decisions that find legal protections for transgender students in federal antidiscrimination laws and that run counter to the views emerging from President Donald Trump's administration on the issue.

In late May, a federal appeals court refused to block a Pennsylvania school district's policy of permitting transgender students to use the restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. One unusual aspect of the case involving the Boyertown Area School District is that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled unanimously from the bench, about a half hour after hearing oral arguments on May 24, to reject an injunction sought by a group of students who contend the district's pro-transgender policy harms their privacy.

The court issued a brief written order the same day stating that a formal opinion would follow but that it was embracing the reasoning of the federal district judge in the case, who had rejected the privacy arguments of the students opposing the Boyertown district's transgender-inclusive policy.

Earlier that week, on May 22, a federal district judge in Virginia ruled in favor of a female-born transgender teenager, Gavin Grimm, who challenged his school district's policy of barring him from using the restrooms for males.

"This court joins [other federal district and appellate courts] in concluding that claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable under a gender stereotyping theory under Title IX" of the Education Amendments of 1972, said the decision by U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of Norfolk, Va., in the case involving the Gloucester County, Va., school district.

The judge also found that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law applied to transgender students.

"Since the new administration came into office in 2017 and began revoking guidance [on transgender legal protections under Title IX], court after court has held that the statute itself protects trans people and LGB [lesbian, gay, and bisexual] people from discrimination, and that you don't need that agency guidance," said Joshua A. Block, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBT and HIV Project, who represents Grimm.

Seeking Further Clarification

The Trump administration did not file briefs in the Boyertown or Gloucester County cases (nor in other pending transgender cases). But a range of actions since Trump took office in January 2017 have fueled the view that the administration does not support an interpretation of Title IX that covers transgender discrimination.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told a House education committee hearing on May 22 that court precedent was mixed on the issue of legal protections for transgender students and that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Congress had settled the question.

"That is not an area where law has been clarified," DeVos said. "I am not going to make up law from the Department of Education."

In early 2017, the Trump administration rescinded Education Department guidance issued under President Barack Obama that interpreted the department's Title IX regulations to require schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. This past February, the department indicated that its office for civil rights will no longer investigate complaints from transgender students related to restroom discrimination.

However, DeVos has repeatedly said that all students, including transgender students, deserve protection from bullying and unfair treatment in schools.

While the Trump administration has not yet fully formalized its views on the protection of transgender students under Title IX, there are other clues about the direction it is headed.

Wave of Rulings

Just as there has been much litigation over Title IX and transgender students in recent years, there has been a wave of lower court rulings interpreting the protection against sex discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover cases of bias against gay workers.

In a case involving a gay employee of a New York state skydiving company who alleged discrimination by his employer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, ruled in February that "sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination."

The U.S. Department of Justice under Trump filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case arguing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not sex-based bias covered by Title VII.

"An employer who discriminates based on sexual orientation alone does not treat similarly situated employees differently but for their sex," the administration's brief argued. "Gay men and women are treated the same, and straight men and women are treated the same."

The skydiving company on May 30 filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The legal analysis of sex discrimination in Title VII has been influential for those courts that have ruled on Title IX and transgender students as well.

In ruling in the Grimm case in May, Judge Wright cited Title VII more than 20 times as she held that Title IX prohibition against discrimination "based on sex" in federally funded education programs encompasses bias against transgender students.

"Allegations of gender stereotyping are cognizable Title VII sex discrimination claims and, by extension, cognizable Title IX sex discrimination claims," Wright said.

The ACLU's Block said that while Wright's decision clears the way for a trial in Grimm's case, the main issue of dispute between the parties is the legal question that the judge decided-that Title IX protects transgender students against discrimination.

While Grimm's case is an example of a transgender student challenging what he views as an oppressive school policy, the Pennsylvania case is an example of the main other type of lawsuit in this area: one brought by students claiming that pro-transgender school policies harm their privacy to use facilities among peers of their same birth gender.

"Sex in federal law has always referred to the biological difference between men and women," said Christiana Holcomb, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal organization that backs several student privacy lawsuits around the country. "Those courts that have ruled to the contrary are out of step with the plain meaning of Title IX."

Holcomb and the ADF are representing four students in the Boyertown district who object to a policy, adopted during the 2016-17 school year, of allowing transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

In court papers, the ADF argued that the school district's policy favored "a subjective continuum of genders" that "eliminates the law's longstanding respect for the anatomical differences between the sexes."

"We're trying to protect the privacy rights of every student, including transgender students and our clients," said Holcomb. "School districts have a duty to protect the privacy and dignity of everyone in their schools."

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group based in Washington, said "the trends in the courts are absolutely clear: They are ruling again and again with us."

"School districts have to deal with the reality that trans students exist," she said. "They have to operate within the reality that there is a Title IX, and it's very, very clear based on decision after decision that trans people are covered by it. Most schools are doing the right thing."

Published in Print: June 6, 2018, as Courts Take Expansive View In Transgender-Rights Cases

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Courts Take Expansive View in Transgender-Rights Cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two recent federal court rulings add to the growing body of decisions that find legal protections for transgender students in federal antidiscrimination laws and that run counter to the views emerging from President Donald Trump's administration on the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many current topics which provoke heated discussions. It is these discussions that can stir up conversations which may not be productive. In this article posted on ACE, covers how students and presidents of universities must be conscientious about the words they say. "Students and presidents overwhelmingly agree that inclusion and free speech are important to a democracy," (Espinosa, Crandall, & Howard, p. 1, 2018). This article further discusses the best practices on how to engage students in productive conversations, but also reminding the reader students are also learning how to create those productive conversations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February of this year, ACE fielded a national survey of college and university presidents to better understand their thoughts and experiences with the pressing issues of free speech and campus inclusion. We received responses from 471 presidents, the majority of whom lead four-year institutions, where these tensions are most visible and salient.*

In collaboration with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, we compared our findings with Knight and Gallup's 2017 survey of college students on the First Amendment. Overall, there were more similarities than differences; but the differences don't surprise. It may be that campus leaders and their students are more aligned on First Amendment issues than we believe or the media often depicts.

Inclusion and Free Speech as Complementary Concepts

Students and presidents overwhelmingly agree that inclusion and free speech are important to a democracy. While this finding is encouraging, we also know that the tension is not over whether inclusion and speech are both important-they are. It's what campus communities do when trying to achieve both ideals in the face of conflict.

What they shouldn't do-and we've heard this from both presidents and students-is pit inclusion and speech against each other.

In her reflections on the Knight survey findings, Harvard College sophomore Salma Abdelrahman calls such a move a false binary. "This kind of framing," she said, "is a straightjacket on our creativity and stifles our ability to address issues around diversity and inclusion without infringing upon First Amendment rights."

[Click each image to view and download hi-resolution versions]

When pressed to choose between inclusion and free speech, presidents lean more toward free speech than do students, but majorities in both groups have a strong preference for allowing students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased.

Many of the presidents we work with understand and sympathize with the harm that words cause. Still, they adamantly favor the need for institutions to hold up the First Amendment, including as a response to hateful rhetoric. As Clayton Spencer, president of Bates College, said in response to the Knight-Gallup survey, "Many students also see words rightly as having the power to cause harm, so that they may not always accept the notion that the cure for offensive speech is 'more speech.'" Chancellor Dorothy Leland of the University of California at Merced acknowledged "this is a challenging balance act. It is difficult for students-and others-to remain committed to free expression when that expression is hurtful or offensive."

Among the student responses, while supportive of complex, robust debate, University of Virginia Student Council President Sarah Kenny believes hate speech is a "serious assault to [one's] dignity" and "both impedes the truth-seeking charge of institutions of higher education and compromises the integrity of our democracy."

Inclusion and Free Speech in Practice

Certain stories about campus conflicts around these issues attract dramatic media attention, but data from both our survey and Knight's show that the noisiest stories may not represent what is happening most frequently on campuses. Both students and presidents who have experience with campus protests largely indicated that issues of diversity and inclusion-not controversial speakers-are fueling demonstrations. And as Sanford Ungar, director of the Georgetown Free Speech Project points out, public perception on such speakers is off base in more ways than one.

The understanding that inclusion and free speech are core to a democracy extends to all kinds of speech, but not in the same way for presidents as it does for students. Eighty-five percent of presidents view shouting down speakers or trying to prevent them from talking as unacceptable-but this action is more ambiguous for students.

For Ron Crutcher, president of the University of Richmond, this finding on shouting down speakers is particularly concerning because it "prohibits the speaker from exercising his/her/their First Amendment rights, and restricts the freedoms of all those who have come to hear the speech. There are many acceptable ways to show displeasure with a speaker, such as silent walkouts, signage (that doesn't restrict views), or peaceful protests in assigned spaces. But shouting down a speaker fails to respect the First Amendment rights of everyone in the room."

Over one-third of students said that shouting down speakers to try to prevent them from talking was sometimes acceptable, compared to 15 percent of presidents. Both groups, however, are more or less in lock step in their views on distributing pamphlets or literature on controversial issues and denying news media access to cover a protest or rally on campus.

No president we heard from in response to Knight's findings thought that students are deliberately undermining the First Amendment. Rather, they recognize the complexity of understanding the nuances of our First Amendment freedoms, and most believe that it is the role of campus leaders and faculty to educate students about these nuances. As Howard Gillman, chancellor of the University of California Irvine, pointed out, students "have very little basic civic knowledge about the arguments in favor of free speech, or the history of free speech, or the role that free speech has played to advance the interests of marginalized and vulnerable populations."

[Click to expand]

Presidents and students think they themselves-and students at their own colleges-are doing a good job of seeking out and listening to viewpoints different from their own. Students at other colleges, however, are perceived as being less adept at listening to these other voices. While this is not an uncommon survey response-thinking that things are better in your backyard than elsewhere-it does underscore the great divisions Americans are feeling now.

Challenges and opportunities abound as members of the higher education community participate in the discourse that defines a vibrant democratic society, particularly during such a polarized time. In this context, higher education needs to acknowledge and respond to student issues around safety, security, and inequality while promoting and modeling its commitment to free speech. Our data suggest that presidents and students share more common ground than they may realize, which can serve as a base for meaningful dialogue. It is incumbent upon higher education to create diverse, inclusive campuses where civic discourse takes root and flourishes.

President Jonathan Alger of James Madison University in Virginia told us that this includes "demonstrate[ing] that free expression and inclusivity are not mutually exclusive concepts-while emphasizing that history has shown that offensive ideas cannot be suppressed or eliminated with restrictions on speech. The freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution will only survive so long as each new generation learns and values them."

As we create spaces for civic discourse, we also must remind ourselves that students are just beginning to learn how to thoughtfully engage in these spaces. Many presidents and other senior campus officials also are grappling with how to stay ahead of-and respond-to conflict while at the same time sowing the seeds of inclusion. We're all on a learning curve, and where better to learn than on a college campus.
These data will be explored further as part of a larger project ACE is engaged in with support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. A report due out this fall will share learnings from a series of national convenings with campus leaders on how institutions are managing tensions between campus inclusion and free expression. Of the 471 college and university presidents that responded to this survey, 78 percent are leaders of four-year institutions (40 percent public and 60 percent private) and 22 percent are leading two-year institutions (97 percent public and 3 percent private). Regarding institution size, around 36 percent of presidents lead institutions that enrolled less than 3,000 undergraduate and graduate students, about one-third led institutions with total enrollments between 3,000 and 10,000 students, and 31 percent led institutions with more than 10,000 students. Where applicable, figure percentages might not total 100 due to rounding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For College Students and Presidents Alike, Free Speech Is a Balancing Act - Higher Education Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Lorelle L. Espinosa, Jennifer R. Crandall, and Elizabeth Howard In February of this year, ACE fielded a national survey of college and university presidents to better understand their thoughts and experiences with the pressing issues of free speech and campus inclusion. We received responses from 471 presidents, the majority of whom lead four-year institutions,...

# data[].attributes.body
In this article highlighted in ACE, tackles the issue of equal access to higher education for minority students, specifically for students which identify as Native American. This article covers the creation of these institutions which are known as Tribal Colleges and Universities, or TCUs, and why allocating more funding for them is important for the development of their students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This issue brief contextualizes the important progress tribal colleges and universities have made in Indian Country, and describes important inequities in federal, state, and local funding that limit these institutions' ability to further their impact on

# data[].attributes.headline
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising

# data[].attributes.subject
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising

# data[].attributes.body
This article, posted on the NACADA website, covers a broad but important topic: integrity in advising. Academic advisors have many roles. They are to create a foster a relationship with their students, but they must also keep the best interest of their students in mind. However, what happens to the advisors when their professional roles begin to clash with the personal. At that point, it is harder for the advisor to keep in mind the best interest of the student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Erica R. Compton, College of Western Idaho
Ethics in academic advising has been widely addressed in the higher education field, with authors arguing that all advisors should behave in an ethical manner. However, most literature does not explicitly address issues of integrity as related to the academic advisor.
Advisor Responsibilities and Roles
This article will explore the meanings behind ethics, morals, and integrity and will illuminate the responsibilities of academic advisors as they relate to integrity. A set of boundaries in decision-making will be introduced that will enable readers to cognitively evaluate their own decisions within the parameters of integrity.

As advisors, we carry an immense amount of responsibility on our shoulders. Not only do we have a responsibility for ourselves, but according to NACADA's statement of core values (NACADA, 2005), we also have a responsibility to our institutions, advisees, and peers. In addition, we have a responsibility to our profession, our educational community, and higher education in general.

This burden of responsibility is carried through the different roles that we, as advisors, assume as we tend to wear many hats. First, we are educators; expected to create and foster learning opportunities for students. We may also be a confidant, a safe place for a student. Through the role of cheerleader, we encourage confidence and are advocates. We act as facilitators between institutional departments and community services, as gatekeepers of knowledge, and as enforcers of policy and procedures. Trust in our professional judgment is also given to us as we assume the roles of institutional spokespersons, appointed stewards, and public servants. Lastly, one of the most important roles that we assume is that of role model and leader.

As we assume roles and transition between them, who is watching what we do, and how we behave, conduct business, and interact with others? Advisees are privy to our counsel but peers, faculty, staff, administration, and community members all witness our behavior. Part of being trusted as an institutional representative and spokesperson is that every action is being observed.

This is a tall order because individuals do not rely on advice from people they do not trust, "as such, ethical behavior and ethical decision-making are expected" (Landon, 2007) of us as academic advisors. Regardless of the situation, we must be able to conduct our professional duties and roles with integrity.
Morals
As a role model, a person with integrity receives the highest regard. However, what is integrity? Is it more than just doing what is right when no one is looking? How does it differ from ethics and morals? Although these three terms have varying degrees of similarity, a better understanding will assist us in ensuring integrity is a component of the many roles we assume.
Ethics
Morals are traits that can be considered either inappropriate or appropriate; what is it that people aspire to? Morals have tended to be time-honored principles such as valor, honesty, justice, compassion, peace, responsibility, respect, wisdom, and generosity (Ianinska, 2013, p. 7). In recent research conducted by Rushworth Kidder (2006), honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, and fairness have been the most common traits associated with the most respected and admired moral values (p. 43).

Although the word ethics has been used interchangeably with morals, ethics is more or less the study of, or theories of, moral principles (Ianinska, 2013, p. 8). If morals are the traits that one aspires to, then ethics are the guiding philosophy behind them. Ethics are not static and may adapt and change over time. For instance, Aristotle held reason in the highest regard, whereas contemporary ethics may be more concerned with good habits (Ianinska, 2013, p. 9).
Integrity
Ethics is the guiding light which assists individuals in the decision-making process. It is important to note that "acting (doing) does not always require thinking about the act, but ethics always involves thinking about and evaluating how to act to achieve the best possible outcome" (Frank, 2000, p. 45). If an individual were driving a car, morals would be the components of the car and ethics would be the actual thinking about the choices that come along on the road... to go left, to go right, how to maneuver, and so on.

Not unrelated to either morals or ethics is integrity. According to Merriam-Webster (2013), integrity is the "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values." It may be easier to identify someone with integrity than to define the word itself.

The definition provided by Merriam-Webster is an intimidating one to dissect, but the firm adherence mentioned refers to consistency. Regardless of the situation, a person's decisions and actions are consistent and are embedded within a moral code of conduct and ethical obligations. Integrity can be taken even further than just consistency. As Steven Carter (2000, p. 7) asserts, integrity encompasses these three components:
Dilemma

Discern. To have integrity one must be able to think for oneself.

Act on it. Although it is fairly easy to know what is right or wrong, it is harder to act upon it.

Own it. Beyond being able to do the unpopular thing, it is also being able to explain and defend the actions and reason behind those actions.

Even with the understanding of ethics, morals, and integrity, we as advisors are still confronted with dilemmas and uncertainty that come with making decisions. Conflicts occur when competing roles clash; this may be between our personal morals and beliefs, or between the different roles we assume as professionals. Making the best decisions in these dilemmas is critical as "leadership is a moral act infused with a vision and commitment to action. Every action taken - or not taken - conveys information about the values of the leadership" (Wilcox & Ebbs, 1992, p. 29).

For instance, if the institution has an unwritten policy regarding the deadline of accepting a Withdrawal Form by the close of business, we have an obligation in our role as enforcer to uphold this unwritten policy. However, our role of cheerleader may come into conflict with the enforcer roll if we receive this form from a student we regularly work with as we make our way to the car at the end of the day. What role trumps in the situation... enforcer or cheerleader?
Decision-Making
As noted in the example, dilemmas make it hard for decisions to be made and there is uncertainty about what to do. How do we know when to do the right thing, versus just doing things right? In the big scheme of things, "the rest of what we think matters very little if we lack essential integrity, the courage of convictions, the willingness to act and speak in behalf of what we know to be right" (Carter, 2007, p. 7).

Although not a cut-and-dried process, ethical decision-making should be a cognitive and conscious effort, especially when the right decision is not easily evident. These steps may allow enough reflection in which the best course of action should emerge.

Identify personal morals. Identify what is important and what aspirations are being sought. To know where to go, we must first know where we are. Find the motto that will act as an orientations (Something that my father taught me; Do the right thing, not just do things right).

Attempt to minimize harm; do no harm. When looking at the options in the dilemma, is one particular decision going to cause more harm than the other? What is the potential for injury in any given path?

Practice altruistic behavior. As advisors, we should adopt an unselfish desire to serve others, including respecting others' privacy, practicing fairness, and attempting to be consistent.

Look to the mission statement. What are the values and vision that our institutions strive to uphold? Do these institutions or departments have mission statements that we can refer to in aligning the situation for a better orientation?

S-O-S. Know when to bring others into the dilemma while maintaining the confidentiality of the situation. Collaborating with others and asking for help is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of leadership.

Attempt to find balance. For everything that we do, or do not do, there is a ripple effect. You can't do just one thing.

Stand by the decision. Once we have acted upon the decision, we must be able to stand by our choice and know that we did the right thing and acted with integrity.

Integrity begins with us. As role models, "there is no better model than for students to see their advisors acting in principled ways, solving problems and basing decision on values. In this way, students can learn how to think and solve problems ethically as well" (Frank, 2000, p. 49). As everyone is a work in progress, being cognizant of the decisions that we routinely face and knowing that what we do, or fail to do, is a reflection of the roles we assume, it is essential to make decisions with integrity.
References
Erica R. Compton
Advisor, Student Enrichment
College of Western Idaho
ericacompton@cwidaho.cc

Carter, S. (2007). Integrity. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Covey, S. R. (1989, December). Moral compassing. Franklin Covey. Retrieved from http://www.franklincovey.ca/FCCAWeb/aspx/library_articles_gen5.htm

Frank, K.S. (2000). Ethical considerations and obligations. In V.N. Gordon & W.R. Habley (Eds.), Academic Advising, A Comprehensive Handbook (44-57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ianinska, S. & Garcia-Zamor, J. (2006). Morals, ethics, and integrity: How codes of conduct contribute to ethical adult education practice. Springer Science 6, 3-20.

Kidder, R.M. (2006). Moral Courage. New York, NY: Harper.

Landon, P.A. (2007). Advising ethics and decisions. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Website: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Ethics-and-decisions.aspx

Merriam-Webster (2013). Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

NACADA. (2005). NACADA statement of core values of academic advising. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Website: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Core-values-of-academic-advising.aspx

Wilcox, J.R. & Ebbs, S.L. (1992). The Leadership Compass: Values and Ethics in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Cite this article using APA style as: Compton, E.R. (2014, March). Doing the right thing: Integrity in advising. Academic Advising Today, 37(1). Retrieved from [insert url here]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doing the Right Thing: Integrity in Advising

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erica R. Compton , College of Western Idaho Ethics in academic advising has been widely addressed in the higher education field, with authors arguing that all advisors should behave in an ethical manner. However, most literature does not explicitly address issues of integrity as related to the academic advisor.

# data[].attributes.body
While FERPA itself is a straightforward policy, the question of what is allowed to shared to other individuals besides the student is also questioned. This article covered by NACADA is an overview of how FERPA fits in the role of the academic advisor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Authored By: Matthew M. Rust, MS, JD 2014

Note: NACADA does not provide legal advice

Individuals with questions regarding FERPA interpretation at a specific college/university should contact that institution's Registrar or general counsel office. Questions regarding K-12 FERPA issues should be directed to the building principal or the school district's legal counsel.

Introduction
Among the U.S. laws that impact academic advising in higher education, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is likely the most often cited and yet also the most poorly understood. This article will present a general overview clarifying the advising-related components of FERPA, including:

Distinctions from state privacy laws and institutional policy

What student information is protected by FERPA

Common disclosure scenarios and procedures, and

Rights of the advisee under FERPA

No part of this article should be construed as legal advice for a specific situation. Advisors with specific questions about their advising practice should consult their institution's legal counsel.

Distinctions
FERPA represents the floor, not the ceiling of privacy laws impacting academic advising. FERPA generally imposes less onerous requirements regarding maintenance and disclosure of education records than what state privacy laws and institutional policies require. Additionally, the penalties for non-compliance with FERPA are generally not as intimidating as those associated with state privacy laws.

Record-Keeping
FERPA, a federal funding statute enacted in the 1970s, conditions continued receipt of federal dollars upon compliance with the confidentiality requirements FERPA establishes (US Department of Education, 2004). Because of this, FERPA applies to any institution of higher education-public or private-that receives federal money (financial aid, research grants, etc.). FERPA does not, however, require the maintenance of education records regarding students. FERPA simply sets guidelines for keeping those records confidential, so long as the institution of higher education chooses to maintain them.

Nevertheless, state-level laws and regulations often do establish expectations for advisors to create and maintain education records. For example, a records retention schedule from the Idaho State Board of Education (2008) requires that student advising records be maintained by institutions under that board's purview for a set period of time and then destroyed. Additionally, a records retention schedule from The Ohio State University (2013) shows how institutional policy might dictate the maintenance of records. In this case, the institutional policy specifies correspondence with students as part of the advising files to be maintained. No such records retention schedule exists within FERPA or its implementing regulations from the U.S. Department of Education's Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO).

Restrictiveness
Another important distinction between FERPA, state law, and institutional policy lies in the requirements of non-disclosure. For example, FERPA regulations that went into effect in 2012 generally allow for the disclosure of student identification numbers, so long as use of those numbers alone (without a password) would not grant access to education records (34 C.F.R. § 99, 2011). This relaxed standard-which was unsuccessfully challenged in a federal district court (Electronic Privacy information Center v. U.S. Department of Education, 2013)-stands in sharp contrast to state privacy laws which sometimes require specific encryption in the maintenance or transmission of identification numbers (Nicholson & O'Reardon, 2009). The relaxed FERPA standard also should be distinguished from institutional policies which often prohibit the disclosure of student identification numbers. For example, a data classification chart from Stanford University (2014) lists university ID numbers as confidential information, and states that access to these numbers should be "limited to those with a need to know" (Table 1, row 2). This university policy also strongly recommends encryption for storage or transmission of university ID numbers. FERPA contains no expectation of encryption for the digital transmission of student information.

Enforcement
A final distinction lies in enforcement options under FERPA compared to state laws. The Supreme Court has clarified that students have no individual right of action under FERPA ( Gonzaga v. Doe, 2002). This means that when students believe an institution has violated their privacy rights under FERPA, they do not have the option to bring a lawsuit. Rather, the student must file a complaint with the FPCO, at which point the FPCO would notify the institution of the alleged violation and give the institution an opportunity to change any deficient practices. Only if the institution refused to comply-after being warned and having an opportunity to change practices-would the institution lose federal funding (34 C.F.R. § 99). This ultimate punishment has never been handed out, and even if it were, the aggrieved students would still have no options to sue under FERPA for personal damages.

Under many state privacy laws, however, a student who believes his or her university has violated state law could sue the institution for damages. Indeed, at least seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands permit individuals to bring a cause of action when the privacy of their personally identifiable data has been breached (BakerHostetler, 2014).

The distinctions discussed above highlight that FERPA is merely the minimum when it comes to privacy laws with which advisors should familiarize themselves. Advisors should also consult websites or trainings at their institutions (typically available from the Registrar's office) for guidance on the state privacy laws and institutional policies that likely impose more stringent requirements than FERPA.

What is Protected Under FERPA?
FERPA generally requires that advisors not disclose to third parties the personally identifiable information contained in students' education records. FERPA defines education records broadly to include most any record maintained by the institution (or by a third party acting for the institution) regarding a student (34 C.F.R. § 99). Advisors are wise to assume that any email or record system-paper or electronic-where they maintain correspondence with or notes on advisees would qualify as education records under FERPA.

Tangible Education Records
A frequently over-looked aspect of the notion of education records under FERPA is that the law applies only to information from tangible records (Family Policy Compliance Office, 2006). Information that advisors learn from students through conversation is not protected by FERPA. That is, FERPA does not create an advisor-advisee privilege around advising conversations such that advisors are prohibited from disclosing the substance of those conversations to third parties. That being said, state privacy laws, institutional policy, or a common sense desire to maintain rapport with students would likely compel an advisor to keep advising conversations confidential.

Directory Information
The main exception to the general rule of non-disclosure is in the case of directory information. Directory information includes information such as email addresses, dates of attendance, academic major, awards and class standing, but it also includes student identification numbers as discussed above (34 C.F.R. § 99). Generally, directory information may be disclosed to third parties, unless the student has requested that directory information not be disclosed. When students ask to protect their directory information, many institutions will show a FERPA privacy block-sometimes a window shade icon-in their student information systems as a notice to advisors.

In Attendance
Education records become subject to FERPA protection as soon as a student-regardless of age-is "in attendance" at the institution. This means that admissions records of students who apply to but ultimately never attend an institution are not subject to FERPA. Institutions are free to define through institutional policy what the date of "in attendance" will be so long as it is after the student has been admitted but no later than the first day of classes (Rooker & Falkner, 2013). See, for example, how Penn State University (2014) has established that university's effective date:

According to Penn State policy, FERPA becomes effective on the first day of classes for those newly admitted students who have scheduled at least one course. A student who accepted an admission offer but did not schedule at least one course, or a newly admitted student who canceled his/her registration either before or after the semester begins, is not covered by FERPA (FAQ 16).

Advisors should consult their own institution's guidance on when education records will begin to be protected by FERPA. Advisors should also look to whether there is institutional policy on where advisors should maintain notes from advising conversations and what information the institution deems to be directory information that is generally able to be disclosed. In particular, advisors should verify whether their institutions adopted the relaxed view of student ID numbers that FERPA promulgated in the 2012 regulatory update.

When to Disclose
The general rule with education records protected under FERPA is that advisors should not disclose information from those records to third parties. There are, however, four scenarios that typically arise in advising where advisors are permitted to disclose and remain in compliance with FERPA.

Consent-based
The first scenario is where consent is present. In this typical scenario, students consent to release of personally identifiable information from their education records through a signed, written consent form specifying the person (or group of people) to whom disclosures may be made (34 C.F.R. § 99). Changes to the FERPA regulations from 2008 add an expectation that advisors will take reasonable steps to authenticate the identity of any third party requesting access to a student's education records. For this reason, many institutions add a password to FERPA disclosure consent forms; students then share this password with the persons to whom they are consenting to have their records released; that third party must then provide the password to the advisor before disclosure may occur.

Legitimate Educational Interest
The second common scenario includes disclosures to school officials with a legitimate educational interest (34 C.F.R. § 99). FERPA does not specify who will be considered to have a legitimate educational interest, but rather views this broadly. It is likely that any employee of the institution with some articulable connection to the educational mission of institution will qualify. Advisors should inquire, however, into whether their institutions specifically define who will have a legitimate educational interest. For example, the online bulletin from Indiana University Bloomington (2014) gives a broad overview of the types of individuals who may qualify under this exception.

A school official is a person employed by the University in an administrative, supervisory, academic or research, or support staff position (including law enforcement unit personnel and health staff); a person or entity with whom the University has contracted (such as an attorney, auditor, or collection agent; the Indiana University Foundation and Indiana University Alumni Association; and vendors of services such as e-mail or other electronic applications, enrollment verification, and so on); a person serving on the Board of Trustees; or a student serving on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting another school official in performing his or her tasks. A school official has a legitimate educational interest if the official needs to review an education record in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibilities for the University (para. 3).

Tax-Dependent Status
A third common disclosure scenario in advising is in the tax dependent exception. FERPA allows-but never mandates-institutions to disclose information from a student's education record to a parent who claims that student as a tax dependent (34 C.F.R. § 99). Typically, if an institution opts to release education records in this manner, the institution will have staff in the registrar's office trained on receiving and interpreting tax forms. If advisors share education record information under the tax dependent exception, that disclosure must be recorded in a log (no such requirement exists for the consent-based or legitimate education interest scenarios discussed above).

Health and Safety Exception
In 2008, regulatory updates to FERPA clarified the health and safety exception. This was done in part to encourage sharing of information that might prevent tragedies like the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech (Nicholson & O'Reardon, 2009). Under the health and safety exception, advisors may share information from an education record (e.g., a troubling email) if doing so is necessary to protect the health and safety of that student or others. As with the tax-dependent status exception, disclosures under the health and safety exception must be recorded in a log.

There are two issues related to the health and safety exception advisors should consider. If the troubling information is coming not from an education record but from a conversation with a student in distress, FERPA does not apply, so there would be no need to look for a disclosure exception. The second issue to keep in mind is that most campuses consider their advisors to be mandatory reporters of sexual assault occurrences, meaning disclosures of such information would not merely be permissible, disclosures would be expected.

Advisors should consult their institutional policies to determine whether their institution chooses to disclose under all of the exceptions discussed above. Some institutions might choose to only disclose in cases where consent and legitimate educational interest are present. Indeed, institutions could even decide to not disclose protected information under any circumstances. FERPA never mandates releasing protected information.

Rights of Students Under FERPA
In addition to understanding the obligations imposed by FERPA, it is important that advisors understand the following rights granted to students under FERPA:

1. Students have the right to access their education records. This means advisors should assume that anything they put in writing regarding a student could eventually be accessed by the student. This is true whether that writing be in paper or electronic file or in an email.

2. Students have the right to opt out of having their directory information published. Advisors should therefore take care when publishing lists of their advisees' contact information or awards lists such as Dean's Lists. Such information is directory information and therefore publishable but only if the student has not opted out of directory information publication.

3. Students have a right to annual notification of their institution's FERPA compliance policies and procedures. If changes are made to those practices, students need to be updated.

Finally, it is important to note that these rights associated with FERPA belong to the student as soon as the student is in attendance at the institution of higher education. This is true regardless of whether the student is still a minor.

For Further Guidance
The above general guidance on the U.S. federal law known as FERPA serves to reduce misconceptions and encourage compliance with this important advising-related law. Advisors will need to consult their institution's policies and offices such as the Registrar and General Counsel for specific guidance on how to appropriately observe state privacy laws applicable to their institution. Advisors will also want to work with their legal counsel to ensure that the policies and procedures in their offices are up-to-date regarding any recent developments in the FERPA statute, its implementing regulations or in state law. To help guide these discussions, a checklist is provided below.

For Advisors in Canada
Unlike the U.S., Canada does not have a singular federal privacy law related to student records which sets a consistent minimum standard. There is, however, a fairly consistent naming convention for the privacy laws that exist in the territories and provinces. Advisors in Canada should consult their institutional legal counsel for guidance on compliance with their applicable Information and Privacy Act (Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, 2014).

Matthew M. Rust, MS, JD
Director of Campus Career and Advising Services
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
References:
34 C.F.R. § 99 (2011). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

BakerHostetler. (2014). Data breach charts. Retrieved from http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Data%20Breach%20documents/Data_Breach_Charts.pdf

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Department of Education, District of Columbia - Document Filing System (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2013). Retrieved from https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv0327-28

Family Policy Compliance Office (2006, February 15). Letter to Montgomery County Public Schools (MD) re: law enforcement unit records. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/library/montcounty0215.html

Gonzaga v. Doe 536 U.S. 273 (2002). Gonzaga University v. Doe. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_679

Idaho State Board of Education. (April, 2008). Students-Advising records. Records Management Guide Appendix 9. Retrieved from http://history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Education_Higher_Ed_Records_Book_0.pdf

Indiana University Bloomington. (2014). Indiana University's annual notification of student rights under FERPA. Enrollment and Student Academic Information Bulletin. Retrieved from http://enrollmentbulletin.indiana.edu/pages/ferpa.php?Term=3

Nicholson, J. L., & O'Reardon, M. E. (2009). Data protection basics: a primer for college and university counsel. The Journal of College and University Law 36(1), 101-144.

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (2014, April 7). Links. Retrieved from: http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/links-liens.aspx

Pennsylvania State University. (September, 2014). FERPA frequently asked questions (FAQ). Office of the University Registrar. Retrieved from http://www.registrar.psu.edu/confidentiality/FERPA_faq.cfm

Rooker, L. R. & Falkner, T. M. (2013). 2013 FERPA quick guide. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Stanford University. (May, 2014). Data classification, access, transmittal, and storage. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/group/security/securecomputing/dataclass_chart.html

The Ohio State University. (March, 2013). Student & course records-Advising files. General Records Retention Schedule. Retrieved from http://library.osu.edu/documents/records-management/general-schedule.pdf

US Department of Education. (February, 2004). Legislative history of major FERPA provisions. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/leg-history.html
Resources: Checklist for working with legal counsel to develop FERPA policies and procedures for advising offices FERPA Resources from AACRAO: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers Chart comparing privacy laws in U.S. States Canadian Privacy Law Resources Cite this using APA style as:
Rust, M. M. (2014). FERPA and its implications for academic advising practice. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources website:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/FERPA-overview.aspx
This article should not be considered legal advice from NACADA nor from the author. Individuals contemplating any action regarding a FERPA claim should seek legal counsel before going forward.

Individuals with questions regarding FERPA interpretation at a specific college or university should contact the institution's Registrar or Student Legal Services office. Questions regarding K-12 FERPA issues should be directed to the building principal or the school district's legal counsel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authored By: Matthew M. Rust, MS, JD 2014 Note: NACADA does not provide legal advice Individuals with questions regarding FERPA interpretation at a specific college/university should contact that institution's Registrar or general counsel office. Questions regarding K-12 FERPA issues should be directed to the building principal or the school district's legal counsel.

# data[].attributes.body
"Colleges Grapple With Where — or Whether — to Draw the Line on Free Speech"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It has happened across the country, at small private colleges and large public universities: an invited guest is heckled or shouted down or disinvited because of opposing political views.

And the incident is followed by a competing chorus of accusations about the rights of free speech versus the need to feel safe and welcome.

It's something those in higher education have grappled with for decades. But after the 2016 presidential election and the increasing polarization of the country, the issue has taken on a new resonance.

Part of the problem, said David Axelrod, former chief strategist and senior adviser for President Barack Obama and director of the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, is that students now often come to college having rarely - or never - interacted with someone with a different opinion or lifestyle.

There are "these virtual-reality silos - I mean, we can curate our news sources in such a way that our views are always affirmed, not always informed. And everyone inside the silo is kosher, and everyone outside is alien. And, you know, that's a real danger," he told participants at the Higher Ed Leaders Forum last week hosted by The New York Times.

One of the most infamous examples of such unrest took place at Middlebury College in Vermont last year when students shouted down Charles Murray, a conservative author of "The Bell Curve," who has been accused of scientific racism for linking socioeconomic status with race and intelligence.

The students also pulled fire alarms and began pushing and shoving him and his faculty interviewer, who suffered a concussion. The event made national headlines and was viewed by conservative commentators as emblematic of a nationwide problem: liberal students refusing to hear speech they disagreed with.

"It's absurd that a scholar like Charles Murray would have trouble making a speech anywhere," said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, who also spoke at the forum. "I mean you hate his views, but so what? You need to deal with it, counter or ignore it or whatever needs to be done. That's what a good academic experience should be about."

It was a different experience at the University of Michigan four months later when Mr. Murray spoke there, said Andrew D. Martin, dean of the university's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. The university formed an "engagement team" that included academics, student leadership and public safety officers in a dialogue with those who organized the talk.

"We let students know that we were not only fully committed to the right of the speaker to speak, but the audience to hear and the right of those who wanted to express dissent to be able to do so in a way that didn't preclude others' rights," Professor Martin said, speaking on a forum panel.

There were protests, but "we have a protocol to deal with this," he added. "It's called a heckler's warning." The protesters were asked to allow the speaker to continue "and we reiterated some of the principles behind that." After five minutes the students were once again asked to be quiet, or they would be removed by public safety officers. The demonstrators left and the speech continued.

Christina Paxson, president of Brown University, said her university took much the same approach when the conservative pundit Guy Benson spoke there earlier this year.

"You have to start with discussions with students early and often," she said, "with students hosting the event and with groups of students who might be unhappy with the event. That's 90 percent of the battle."

Many students don't understand that the First Amendment only guarantees that no government entity can violate a person's right to free speech. So private universities, unlike public universities - which are considered state agents - are free to punish students for speech without violating the First Amendment. However, many private universities have free speech codes that guarantee their students freedom of speech.

"We're not doing a terribly effective job educating our students about what the First Amendment means and what the implications are, not just for their lives on campus, but their lives in general," Professor Martin said.

One way to change that is to make sure students have a much firmer grounding in the country's founding documents, especially the Bill of Rights. David Schultz, a professor of political science at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., offered, for the first time this year a freshman seminar called "Speech, Censorship, Toleration and Bigotry,"

"I explain to them the philosophical and political foundations about why we have free speech, because I don't think students understand that," he said. "I don't think our society as a whole understands that - if you can justify censuring others, those exact weapons can be used against you."

Image

A protester interrupts a talk by Charles Murray at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor last year. Credit Hunter Dyke/The Ann Arbor News, via Associated Press

In 2017, Gallup and the Knight Foundation in partnership with the American Council on Education, the Charles Koch Foundation and the Stanton Foundation, did a survey asking college students their thoughts on free expression. Ninety percent said it is never acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from speaking. But 10 percent viewed it as acceptable sometimes. Thirty-seven percent of college students also said shouting down speakers is acceptable at least sometimes.

But free speech is only part of the equation; campuses also have to contend with events that threaten students' feelings of inclusiveness and even safety. That same poll found that 53 percent of students surveyed saw promoting an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups as more important than protecting free speech. Nearly two-thirds of students also said they did not believe the Constitution should protect hate speech.

When Richard Spencer, a prominent white nationalist who was doing a round of college talks, spoke at the University of Florida last October, "different student groups lived in different realities," said Joseph Glover, provost of the university. "Some of them experienced visceral fear. It was not a matter of whether or not he should have the right to speak. They were viscerally afraid of him because of his organization, what he stood for, his policies, his advocacies."

What, he asked, do you do about that?

Dr. Paxson acknowledged the difficulty of balancing those fears against free speech.

"You can't tell people they can't feel afraid," she said. You can reassure them of their safety and try to make them comfortable, but "there's no magic solution - it's one of the realities of these types of events."

It is also true that a belief in a free speech may mean everyone has a right to speak - but not that everyone has a right to be invited to speak. Mr. Axelrod, said, for example, that he would not invite Roseanne Barr, whose top-rated sitcom was recently canceled after a racist tweet, because "she has a long history of making comments like this that are offensive and incendiary, and that aren't really the advancement of an idea. They are just purely the advancement of a prejudice."

But, if the 2016 presidential election has shown anything, he added, it's that people have to make a real effort to speak and listen to others who aren't like them. To that end, this year, his nonpartisan Institute of Politics, initiated a program, called "Bridging the Divide."

The program sent 10 students from Chicago to Eureka College in central Illinois attended by President Ronald Reagan, and 10 students from there to Chicago. The 20 students then went to various communities to talk to a variety of people, an experience that really "punctured stereotypes," he said.

For Mr. Axelrod, the more informed and active students are, the more they understand the words of Van Jones, the news commentator who spoke at the institute.

"He said: 'We owe it to you to keep you from physical harm, but we don't owe it to you to keep you from ideas you find abhorrent. We want you to be strong not safe. Because the world is going to demand that you be strong.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colleges Grapple With Where - or Whether - to Draw the Line on Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has happened across the country, at small private colleges and large public universities: an invited guest is heckled or shouted down or disinvited because of opposing political views. And the incident is followed by a competing chorus of accusations about the rights of free speech versus the need to feel safe and welcome.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Importance of Free Speech on Public
Campuses and the Restriction of Free Speech
on University Campuses due to Safety
Concerns"

# data[].attributes.body
Combs, L. The Importance of Free Speech on Public  Campuses and the Restriction of Free Speech on University Campuses due to Safety Concerns. (2018). Journal of Law & Education, 47(1), 169-175.

Espinosa, L. L., Crandall, J. R., & Howard, E. (2018, April 9). For College Students and Presidents Alike, Free Speech Is a Balancing Act. Retrieved from  https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/04/09/college-students-presidents-alike-free-speech-balancing-act/

Tugend, A. (2018, June 05). Colleges Grapple With Where - or Whether - to Draw the Line on Free Speech. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/education/learning/colleges-free-speech.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Erica R. Compton, College of Western Idaho
Ethics in academic advising has been widely addressed in the higher education field, with authors arguing that all advisors should behave in an ethical manner. However, most literature does not explicitly address issues of integrity as related to the academic advisor.
Advisor Responsibilities and Roles
This article will explore the meanings behind ethics, morals, and integrity and will illuminate the responsibilities of academic advisors as they relate to integrity. A set of boundaries in decision-making will be introduced that will enable readers to cognitively evaluate their own decisions within the parameters of integrity.

As advisors, we carry an immense amount of responsibility on our shoulders. Not only do we have a responsibility for ourselves, but according to NACADA's statement of core values (NACADA, 2005), we also have a responsibility to our institutions, advisees, and peers. In addition, we have a responsibility to our profession, our educational community, and higher education in general.

This burden of responsibility is carried through the different roles that we, as advisors, assume as we tend to wear many hats. First, we are educators; expected to create and foster learning opportunities for students. We may also be a confidant, a safe place for a student. Through the role of cheerleader, we encourage confidence and are advocates. We act as facilitators between institutional departments and community services, as gatekeepers of knowledge, and as enforcers of policy and procedures. Trust in our professional judgment is also given to us as we assume the roles of institutional spokespersons, appointed stewards, and public servants. Lastly, one of the most important roles that we assume is that of role model and leader.

As we assume roles and transition between them, who is watching what we do, and how we behave, conduct business, and interact with others? Advisees are privy to our counsel but peers, faculty, staff, administration, and community members all witness our behavior. Part of being trusted as an institutional representative and spokesperson is that every action is being observed.

This is a tall order because individuals do not rely on advice from people they do not trust, "as such, ethical behavior and ethical decision-making are expected" (Landon, 2007) of us as academic advisors. Regardless of the situation, we must be able to conduct our professional duties and roles with integrity.
Morals
As a role model, a person with integrity receives the highest regard. However, what is integrity? Is it more than just doing what is right when no one is looking? How does it differ from ethics and morals? Although these three terms have varying degrees of similarity, a better understanding will assist us in ensuring integrity is a component of the many roles we assume.
Ethics
Morals are traits that can be considered either inappropriate or appropriate; what is it that people aspire to? Morals have tended to be time-honored principles such as valor, honesty, justice, compassion, peace, responsibility, respect, wisdom, and generosity (Ianinska, 2013, p. 7). In recent research conducted by Rushworth Kidder (2006), honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, and fairness have been the most common traits associated with the most respected and admired moral values (p. 43).

Although the word ethics has been used interchangeably with morals, ethics is more or less the study of, or theories of, moral principles (Ianinska, 2013, p. 8). If morals are the traits that one aspires to, then ethics are the guiding philosophy behind them. Ethics are not static and may adapt and change over time. For instance, Aristotle held reason in the highest regard, whereas contemporary ethics may be more concerned with good habits (Ianinska, 2013, p. 9).
Integrity
Ethics is the guiding light which assists individuals in the decision-making process. It is important to note that "acting (doing) does not always require thinking about the act, but ethics always involves thinking about and evaluating how to act to achieve the best possible outcome" (Frank, 2000, p. 45). If an individual were driving a car, morals would be the components of the car and ethics would be the actual thinking about the choices that come along on the road... to go left, to go right, how to maneuver, and so on.

Not unrelated to either morals or ethics is integrity. According to Merriam-Webster (2013), integrity is the "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values." It may be easier to identify someone with integrity than to define the word itself.

The definition provided by Merriam-Webster is an intimidating one to dissect, but the firm adherence mentioned refers to consistency. Regardless of the situation, a person's decisions and actions are consistent and are embedded within a moral code of conduct and ethical obligations. Integrity can be taken even further than just consistency. As Steven Carter (2000, p. 7) asserts, integrity encompasses these three components:
Dilemma

Discern. To have integrity one must be able to think for oneself.

Act on it. Although it is fairly easy to know what is right or wrong, it is harder to act upon it.

Own it. Beyond being able to do the unpopular thing, it is also being able to explain and defend the actions and reason behind those actions.

Even with the understanding of ethics, morals, and integrity, we as advisors are still confronted with dilemmas and uncertainty that come with making decisions. Conflicts occur when competing roles clash; this may be between our personal morals and beliefs, or between the different roles we assume as professionals. Making the best decisions in these dilemmas is critical as "leadership is a moral act infused with a vision and commitment to action. Every action taken - or not taken - conveys information about the values of the leadership" (Wilcox & Ebbs, 1992, p. 29).

For instance, if the institution has an unwritten policy regarding the deadline of accepting a Withdrawal Form by the close of business, we have an obligation in our role as enforcer to uphold this unwritten policy. However, our role of cheerleader may come into conflict with the enforcer roll if we receive this form from a student we regularly work with as we make our way to the car at the end of the day. What role trumps in the situation... enforcer or cheerleader?
Decision-Making
As noted in the example, dilemmas make it hard for decisions to be made and there is uncertainty about what to do. How do we know when to do the right thing, versus just doing things right? In the big scheme of things, "the rest of what we think matters very little if we lack essential integrity, the courage of convictions, the willingness to act and speak in behalf of what we know to be right" (Carter, 2007, p. 7).

Although not a cut-and-dried process, ethical decision-making should be a cognitive and conscious effort, especially when the right decision is not easily evident. These steps may allow enough reflection in which the best course of action should emerge.

Identify personal morals. Identify what is important and what aspirations are being sought. To know where to go, we must first know where we are. Find the motto that will act as an orientations (Something that my father taught me; Do the right thing, not just do things right).

Attempt to minimize harm; do no harm. When looking at the options in the dilemma, is one particular decision going to cause more harm than the other? What is the potential for injury in any given path?

Practice altruistic behavior. As advisors, we should adopt an unselfish desire to serve others, including respecting others' privacy, practicing fairness, and attempting to be consistent.

Look to the mission statement. What are the values and vision that our institutions strive to uphold? Do these institutions or departments have mission statements that we can refer to in aligning the situation for a better orientation?

S-O-S. Know when to bring others into the dilemma while maintaining the confidentiality of the situation. Collaborating with others and asking for help is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of leadership.

Attempt to find balance. For everything that we do, or do not do, there is a ripple effect. You can't do just one thing.

Stand by the decision. Once we have acted upon the decision, we must be able to stand by our choice and know that we did the right thing and acted with integrity.

Integrity begins with us. As role models, "there is no better model than for students to see their advisors acting in principled ways, solving problems and basing decision on values. In this way, students can learn how to think and solve problems ethically as well" (Frank, 2000, p. 49). As everyone is a work in progress, being cognizant of the decisions that we routinely face and knowing that what we do, or fail to do, is a reflection of the roles we assume, it is essential to make decisions with integrity.
References
Erica R. Compton
Advisor, Student Enrichment
College of Western Idaho
ericacompton@cwidaho.cc

Carter, S. (2007). Integrity. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Covey, S. R. (1989, December). Moral compassing. Franklin Covey. Retrieved from http://www.franklincovey.ca/FCCAWeb/aspx/library_articles_gen5.htm

Frank, K.S. (2000). Ethical considerations and obligations. In V.N. Gordon & W.R. Habley (Eds.), Academic Advising, A Comprehensive Handbook (44-57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ianinska, S. & Garcia-Zamor, J. (2006). Morals, ethics, and integrity: How codes of conduct contribute to ethical adult education practice. Springer Science 6, 3-20.

Kidder, R.M. (2006). Moral Courage. New York, NY: Harper.

Landon, P.A. (2007). Advising ethics and decisions. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Website: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Ethics-and-decisions.aspx

Merriam-Webster (2013). Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

NACADA. (2005). NACADA statement of core values of academic advising. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Website: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Core-values-of-academic-advising.aspx

Wilcox, J.R. & Ebbs, S.L. (1992). The Leadership Compass: Values and Ethics in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Cite this article using APA style as: Compton, E.R. (2014, March). Doing the right thing: Integrity in advising. Academic Advising Today, 37(1). Retrieved from [insert url here]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doing the Right Thing: Integrity in Advising

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erica R. Compton , College of Western Idaho Ethics in academic advising has been widely addressed in the higher education field, with authors arguing that all advisors should behave in an ethical manner. However, most literature does not explicitly address issues of integrity as related to the academic advisor.