Counseling & Human Development Services

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Fall 2002

GCPA Home

Editor's Note

Articles

From The Field

Assessment Standards and Football Programs

Book Reviews

Understanding Moral Development: A Foundation for College Student Development

Donna L. Hight, Doctoral Student, The University of Georgia

Moral education, character education, values education, ethics education, or civic education—regardless of how we choose to label our intended outcomes, institutions of higher education have a responsibility to educate students on these topics. Higher education has rooted in its rich history educating students about how to determine right and wrong, behave appropriately, ascertain what qualities constitute a positive life, and contribute to the enrichment of society as citizens. History provides context for the changing role of colleges and universities in moral and character education. As this role has changed, the definitions of terms have also been shaped, which has created confusion with terminology being interchanged inappropriately. This paper will describe the historical role of higher education in these areas; define terms to create common understanding; and address issues that impact educators’ ability to appropriately address student moral development and growth as citizens.

History

Ancient Greece

In fifth century Greece, educators had a traditional view of teaching ethics and civic responsibility. They would direct their students to do the proper thing and punish them if they failed to do so. Many colleges and universities today still utilize this model to provide moral education to students, particularly through the administration of student discipline. Socrates offered an improved model by teaching students to recognize and discuss good by provoking them to consider fundamental moral aims and dilemmas faced, referred to as Socratic dialogue. This model was criticized as too cognitively focused, with no consideration of appropriate action. Aristotle provided a third model where students clearly thought about ethical issues but also worked to develop the desire and will to put their conclusions into practice (Bok, 1990). Socrates’ cognitive model remains a focus and source of concern throughout the evolution of moral education.

Founding of first American colleges

Higher education has had moral and character education as an aim for hundreds of years. “From the 17th century, colleges and universities have included in their mission the development of the capacity to think clearly about moral issues and to act accordingly” (Whitely & Yokota, 1988, p. 11). The overriding purpose of American colonial education was “to nurture and sustain a Christian civilization” (Laurence, 1999, p. 11). In the tradition of the English model of education, religion played a central role. Following the teachings in the Bible reinforced important moral teachings and attendance at chapel provided an opportunity for reflection. Religion, morality, and ethics have been intricately intertwined since the beginning of time, and this relationship carried over into the development of higher education.

Higher education and developing democracy

The founders of this great nation believed that democracy had a special need for character education, since virtue was critical to self-governance (SUNY Cortland, n.d.). Higher education had intellectual and moral development as two goals, which helped educate and develop men of integrity to lead this developing nation. During the Revolutionary War and postwar period, the states took a more active role in developing higher education. One challenge of this new educational activity “was a public hostility to denominational education” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 36). Religious diversity and tolerance increased, and as a result, secular institutions supported by the states proliferated. As the new America responded to the continuing need for an educated citizenry and appreciation for religious diversity, the influence of religion in higher education began to decline (Dalai Lama, 1999).

German Model of Education

In the early 19th century, Immanuel Kant blueprinted the German model of education, utilized first at the University of Berlin . This model focused on the education of students “en masse” and the specialization of study as division of labor. Many young Americans traveled to Germany to study in these “universities where “scholarship” was rigorously pursued simply for the sake of knowledge” (Smith, 1990, p. 44). As these young scholars returned to teach at American colleges and universities, they insisted on this new model of intellectual pursuit. The emergence of a university based on research and scholarship created a system where faculty viewed their role as “ethical neutrality” (Sandeen, 1985) and the moral development of students shifted into the hands of a newly developing profession, student personnel work.

Middle 1800’s

In response to the German influence, Harvard stopped grading student conduct in 1869. Faculty would only have responsibility for evaluating academic performance, leaving student behavior to deans and administrators (Bok, 1990). In 1890, the President of Harvard appointed LeBaron Russell Briggs, the first Dean of Students (Sandeen, 1985). Briggs role was “to establish character, and to make character more efficient through knowledge” (Blimling, 1999, p. 55). These early deans, like Briggs, were deeply concerned about values and moral development, recognizing that it involved consideration of empathy and issues of justice to lead to a greater good for more people (Appleton, Briggs, & Rhatigan, 1978).

Student Personnel Work

As responsibility for student growth and development shifted from faculty to administrators, a new field evolved, student personnel services. In 1916, the National Association of Women’s Deans was founded, followed by the National Association of Deans of Men in 1919, and the National Association of Personnel and Placement Officers in 1924 (later renamed the American College Personnel Association). All three professional associations had character development as a central concern (Sandeen, 1985).

In 1937 the American Council on Education wrote The Student Personnel Point of View, which cited as the chief role of student personnel workers “to assist the student in developing to the limits of his potentialities and in making his contribution to the betterment of society” (ACE, 1937, p. 11). In 1949 The Student Personnel Point of View was revised and the chief role described as “the development of students as whole persons interacting in social situations” (ACE, 1949, p. 25). Student personnel workers helped students grow, develop, and recognize the critical nature of their impact on society and as participant in American democracy.

Decline of character education

Character education was part of public education’s mission until the middle part of the 20th century. With the increasing diversity of students, political correctness drove public education into a values neutral stance with family and church viewed as the only possible purveyors of values to youth. Reasons cited for the decline of character education in schools included the (1) rise of logical positivism (no objective moral truth) and moral relativism (all values relative); (2) personalism (right to choose own values); (3) increasing pluralism; and (4) fear that teaching morality meant teaching religion (SUNY Cortland, n.d.). Cognitive processes like values clarification, moral dilemma discussion, and decision making, with no instruction on moral content and action became the primary focus. Higher education assumed a purely cognitive or intellectual stance on helping students making informed ethical decisions.

Renaissance of character education movement

From the middle 1960’s until present, the civil rights movement, youth violence, and other societal moral issues have evidenced an apparent moral decline (Bok, 1990). Growing numbers of people recognize the need for students to receive moral direction and that schools, including colleges and universities, have a responsibility to stand for good values. Applied ethics courses have returned to the college curriculum in growing numbers. Large numbers of colleges and universities have also developed community values statements. Yet debate continues over the relationship between religion, spirituality, and morality, as well as what the rights and responsibilities of educators are to explore these issues with students, particularly in the domain of public education.

Responsible citizenship and civic responsibility demand personal and professional accountability, which in turn requires individuals prepared to morally evaluate societal issues and to act on their conclusions. Higher education will play a vital role in educating students who intend to serve as morally aware citizen leaders. Colleges and universities will also have to actively participate as institutional change agents for societal improvement.

Definitions

Exploration of the literature reveals that the terms regarding morals, ethics, character, values, and civics are often inappropriately interchanged with one another. In order for educators to grasp their responsibility for moral education, these terms need to be clearly defined and set in context. One will note the subtle differences in the evolution of the terms and that in many cases one term may be used to define another, contributing to the confusion about their meanings.

Morals

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000) defines moral as “of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character; teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior; conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; or arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.” Belief, choice and action evidence morality, and morality can be constrained by power, necessity, and/or ignorance, which implies that an individual may be morally constrained as a result of forces external to the self. This implication leads to the need for considering the potential external factors in constructing responses to moral issues.

Morality requires individuals to be able to construct alternatives of action and to grasp possible consequences of those alternatives; they must be able to see connections between cause and effect (Trow, 1975). Moral growth occurs as the individual develops the ability to make morally sound decisions, to act on these decisions, and to integrate this understanding into their identity (Blimling, 1990). As students develop the ability to construct alternatives, evaluate these alternatives, and grasp the implications of external factors on these alternatives, their moral and identity development improve as these skills are enhanced.

Lasker and Moore indicate moral development is “the progressive understanding of the process and principles through which social relationships and the order of society are created and maintained” (as cited in Astin & Antonio, 2000, p. 4). Moral development is the capacity for both interpersonal relationships and the inner life of the individual (Loevinger, 1975). Educators then serve students by not only helping them learn to construct responses to moral issues, but to also understand the individual and interpersonal implications of these decisions. Moral education is a shared process of moral inquiry among faculty, staff, students, and community members, and this process has cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (MacDonald, 1995). Moral education then becomes an umbrella for the affective (values), cognitive (ethics), and behavioral (character) elements of the overall educational experience, moral development.

Ethics

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000) defines ethics as “a theory or a system of moral values; the study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person.” The definition of ethics includes morals and moral choices, again demonstrating the inter-relationship of these terms and the confusion that may develop from using one to define another. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 3 (p. 81-82) cites ethics is “an inquiry about the ways of life and rules of conduct” (as cited Pavela, 1999). “Ethics (ethikos) signifies the ethos that is rooted in the community and transmitted through customs” (Eberly, 1995, p. 27). As explained within this paper, context serves as an important element of ethical decision-making, so culture plays a role as one of the defining elements of context.

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral decision-making and the impact of society and societal values on the decision-making process. According to Rich and DeVitis (1994), there are two types of ethics: (1) normative ethics, which describe what individuals ought to do and the different systems of ethics, such as utilitarianism, categorical imperative, etc.; and (2) metaethics which analyzes ethical language and the justification of ethical judgements. Ethics education then serves as the process of intellectually assessing moral decisions and determining the appropriate course of action based on the situational context.

Character

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000) defines character as “the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another; moral or ethical strength.” Character is normally a value neutral term by definition, neither implying whether an individual is of good or poor character. Over time character has come to be used in describing someone who has positive character (for example, she is a person of character and integrity). Rooted in Greek (kharakter), character can be described as a “constellation of strengths and weaknesses that form and reveal who we are” (MacDonald, 1995). Character is both “values and behavior as reflected in the ways we interact with each other and in moral choices we make on a daily basis” (Astin & Antonio, 2000, p. 4) and “the internal compass that enables one to live with integrity in a complex world” (Kuh, 1998, p. 18).

Character has come to encompass the totality of the individual and the positive attributes demonstrated. Character development is “the growth of those aspects of the individual that represent his or her ethical worth, including behavior, cognition, affect, values, personality, identity, and skills that are not moral themselves but that support moral functioning” (Berkowitz & Fekula, 1999, p. 18). Since character typically is used as a descriptor for someone of high integrity or moral functioning, character will be used to describe how all the aspects of morality manifest as outwardly observable positive behaviors.

Values

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000) defines values as “a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.” “Values is used as a generic term for the normative assumptions that underlie morality” (Kurtines & Gewirtz, 1995, p. 3). Values signify to others what we deem important and critical as individuals and as participants in relationships with others. Values stir our emotions and allow us to create internal meaning. Values are the affective component of morality.

Spirituality

In Ethics for the New Millennium (1999), the Dalai Lama defines spirituality as “those qualities of the human spirit-such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony - which bring happiness to both the self and others.” Spirituality embraces the values that develop the soul of the individual and how he/she will relate to the world and to others. “Soul is a bedrock sense of who we are, what we care about, and what we believe in” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 340). “Spirituality in education, then, has to do with going beyond the acquisition of knowledge and entering into the realms of meaning and purpose” (Laurence, 1999, p. 14). For our purposes, spirituality is not religious in nature nor should it be interpreted as such. Spirituality has much broader implications for our work in helping students find meaning, purpose, and passion in life.

Civics

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000) defines civics as “the branch of political science that deals with civic affairs and the rights and duties of citizens.” Civic learning means coming to understand how a community functions, what problems it faces, its richness of diversity, and the importance of individual commitments of time and energy to enhancing community (Ehrlich, 1999). A person must be informed, involved, and committed to be a good citizen. Civility recognizes and honors the value and dignity of others (MacDonald, 1995). Effective citizenship requires self-understanding in the context of our interpersonal relationships and commitments to the greater good of others and society.

Issues for Consideration

Situational morality

Since belief, action, and choice confirm morality and morality requires understanding and evaluating alternatives, moral or ethical decision-making then has context. “The same act will have different shades and degrees of moral value under different circumstances” (Dalai Lama, 1999, p. xii). The moral context of any given situation rarely lends itself to an explicit decision, often placing us in what we refer to as a “gray area.” We then attempt to separate the decision from its intent/motivation to discern whether the decision was morally grounded or not. We never truly know enough to gauge with certainty the moral content of another’s actions in any particular situation, so we typically speculate about intent/motivation. All reasoning, including moral reasoning, is therefore contextual (Noddings, 1992).
Kidder (1993) proposed that ethical analysis and decision-making does not occur around evaluating right and wrong conduct, as individuals clearly understand the differences between right and wrong. He instead proposes that true ethical decision-making occurs when an individual has to determine and choose the higher right, reflecting a choice between competing right values. He defines four dilemma paradigms into which he contends all ethical dilemmas fall: (1) truth versus loyalty, (2) short-term versus long-term consequences or outcomes, (3) justice versus mercy (care), and (4) self versus community interests. He broadens the moral/ethical dilemma paradigm beyond the ethic of justice, as proposed by Kohlberg, and the ethic of care, as proposed by Gilligan.

The decision-making rules for dilemmas he proposes are (1) utilitarianism or an ends-based model based on consequences (greatest good for the greatest number); (2) categorical imperative or a rules based model (your behavior creates a universal maxim for others’ behavior); and (3) the golden mean (rule) or a care based model that suggests a reversibility criterion (do unto others as you would have them do to you). This model has implications for the situational nature of ethical decision-making, as the rationale of the decision becomes a critical element as different yet appropriate moral decisions can be reached via any one of the three methods while evaluating competing right values. It also has implications for the theoretical foundation of moral development, which has tended to focus on the cognitive element of ethical decision making with little to no regard for the relational nature of this process or for the contextual considerations for how these decisions are made.

Since ethical decision-making occurs in a situational context, how does higher education assist students with this process? We determine as a community what constitutes a framework of community values that guide positive decision-making and behavior. We recognize we cannot create a set of values that fully captures the richness and diversity of human experiences on a college campus, but we can create a guide that helps the community to consider the feelings of others as they assess situations (Dalai Lama, 1999). The “moral value of a given act is to be judged in relation both to time, place, and circumstance and to the interests of the totality of all others in the future as well as now” (Dalai Lama, 1999, p. 153). We have a responsibility to teach students how to respond to the dilemma at hand, as well as to be forward thinking about the potential implications for society in the future.

Relational nature of moral development

Since context serves as a critical component of ethical decision making and therefore moral development, we must define what students consider in formulating their decisions and actions. We recognize that peer culture plays a critical role in the life of today’s college student. “To reason well is not to step outside of relationships for a private moment, but to participate fully within them” (Gergen, 2001, p. 8). Often, knowledge originates within communities not the individual minds of its participants, as dialogue and interaction typically drive intellectual pursuit.

We have to learn to trust others and include them in our moral and intellectual pursuits, or we promote a culture of loneliness, distrust, antagonism, and egocentrism (Gergen, 2001). While a student can certainly achieve intellectual success under these circumstances, the quality of their interpersonal success will be greatly limited, which may significantly impact how they define the quality of their life later. “Evidence abounds that people can attain high levels of intellectuality and remain insensitive to human beings and other living things” (Noddings, 1992, p. 334). Educators must recognize the danger inherent in decision-making without consideration for the well being of others and society and insure that students understand this as they receive training as future leaders, professionals, and scientists.

If we cannot imagine the potential impact of our actions on others, we really have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong (Dalai Lama, 1999) or competing right values (Kidder, 1993). As educators we help students evaluate the choices they make for their implications for others. These students will join the intellectual and professional communities and will face many difficult and controversial decisions, such as the implications of human cloning, gene mapping, fiscal responsibility, etc.

To appropriately assess the needs of others, we have to work with students to develop relational skills such as listening and critical thinking and values such as civility, care and compassion. We also should critique instruments used to measure moral judgement or moral orientation for their ability to consider the importance of these relationships to and their impact on moral decision-making. It is critical that we recognize moral development as more than a strictly cognitive growth process.

Moral development theory

An important issue surrounds whether ethical character/morality is an educable quality, like intellect, and, if it is, what are the learning experiences that bring about its development (Perlman, 1982)? The product of person’s entire life experience proves extremely difficult to study systematically because it is difficult to disentangle the independent effects of the college experience and its different elements from one another, including moral development (Trow, 1975). It becomes quite difficult as an educator and a researcher to discern how we then affect the moral growth and development of students.

Faris (1929) noted that character traits all relate to behavior but they are only aspects of life, and they involve experience which external observation can never hope to see or measure. He further noted that you could not focus on behavior to the exclusion of mental or conscious aspects of the behavior. As noted earlier, moral development has cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, and any one cannot be measured to the exclusion of the other as they are intricately interwoven. The entire process of moral development also has relationship to many other facets of individual growth and development, from which it cannot be easily extricated.

“Moral development, interpersonal development, development of self-concept and inner life proceed together as a single, integrated structure” (Loevinger, 1975, p. 63). So the students whom grow most in moral reasoning in college appear to be the one most prepared to do so when they arrive (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000). Research on levels of moral development prior to matriculation serves as a critical starting point for knowing how students progress during their college experience. Hogan proposed five independent elements contributing to moral maturity (a factorial paradigm): moral knowledge, socialization, empathy, autonomy, and ethics of conscience versus ethics of responsibility (Loevinger, 1975). As this evidences, moral development occurs both as a result of individual development and development of the individual within the context of their capacity to form and maintain interpersonal relationships, and this growth is as much a result of age, experience, and relationships as other factors.

The ethic of care’s emphasis on motivation (a subjective quality) further challenges the primacy of moral reasoning, as the focus becomes not reasoning but sustaining relationships (Noddings, 1992). Fisher (as cited in Sobesky, 1983/1994) determined that individuals look at negative consequences as a situational factor—evaluations are based on a judgement of obligation (what should be done) versus a judgement of prediction (what would be done). Moral obligation involved avoidance of causing negative consequences for others, unless the consequence became greater for student assessing the situation than the person being assisted. Even in this situation, moral decisions are being evaluated in the context of relationship and consequences for the all players within the relationship.

Haan (Haan, 1991) developed a theory of interactional morality based on relations between participants. Morality serves as particular kind of social agreement that equalizes people’s relations with one another, taking into account that all parties make their issues known (Haan, 1991). Moral solutions have to do with a specific situation, with a given group of actors, at a given time, and consider what people need and deserve (which shifts over time). The basic form of moral action is dialogue; dialogue involves emotion, particularly if there are conflicting needs, so stress also plays a critical role in moral decision-making. Certainly many models of moral development exist for consideration, but many of the ones often utilized by educators fail to take into account the interactional nature of morality.

Emile Durkheim (as cited in Kurtines & Gewirtz, 1995, p. 214) proposed three basic elements of the internalization of moral values: (1) a “sense of discipline which includes a respect for authority,” meaning the customs, traditions, and rules of one’s society; (2) a “feeling of attachment to the social groups of which one is a member;” and (3) “the ability to provide a philosophical justification for one’s group membership and obedience to its rules.” Durkheim believed these justifications were typically based on religious or political doctrine. Certainly educators could argue social doctrine of a group might address student needs for affiliation, thereby creating another justification for adherence to group rules. We often also witness that these rules, customs, and traditions may not have moral content and could also be very dangerous, given the extreme nature of group decision-making versus individual decision-making. We have seen all too often that group members may have moral grounding individually, but collectively may not think or act morally and certainly do not behave with the best interests of others in mind.

Responsibility of higher education

“Knowledge alone cannot provide the happiness that springs from inner development” (Dalai Lama, 1999, p. 10). We have to be careful that we do not lose touch with importance of our inter-connections with others and the human experience. In higher education, we have a responsibility to help with the development of the inner dimension of students, which in public education we have avoided as a result of equating spirituality with religion. The educational experience should serve the holistic development of students, which includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral constructs.

The importance of role modeling cannot be undervalued. Example is “learned not from words but from actions” (Dalai Lama, 1999, p. 182). Campuses and educators must model the values they espouse; they must help students experience society and reflect on their role in it; and they must act on their understanding that matters of the spirit reflect such a profound aspect of the human condition that they cannot be ignored on any campus (Wingspread Group, 1993). Educators who share their values, doubts, and personal commitments with students profoundly influence students. Students value vulnerability and honesty as risk taking and human failing becomes more real and acceptable as part of living. We must also explain our actions and reasons for these actions to students, as role modeling also requires context for our moral decision-making processes as educators and institutions.

Institutions of higher education should provide an environment that provides a degree of safety in risk taking and experimentation, but also challenges students’ ideas about what is acceptable. We must challenge students’ thinking and behavior through dialogue about how their actions may conflict with their declared values and how they can act to fulfill these values ( Winthrop , 1961). People define their character by testing authority—so we allow students to test alternative models and values and we teach discipline and self-restraint through dialogue that leads to self-realization (Pavela, 1997).

To further the character education and moral development of students, the college and university environment should provide: (1) a mission statement detailing core values and virtues; (2) a general education curriculum that reinforces these core values and virtues as educational outcomes; (3) an academic honor code; (4) a student conduct code which details the rights and duties of citizenship; (5) a student compact or creed to confirm the shared values of community membership; (6) opportunities to engage in community service and community building; (7) a campus ethos of welcoming and caring for students; (8) new student programs that introduce students to institutional and community values, role models, traditions, and culture; (9) campus governance structures for students; (10) role modeling by University leaders; (11) rewards and recognition for exemplary students, faculty and staff who model values; (12) support for spiritual and religious expression and development; and (13) structured opportunity for public debate on moral issues (Dalton, 1999). Character education efforts should tie to educational outcomes that the institution deems important. Through these efforts, we teach students about what the community and individuals within the community value, how to honor what they value within this context, and how to effectively communicate and act on these values.

Values Higher Education Reinforces

We have seen increasingly self-oriented materialistic values among high school and college students ( Dalton , 1999). At the same time, institutions of higher education appear willing to do almost anything for grants, endowments, and other monetary gain for the institution. We often appear ready to hand the institution to the highest bidder for research, capital campaigns, or to allow access to our students through marketing efforts of large firms. All to often, our development efforts are at odds with some of the other values we espouse.

We must recognize the influence of the institution as a political entity and the consequences for students—in how we order relations among members, how we govern our activities, and our relation to the environment (Trow, 1975). Institutions of higher education have served as active participants in reinforcing the social competitiveness and materialism of students (Astin, 1993). Also “more academically selective institutions appear to negatively affect the development of civic values, religious beliefs, and cultural awareness” (Astin & Antonio, 2000, p. 6), as they also reinforce the ideas of competition and pursuit of intellect for economic gain. The institution as an entity serves as role model as much as individual faculty and staff members, so we must be conscious of the messages being sent to students about institutional values and acceptable conduct.

“Instrumental individualism” is when the academy exists for and reinforces the economic development and upward mobility of individuals as goals of the institution (Stephens, Colby, Ehrlich, & Beaumont, 2000, p. 2). The institution further emphasizes this when it pursues the same goals for the institution as a whole, often in conflict with a mission that speaks to the character development and civic responsibility of students. The “emphasis of the institution on acquisition of resources and enhancement of reputation was the single strongest negative correlate of facilitating student involvement in community service activities” (Astin, 1993, p. 18). It appears we reinforce the focus on self to the exclusion of our inter-connectedness and need to act in the interest of others.

Colleges and universities must also contend with the impersonal processing of large numbers of students which can result in no close or sustained relationships with faculty or staff members, which also does not aid moral growth (Trow, 1975). People whom we care about and with whom we have continuing personal relationships have significant influence on us. These relationships also create a spirit of connection to the campus community and allow students to utilize these relationships to make meaning in their lives and of their collegiate experience.

As professionals in institutions of higher education, we should indicate that we value respect for truth, community, and commitment to common good, and we must serve as advisors and mentors in a times of moral crisis (Dalton, 1999). We also need to recognize how and when our own values and beliefs may not be congruent with our actions. We must intensely reflect on what prevents the congruence between our values and action and what we need (skills, commitment, and experiences) that would create congruence. Only in understanding ourselves can we effectively serve our students.

Importance of peer culture and influence

“Peer relationships formed within a college environment might be an important factor related to the development of moral judgement” (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000, p. 16). Students who developed close friendships in college demonstrated higher levels of moral judgement than students who reported maintaining close friendships from high school did. The relationship between social support and development of moral judgement was stronger when the density of students’ friendship network was included in the analysis (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000). Density related to the diversity of friendship groups and the level of social support and interaction with these groups.

High moral judgement scores were associated with low density friendship networks (i.e., high levels of social support from different, diverse, and distinct friend groups). These individuals were more likely to discuss a broad range of topics with friends and to appreciate the diversity of the college campus. Students involved in Greek Life tended to have more dense friendship networks, so they got little exposure to different people, ideas and activities and as a result, moral judgement scores were lower (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000).

We also have to assess the role that self-esteem has on a student’s ability to act with others interests in mind. How do we cultivate compassion and caring for others when a student is incapable of demonstrating compassion and regard for him/her self? Many students arrive on campus carrying significant emotional burdens, which they have never addressed. The stress encountered in finally confronting these issues, as well as considering the impact of behavior on others may be more than a student can handle. Significant attention needs to be given to addressing the emotional and self-esteem issues of students, while recognizing that not every student will not yet be ready or able to receive counseling through typical avenues like the counseling center, disability services, etc.

Spirituality and Higher education

“If connectedness is a primary aspect of spirituality, then what spirituality threatens most is the inherent fragmentation in our educational structures” (Laurence, 1999, p. 14). Most educational structures do not have inherent in their physical or relational design a focus on the importance of developing relationships and spiritual development. “Work life has become so demanding, stressful, fast-paced, chaotic, and uncertain that people are forced to seek values-based answers and ways of achieving personal stability from within” (Rogers & Dantley, 2001, p. 589). As life-changing events unfold in our lives and the lives of students, we are challenged to make meaning of our lives and the world around us. Regardless of the label that we place on the journey (spirituality, moral meaning, etc.), the journey is one inward in search for meaning and outward for connection to those who help us make meaning. Few places and opportunities exist on most college campuses today for solitude and reflection or thoughtful conversation about deeper life issues.

Based on CIRP data, in 1966, over 88% of first time freshmen cite the development of a meaningful philosophy of life as essential or very important compared to less than 50% in 1996. In 1996, over 80% of students cite being well off financially as essential or very important, compared with the less than 45% in 1966 (Stephens, Colby, Ehrlich, & Beaumont, 2000). Attention must be paid to helping students begin to find meaning, purpose and the passions of life and work. Most moral/ethical action is habitual with no conscious deliberation or reflection, which requires that students have developed a character that allows these habitual decisions to be made in the best interest of the community.

Character Education Framework and Student Affairs Practice

There exist five critical elements of an effective college based character education program: (1) teaching about character - ethics and institutional espoused values are infused across the curriculum; (2) displaying character - role modeling and mentoring occurs both at the professional and institutional levels; (3) demanding character - clear, appropriate and fair standards of both acceptable, expected behavior (a student compact/creed) and unacceptable behavior exist in writing; and (4) apprenticeship or practicing character - active student engagement in self governance, service, and reflection on character (Berkowitz & Fekula, 1999). Student Affairs should consider which programs and services that they provide should have explicit goals for the character and moral development of students. Whether alcohol education programming that directly explores the moral consequences of alcohol misuse and abuse or challenging students in fraternities and sororities to broaden the diversity of their interactions and involvement, Student Affairs serves a primary role in the moral education of students.

Student Affairs practitioners can also engage students in activities such as interdisciplinary courses, participation in religious services and activities, social activities with students from other racial/ethnic backgrounds, and leadership education and training focused on social justice and civic responsibility. We can also provide students find opportunities for performing and reflecting on community service work; providing opportunities for relationships with both faculty and staff who provide emotional support and mentoring; and broadening academic, social and cultural perspectives (Astin & Antonio, 2000). More importantly, we should “see our relationship with students as a revitalized form of voluntary association--dedicated to fostering the intellectual and moral development of association members, and the good of the larger community” (Pavela, 1996, p. 2).

To effectively serve students, we must engage in critical self-examination as part of our student affairs training programs and our daily professional lives. We should work to understand who we are as individuals and community members, to define meaning, purpose, and passion in our lives, and to act with honesty and vulnerability in disclosing our own personal journeys with students who face the challenges and triumphs of their own journeys. Knowledge as an end is not enough; students want and need to know that they have connection to others as they discover themselves and their communities. We can serve as examples by engaging faculty and student affairs staff in discussion groups on spirituality and lifespan development (wisdom sharing) and coordinating discussion on controversial issues like human cloning and broader issues of societal concern. We can also recognize the importance of honest and timely one on one exchange with students about life and career issues (theirs and ours).

Conclusion

The “most effective strengthening of moral and civic character occurs on campuses where curricular and extracurricular learning experiences are consciously woven into a larger, integrated whole” (Ehrlich, 1999, p. 8). Educational experiences, which are limited to the acquisition of only knowledge and skill will, in the end, be to the detriment of both the individual and the community. The University of South Carolina’s motto, stated on the seal of the University, “Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros” translates “learning humanizes character and does not permit it to be cruel” (Whitely et al., 1999, p. xiii). As we consider the history of moral education and the implication of issues explored within this paper, we must recognize the many opportunities that exist for education and research in the moral, ethical and character development of college students. Institutions of higher education and their academic and professional staff have a great responsibility in promoting learning in all aspects of the curricular and co-curricular that reinforces moral development.

References

American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. In E.J. Whitt (Ed.), College student affairs administration (pp. 17-24). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights , MA : Simon & Schuster.

American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view. In E.J. Whitt (Ed.), College student affairs administration (pp. 24-35). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights , MA : Simon & Schuster.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. (2000). Retrieved on December 3, 2001, from http://www.bartleby.com/61

Appleton, J.R., Briggs, C.M., & Rhatigan, J.J. (1978). A corrective look back. In E.J. Whitt (Ed.), College student affairs administration (pp. 41-59). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights , MA : Simon & Schuster.

Astin, A. (1993). Promoting social responsibility: A challenge for higher education. Proceedings of the Institute for College Student Values, Tallahassee , FL , 15-21.

Astin, H.S. & Antonio, A.L. (2000, November-December). Building character in college. About Campus, 5(5), 3-7.

Berkowitz, M.W. & Fekula, M.J. (1999, November-December). Educating for character. About Campus, 4(5), 17-22.

Blimling, G.S. (1990). Developing character in college students. NASPA Journal, 27, 266-273.

Blimling, G.S. (1999). Accountability for student affairs: Trends for the 21st century. In C.S. Johnson & H.E. Cheatham (Eds.), Higher education trends for the next century: A research agenda for student success (pp. 51-57). Washington , DC : ACPA.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd Edition). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the future of America. Durham , NC : Duke University Press.

Dalton , J.C. (1985). Values education: A new priority for college student development. In J.C.

Dalton (Ed.), Promoting values development in college students (pp. 17-27). Monograph series, Volume 4. Washington , DC : NASPA.

Dalton , J.C. (1985). Critical factors in the value development process. In J.C. Dalton (Ed.), Promoting values development in college students (pp. 47-61). Monograph series, Volume 4. Washington , DC : NASPA.

Dalton , J.C. (1999). Helping students develop coherent values and ethical standards. In G.S.

Blimling, E.J. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 45-66). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Derryberry, W.P. & Thoma, S.J. (2000, May-June). The friendship effect: Its role in the development of moral thinking in students. About Campus, 5(2), 13-18.

Eberly, D.E. (Ed.). (1995). The content of America ’s character: Recovering civic virtue. Latham, MD : Madison Books.

Ehrlich, T. (1999, September-October). Civic and moral learning. About Campus, 4(4), 5-9.

Faris, E. (1929, February). The implication of behaviorism for character education. Religious Education, 117-121.

Gergen, K.J. (2001 Spring). From mind to relationship: The emerging challenge. Education Canada, 41(1), 8-11.

Haan, N. (1991). Moral development and action from a social constructivist perspective. In W.M. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Volume 1: Theory (pp. 251-273). Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

His Holiness The Dalai Lama. (1999). Ethics for the New Millennium. New York : Riverhead Books.

Kidder, R. (1993). Institute for Global Ethics Ethical fitness seminar. Unpublished manuscript.

Komives, S.R. (2000, November-December). Inhabit the Gap. About Campus, 5(5), 31-32.

Kuh, G.D. (1998 Summer). Shaping student character. Liberal Education, 84(3), 18-26.

Kurtines, W.M. & Gewirtz, J.L. (1995). Moral development: An introduction. Boston : Allyson and Bacon.

Laurence, P. (1999, November-December). Can religion and spirituality find a place in higher education? About Campus, 4(5), 11-16.

Loevinger, J. (1975). Issues in the measurement of moral development. Proceedings of the Educational Testing Services Invitational Conference, Princeton , NJ , 35, 57-68.

MacDonald, C. (1995). Moral decision-making: An analysis. Retrieved November 28, 2001, http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/chrismac/publications/moral.decision.html

Noddings, N. (1992). Caring. In E.J. Whitt (Ed.), College student affairs administration (pp. 534-541). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights , MA : Simon & Schuster.

Pavela, G. (1996). The power of association: Defining our relationship with students in the 21st century [Electronic version]. NASPA White Paper. Washington , DC : NASPA.

Pavela, G. (1997 Summer). Civility and student life. Stetson Law Review, Volume XXV11. Retrieved November 11, 2001 , from http://www.inform.umd.edu/CampusInfo/Departments/JPO/ethics/

Pavela, G. (1999). Developing a citizenship/ethical development program at Maryland. Retrieved November 11, 2001, from http://www.inform.umd.edu/CampusInfo/Departments/JPO/ethics/po.html

Payne, H.C. (1996 Fall). Can or should college teach virtue? Liberal Education, 82, 18-25.

Perlman, D.H. (1982, October 14). The responsibility of colleges and universities for building ethical and moral character in their students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Council on Education, Minneapolis , MN .

Rich, J.M. & DeVitis, J.L. (1994). Theories of moral development (Second edition). Springfield, IL : Charles C. Thomas.

Rogers, J.L. & Dantley , M.E. (2001). Invoking the spiritual in campus life and leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 589-603.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens , GA : The University of Georgia Press .

Sandeen, A. (1985). The legacy of values education in college student personnel work. In J.C.

Dalton (Ed.), Promoting values development in college students (pp. 1-15). Monograph series, Volume 4. Washington , DC : NASPA.

Schwartz, A.J. (2000, June 9). It’s not too late to teach college students about values [Electronic version]. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A68.

Smith, P. (1990). Killing the spirit: Higher education in America. New York : Viking.

Sobesky, W.E. (1983/1994). In B. Puka (Ed.), New research in moral development (pp. 299-308). New York : Garland Publishing, Inc.

Stephens, J.M., Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., & Beaumont, E. (2000, April 24-28). Higher education and the development of moral and civic responsibility: Vision and practice in three contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans , LA.

SUNY Cortland. (n.d.). What is the history of character education? Retrieved November 28, 2001, http://www.cortland.edu/c4n5rs/history.htm

Trow, M. (1975). Higher education and moral development. Proceedings of the Educational sting Services Invitational Conference, Princeton , NJ, 35, 15-31.

Whitely, J.M. & Yokota, N. (1988). Character development in the freshmen year and over four years of undergraduate study. The Freshmen Year Monograph Series No. 1. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshmen Year Experience.

Whitely, J.M., Mosher, R.L., Connor, D., Kalliel, K.M., Day, J.M., Yokota, N., & Porter, M.R. (1999). Moral action in young adulthood. Columbia , SC : National Resource Center for the First Year Experience & Students in Transition.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. In E.J. Whitt (Ed.), College student affairs administration (pp. 180-195). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights , MA : Simon & Schuster.

Winthrop , H. (1961). Can we educate for a sense of value? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1(1), 35-47.