|
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.
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. |
