American
Council on
Education
Speaking Truth and
Acting with Integrity
PROJECT CO-LEADS
ADRIANNA KEZAR AND SHARON FRIES-BRITT
RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS
ELIZABETH KURBAN, DONTÉ MCGUIRE, AND
MARISSIKO M. WHEATON
Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education and may not be used
or reproduced without the express written permission of ACE.
American Council on Education
One Dupont Circle NW
Washington, DC 20036
© 2018. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher.
American
Council on
Education
Cover photo Sarah Bell/Missourian via AP.
American
Council on
Education
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH
AND STRATEGY
American Council on Education — iii
Contents
Contributors ......................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................v
Letter from the University of Missouri .................................................................................................vi
Letter from the American Council on Education...................................................................................vii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... viii
Background, Context, and Research Methods ....................................................................................... 2
Case Description ............................................................................................................................... 6
History and Context Shaping Crisis and Recovery ................................................................................. 8
Framework for Campus Capacity Building and Resiliency .....................................................................13
Campus Contexts After a Racial Crisis: Facing Trauma ........................................................................19
Navigating a Campus Racial Crisis .....................................................................................................23
Conclusion: The Long Road to Enhancing Campus Racial Climate ........................................................32
References .......................................................................................................................................33
Appendix A. Media Coverage .............................................................................................................35
Appendix B. University of Missouri Programs and Resources ..............................................................36
iv — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Contributors
Adrianna Kezar is the Dean’s Professor for Higher Education Leadership at the University of Southern Califor-
nia (USC) and co-director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the USC Rossier School of Educa-
tion. Kezar is a national expert on student success, equity and diversity, change, governance, and leadership in
higher education. She is well published, with 18 books/monographs, more than 100 journal articles, and more
than 100 book chapters and reports. Recent books include How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and
Enacting Change (2018, Routledge), Enhancing Campus Capacity for Leadership: An Examination of Grassroots
Leaders in Higher Education (2011, Stanford University Press), and Organizing for Collaboration: A Guide for
Campus Leaders (2009, Jossey-Bass).
Sharon Fries-Britt is a professor of higher education at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research
examines the experiences of high-achieving blacks in higher education and underrepresented minorities in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) elds. She currently serves on the American
Institute of Physics National Task Force to Elevate African American Representation (TEAM-UP) and is a
co-principal investigator on a National Science Foundation grant to explore the academic trajectories of black
transfer engineering students from community colleges. Prior to her academic career she served as a senior-
level administrator in higher education, and has over 37 years of consulting experience with leaders in colleges
and universities, foundations, governmental agencies, and national organizations on issues of race, equity, and
diversity.
Elizabeth Kurban recently earned her PhD in higher education from the University of Maryland, College Park
(UMD). She works full time as the assistant director of retention in the Women in Engineering Program at
UMD’s School of Engineering. Kurban is passionate about equity, diversity, and inclusion in higher educa-
tion, especially in the context of STEM. Prior to her journey at UMD, Kurban worked in higher education
policy research in Washington, DC. She earned an MSEd in higher education administration from the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania and an MA in cognitive science from the University of Delaware.
Donté McGuire is a PhD student in higher education, earning a graduate certicate in women’s studies, at
the University of Maryland, College Park, where he also serves as co-president of the Black Graduate Student
Union. His scholarship engages issues of diversity, inclusion, and equity in higher education. He has also
worked and/or consulted in various educational contexts, including institutional diversity and inclusion, col-
lege access, residence life, program evaluation, and study abroad.
Marissiko M. Wheaton is a PhD candidate and dean’s fellow at the USC Rossier School of Education. She
serves as a research assistant at the Pullias Center for Higher Education. Her research focus examines college
student experiences with social identity, leadership, and activism. Her dissertation study explores critical
race-consciousness and political resistance among Asian Pacic Islander and Desi American students. Prior to
her doctoral studies, she worked in higher education and student aairs for seven years.
American Council on Education — v
Acknowledgments
Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate is a collaboration
between the Division of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity for the University of Missouri–Columbia (MU);
the Oce of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for the University of Missouri System (UM System), under the
leadership of Kevin McDonald; the American Council on Education (ACE) Center for Policy Research and
Strategy, under the leadership of Lorelle Espinosa; and project co-leads and authors of the report Adrianna
Kezar, University of Southern California, and Sharon Fries-Britt, University of Maryland. Joining Kezar and
Fries-Britt as co-authors are three members of their research team: Elizabeth Kurban and Donté McGuire
from the University of Maryland, and Marissiko M. Wheaton from the University of Southern California.
is project would not have been possible without the signicant commitment of the University of Missouri
community. A special thanks goes to UM System President Mun Choi and MU Chancellor Alexander N.
Cartwright for their leadership and support of this work. e research team oers our tremendous gratitude to
those individuals who were willing to participate in individual and focus group interviews. eir participation
in this project contributed signicantly to the perspectives and insights shared in this report. Key individuals
in the UM System Oce of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion include Emily Love and Cheryl Tatum, who
oered invaluable assistance throughout the project.
e authors owe a debt of gratitude to the leadership of ACE and the many units that contributed to the suc-
cess of this publication. e guidance and advice provided by ACE was invaluable in shaping the nal format
and presentation of this work.
vi — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Letter from the
University of Missouri
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (D&I) eorts in higher education require highly engaged, transparent, and
intentional leadership in order to have a transformative and lasting impact on campus communities. From
building a strong sense of belonging among campus constituencies to meaningfully connecting D&I eorts
to all areas of organizational functioning, leaders must be willing to weave D&I into our institutional fabric.
As leaders at the University of Missouri System and the University of Missouri–Columbia campus, we are
working diligently to accomplish this. Last spring, we welcomed the opportunity to participate in a project
with the American Council on Education (ACE). is study sought to understand key programmatic changes
and strategies employed by campus leadership in building capacity for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
e UM System is on a journey toward inclusive excellence. In order to achieve this goal, it will require us to
look at the university through new eyes. We must all shift the lens through which we examine our practices,
processes, and people to seek new opportunities for change where diversity, equity, and inclusion are part
of excellence and not apart from it. It is our hope that this partnership with ACE will serve as an important
window into our heightened levels of intentionality, and as a model for other institutions addressing this same
societal issue.
We know our journey is not a sprint. It will have twists and turns along the way, but we remain committed to
serving our students, sta, faculty, alumni, and local community members in ways that they value and sup-
port. eir engagement provides us with the sustenance we will need to reach our destination. It has been said
that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the rst step, and we are grateful for a supportive community
and our partnership with ACE. We look forward to sharing an inclusive part of this journey with all of you.
Sincerely,
Mun Choi
President
University of Missouri System
Alexander N. Cartwright
Chancellor
University of Missouri
Kevin McDonald
Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Ocer
University of Missouri System
Vice Chancellor for Inclusion, Diversity and Equity
University of Missouri
American Council on Education — vii
Letter from the
American Council on Education
Access, equity, and diversity in higher education are core to the work of the American Council on Education
(ACE). Our commitment to campus inclusion, free expression, and racial climate has resulted in collabora-
tions with organizations, researchers, philanthropies, and campus leaders—all working to identify eective,
equity-minded leadership strategies for the twenty-rst-century institution.
is specic research project brings forward important insights and actions on the issues of diversity and
inclusion, especially in times of crisis. We owe a debt of gratitude to the University of Missouri for providing
access to their campus and to the “backstage” work that moved the community forward in a time of vulner-
ability. is eort is an example of the innovative leadership necessary in today’s higher education environ-
ment, not only to learn from the challenges of racism and other forms of discrimination, but also to use that
learning to chart a purposeful path forward for the benet of our communities and society.
Racial incidents and crises that have taken place on college campuses over many years have demonstrated the
need to assess and improve campus climates, well beyond Missouri. is report employs useful frameworks for
building campuses’ capacity to address diversity and inclusion, as well as to work through the emotional heal-
ing that is often required after a racial incident or crisis. We encourage leaders to examine these frameworks as
a way to gauge their own approach and progress.
At ACE we are developing new ways for institutional leaders to connect, share, and learn from one another,
including in regional settings and in digital spaces. Leading and learning by and for the community, with a
sound evidence-based approach, will strengthen all sectors of higher education and enable us to do even better
for all of the students we serve. We expect that collaborations and team approaches to solving racial chal-
lenges—and other complex and historically fraught issues—will become increasingly important as we move
further into the twenty-rst century. ere is no one solution or perfect way to address racial incidents. How-
ever, we can certainly learn from each other’s experiences and approaches. is collaborative eort will enable
us to achieve the vision that drives all of ACE’s work: that of a vibrant democratic society that relies on higher
education to expand knowledge, equity, and social progress.
Sincerely,
Ted Mitchell
President
American Council on Education
Lorelle L. Espinosa
Vice President for Research
American Council on Education
viii — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Executive Summary
e resurgence of overt forms of racism in society means that race-related incidents are manifesting more
frequently on college campuses. Over the past several years, campuses have seen an increase in hate incidents,
including displays of racist symbols and verbal and physical assaults. ese incidents can impact the overall
racial climate on a campus; in some instances they may rise to the level of a racial crisis, often marked by
extreme tension and instability. Every campus leader must be prepared to lead and respond eectively to such
incidents, especially during a crisis.
A campus racial crisis is a time of signicant scrutiny for institutional leadership. In these moments, the cam-
pus community, whether they be students, faculty, sta, or alumni, are looking to their leaders to see whether
and how they model competence, empathy, and stability for the campus. Developing eective strategies for
navigating a racial incident is dicult. e way in which leaders rebuild and provide direction to restore a
commitment to diversity and inclusion matters. Rebuilding the campus community requires commitment,
signicant organizational and leadership eectiveness, and strategies to restore trust and stability.
e University of Missouri–Columbia (MU) and the University of Missouri System (UM System)
1
serve as
the case site for this report, having experienced a highly visible racial crisis in the 2015–16 academic year. e
university’s openness to being studied provides a unique opportunity for the nation to learn important lessons
about the recovery process on college campuses following a racial crisis. us, we sought three key outcomes
from this work: rst, to understand what led up to the crisis, second, to understand perceptions of leadership
during the crisis in 2015, and third, to understand what it has taken for the University of Missouri to move
forward after the crisis. e lessons and insights that we have learned from the initial stages of this case study
are the focus of this report.
Critical takeaways and key elements of a path forward when addressing campus racial crises:
CAMPUS CONTEXT MATTERS. A campus racial crisis does not emerge from thin air. Such crises
are deeply embedded within layers of social, cultural, and political contexts on a given campus. e
interviews we conducted at the UM System and MU reveal the perceptions that many campus stake-
holders have of the historical legacy of race and racism on campus, as well as the climate at the local and
state levels, which further contributed to the crisis. In addition, racial crises occur within the broader
national and political context of race and racism. We document how leaders can assess and analyze these
contexts, and the role they play in how the racial crisis unfolds, in the recovery from a crisis, and in
ultimately building a more inclusive environment.
ACKNOWLEDGING AND RESPONDING TO COLLECTIVE TRAUMA. Once a racial crisis
occurs on a campus, the impact can vary, depending on the campus’s eorts to build capacity prior to
the incident. Low- and even moderate-capacity campuses will not have invested deeply in educating
leaders, building trust and respect across groups, or dismantling oppressive environments—actions that
build the capacity of a campus to withstand times of crisis. is was the case for the University of Mis-
souri. Trauma leaves a great deal of collective emotional pain with members of a campus community.
1 e University of Missouri–Columbia and the University of Missouri System are referred to collectively in this report as the Uni-
versity of Missouri.
American Council on Education — ix
And because emotions are often ignored, campuses have diculty emerging from racial crises. Acknowl-
edging and responding to this collective trauma is a critical step in recovering from a racial crisis.
TRAUMA RECOVERY—DOS AND DON’TS. e general features of collective trauma recovery frame-
works include active listening, speaking from the heart, and “acting with” (as described below). What
leaders absolutely should not do in the immediate aftermath of a crisis is set up a task force, collect data,
and develop a report with recommendations. is routinized approach to responding to racial issues on
campus rarely creates meaningful changes and will be particularly weak in addressing the trauma that
ensues from a racial crisis. is routinized response is common but destructive to campus communities
that need authentic engagement from their leaders.
ACTIVE LISTENING. e rst element of overcoming collective trauma is active listening, a struc-
tured form of listening and responding that focuses the attention on the speaker and improves mutual
understanding without debate or judgment. Most people engage in conversations but are focused on
their own mental responses and perspectives, and tend to not focus intently on the other speaker. Active
listening—especially when utilized by leadership—is a powerful method of responding to stressful and
traumatic situations and events. is tactic allows individuals to share problems and struggles, engage
with dicult feelings, gain perspective on the experiences, take ownership of the situation, rebuild rela-
tionships, nd their own solutions, and build self-esteem and resilience.
SPEAKING FROM THE HEART. e second element of overcoming collective trauma is speaking
from the heart. is involves honest communication from leaders, free from political spin. Speaking
from the heart, as is suggested by the phrase, means invoking and responding to emotions. Too often
it is the impulse of leaders to get prepared comments after a tragedy so that they do not say anything
“wrong” that might further oend people. When leaders speak from the heart, they can build the trust
needed to overcome fear and fatigue.
“ACTING WITH.” e third element of overcoming collective trauma, “acting with,” allows leaders
to move forward by directly engaging with community, particularly the community members most
aected by the traumatic events. Too often, leaders rush ahead with actions to “solve” the problem and
do not engage and act with the community, which can negatively impact the collective recovery from
trauma. “Acting with” requires leaders to move in a measured way that deeply connects to community
members as the campus actively listens to inform their strategy forward.
BUILDING CAPACITY PRIOR TO A RACIAL INCIDENT. Racial incidents are complex and emo-
tionally charged. Even under the best of circumstances, there will be signicant challenges in leading
through a crisis. High levels of capacity building provide a strong foundation and frame of reference
for shared expectations, values, and commitments to diversity and inclusion. Leaders on high capacity
building campuses have a shared context from which to communicate and engage in sense making
during and after a crisis. e University of Missouri case highlights how low capacity around diversity
and inclusion led to a prolonged and traumatizing experience. Being proactive on issues of diversity and
inclusion is critical to avoid this type of trauma. Campuses that build capacity ahead of time can accel-
erate their ability to respond eectively during and after a crisis. High-level capacity building requires
that campuses demonstrate a sustained commitment to issues of diversity and inclusion even when
things appear to be improving.
x — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
The report begins with a brief case description highlighting key events shaping the University of Missouri context.
This is followed by a review of important historical contexts shaping the case at the campus, local, system, state,
and national levels. Next, we introduce a framework for building the capacity and resiliency of a campus to respond
to issues of diversity and inclusion, including leading through a campus racial crisis. We examine key emotions
that linger after a racial incident and introduce a collective trauma recovery model that addresses the needed heal-
ing process. We conclude with observations about how to navigate a campus racial crisis and key campus actions
that lead to success.
American Council on Education — 1
Once a campus falls into a collective traumatic state and loses its resiliency, it is a very long road back to a positive cam-
pus environment. Addressing the anger, fear, fatigue, and distrust could take years of following the Collective Trauma
Recovery Framework we highlight within this report. The University of Missouri is working to strengthen its campus
racial climate and we are very grateful that it is allowing us to follow their journey. Too often, studies of this nature never
capture the early stages following a campus racial incident or crisis. The implication is that we never get to understand
the early struggles and lessons that document deep emotions and feelings, and the initial steps by leaders to navigate
out of a crisis situation. We saw many indicators that the University of Missouri is moving in the right direction.
2 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Background, Context, and Research Methods
Background
Our collaboration with the University of Missouri began less than two years after the campus protests in 2015
and is arguably occurring at a time of considerably increased racial tensions nationally. College campuses are
increasingly the targets for hate groups that want to incite violence and racial division. e U.S. Department
of Education reports a 25 percent increase in hate crimes on college campuses from 2015 to 2016. Similarly,
the Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism has reported 188 white supremacist-related incidents
across 126 college campuses since 2016.
Racist incidents on college campuses have varied from infractions such as racist slogans, posters, and harass-
ment of students to more egregious acts of violence. At the University of Alabama a student was expelled over
a racist Instagram video showing her repeatedly using the N-word and saying how much she hates black peo-
ple. A Bowie State University (MD) student, Lt. Richard Collins III, was stabbed and murdered while visiting
the University of Maryland. At Syracuse University (NY), the student newspaper exposed a racist fraternity
initiation process in which students had to cite an oath containing racial slurs.
e resurgence of overt acts of racism points to its pervasiveness and suggests that every university leader must
be prepared to respond eectively to a racial incident or crisis. What constitutes a racial crisis can vary consid-
erably based on a number of factors, including the perceptions of stakeholder groups. By racial crisis, we mean
situations in which a college or university experiences a discriminatory racial incident, or series of incidents,
that are left unaddressed or inappropriately addressed. An ineective response to a racial incident only deep-
ens the emotional wound and trauma experienced by targeted groups.
Leaving racist behaviors unaddressed can lead to an escalating commu-
nity reaction that reaches a turning point or becomes an emergency for
the institution. Even more important than preparation, leaders must be
committed to ensuring a positive campus racial climate for all students,
sta, and faculty long after the crisis has waned.
A campus racial crisis is a time of signicant scrutiny when all eyes focus
on campus leaders and how they demonstrate competence, empathy, and
stability for the campus. Developing eective strategies for navigating
through a racial crisis is dicult; nevertheless, it matters that we see how leaders rebuild, and how they pro-
vide direction to restore a commitment to diversity and inclusion. Rebuilding the campus community requires
signicant organizational and leadership eectiveness, commitment, and strategies to restore trust and sta-
bility. We introduce a trauma model that assists leaders in navigating and addressing the fear, distrust, anger,
and fatigue that emerge in these situations. During this time of signicant racial tension, leaders must assess
the ability of their institutions to be responsive to threats of racial unrest. ey should continually evaluate
their preparedness to respond eectively in a crisis and pay great attention to their campus’s distinct context in
terms of historical, political, and cultural contexts inuencing the emergence of a racial incident.
By racial crisis, we mean
situations in which a college
or university experiences a
discriminatory racial incident, or
series of incidents, that are left
unaddressed or inappropriately
addressed.
American Council on Education — 3
Wooten and James (2008) identify key phases of leadership competencies in times of a crisis, and while their
competencies were developed based on a review of crises outside of higher education (e.g., the airline industry,
employee crises, product safety), the crisis leadership competencies they identify, particularly the signal detec-
tion phase, are certainly relevant to university leadership. During and after an incident, the ability of leaders to
respond to key signals and to help the campus make sense of events is critical.
e signal detection phase is central to leaders’ ability to contain the damage of a crisis and to eectively
communicate to internal and external audiences. Signal detection involves making sense of individual events
as well as a series of events over time. Leaders must understand what is occurring on their campus and how
incidents may be linked to a larger issue that is impacting the racial climate. Signal detection also requires
leaders to be able to understand the perspective of others. To be able to understand the perspective of others
builds empathy, and connecting early with the campus community and understanding how a particular inci-
dent is impacting members of the community is critical. is early phase of signal detection impacts all of the
competencies necessary to learn from a crisis.
A campus crisis will raise a number of questions for leaders to consider throughout all stages. Leaders should
continually seek answers to these key questions, including the following: What investments have been made
to ensure the well-being of all students, faculty, and sta? What scal,
human, and programmatic resources are available before, during, and
after a crisis? What eorts are being made to disrupt oppressive practices
to mitigate future incidents? e answers to these and other questions
provide key insights into an institution’s capacity for diversity and
inclusion work, and they help institutions navigate through racial crises
and avoid the trauma we will describe that is a result of an inadequate
response to such a racial crisis.
In this report, we oer a familiar metaphor of a rubber band to convey
the capacity of an institution to expand to meet the demands of a racial
crisis, or risk becoming overstretched to a point of potential “breakage”
or breakdown in leadership eectiveness. Capacity is a measure of the
ability to respond eectively to a range of diversity and inclusion issues
including race, racism, and campus racial climate. Building the capacity of an institution to be responsive to
a racial crisis, and to issues of diversity and inclusion, requires that the campus have the scope and magnitude
to be eective. In the pages that follow, we describe three levels of capacity building (e.g., low, moderate,
and high) and the actions, behaviors, and tendencies that convey the degrees of preparedness in each. ose
campuses with high levels of capacity building are best positioned to expand to meet the demands of a campus
crisis if and when one occurs because of the key investments they have made in supporting the institutions’
commitment to diversity and inclusion work.
e University of Missouri did not have high levels of capacity to manage a racial crisis in 2015. e public
record has ample evidence of the struggles it encountered, and the data from our interviews suggest that many
participants viewed the campus as aected by a history of racism and unprepared for a contemporary crisis.
is was reected in our interview data, as illustrated by one participant who described the incidents of racism
as having not been addressed eectively, stating, “We put a Band-Aid on wounds that really need surgery.
We’re in the beginning phases of the surgery.”
Our goal is to learn what it
has taken for the University of
Missouri to move forward and
to strengthen its capacity for
diversity and inclusion following
the November 2015 campus
protests. In addition, we seek to
document the damage that can
occur on a campus that lacks
capacity to handle a racial crisis.
4 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
e University of Missouri provides a unique opportunity for the nation to learn important lessons that are
often overlooked and undervalued as colleges and universities recover from a crisis. Ultimately, this work
endeavors to contribute something dierent to the eld that blends both practice and research as it unfolds
and develops. Our goal is to learn what it has taken for the University of Missouri to move forward and to
strengthen its capacity for diversity and inclusion following the November 2015 campus protests. In addition,
we seek to document the damage that can occur on a campus that lacks capacity to handle a racial crisis.
Data Collection and Research Approach
is report draws on three main sources of data: rst, our qualitative research of the University of Missouri
case study; second, our review of key bodies of literature; and third, our years of experience as consultants and
researchers on issues of diversity and inclusion, which informed overall recommendations and aspects of the
capacity building framework.
We began this project by reviewing literature related to campus racial climate, crisis response, institutional
diversity and inclusion, and system and campus leadership. We also examined MU campus reports and the
public record to understand key factors shaping the campus during and after the crisis. Based on this review
and the expertise and experience of research team members, we developed a questionnaire designed to better
understand leadership challenges, changes, and improvements in the two years since the campus protests and
crisis at MU.
Next, we worked with the UM System Oce of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to identify key stakeholders
(students, sta, faculty, and community members) who were able to provide valuable information regarding
how campus leaders are working to address racial climate. We explored issues ranging from crisis management
and communication to new policies and practices as they relate to diversity and inclusion work on campus.
For the purposes of this project, we dened leadership broadly to include those in formal positions of leader-
ship and also students, faculty, sta, and community members.
Once stakeholders were identied and contacted, the research team collected data through in-person individ-
ual and focus group interviews. Additional individual interviews were conducted via phone for participants
who were not available during the team’s visit to campus. is resulted in the team interviewing 52 indi-
viduals. In addition to detailed notes taken during the data collection process, each interview recording was
transcribed. e research team then engaged in a process of individually reviewing the transcripts to identify
emergent themes. After each member developed a list of themes, the research team deliberated to reach con-
sensus among the themes.
We endorse a methodological stance in this work to value the knowledge that we each brought to the project.
As a diverse team, we valued our lived experiences in the academy as important sources of knowledge. is
allowed us to discuss, and own, our biases and experiences and to understand how they shaped our interpre-
tations of the data. In addition to the data collected at the University of Missouri, we were informed by our
own research and practice, within and outside of higher education, on issues of leadership, race, equity, and
diversity. ese experiences, in combination with the University of Missouri data, informed all aspects of this
project.
Finally, we recognize that studying one institutional context is insucient and does not represent all of higher
education. However, if ever there existed a case example that captures the complexity and intensity of a cam-
pus racial crisis, it would be the unfolding events at MU. Very few campuses in recent history have had the
We recognize that studying
one institutional context is
insufcient and does not
represent all of higher education.
However, if ever there existed a
case example that captures the
complexity and intensity of a
campus racial crisis, it would be
the unfolding events at MU.
American Council on Education — 5
e University of Missouri provides a unique opportunity for the nation to learn important lessons that are
often overlooked and undervalued as colleges and universities recover from a crisis. Ultimately, this work
endeavors to contribute something dierent to the eld that blends both practice and research as it unfolds
and develops. Our goal is to learn what it has taken for the University of Missouri to move forward and to
strengthen its capacity for diversity and inclusion following the November 2015 campus protests. In addition,
we seek to document the damage that can occur on a campus that lacks capacity to handle a racial crisis.
Data Collection and Research Approach
is report draws on three main sources of data: rst, our qualitative research of the University of Missouri
case study; second, our review of key bodies of literature; and third, our years of experience as consultants and
researchers on issues of diversity and inclusion, which informed overall recommendations and aspects of the
capacity building framework.
We began this project by reviewing literature related to campus racial climate, crisis response, institutional
diversity and inclusion, and system and campus leadership. We also examined MU campus reports and the
public record to understand key factors shaping the campus during and after the crisis. Based on this review
and the expertise and experience of research team members, we developed a questionnaire designed to better
understand leadership challenges, changes, and improvements in the two years since the campus protests and
crisis at MU.
Next, we worked with the UM System Oce of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to identify key stakeholders
(students, sta, faculty, and community members) who were able to provide valuable information regarding
how campus leaders are working to address racial climate. We explored issues ranging from crisis management
and communication to new policies and practices as they relate to diversity and inclusion work on campus.
For the purposes of this project, we dened leadership broadly to include those in formal positions of leader-
ship and also students, faculty, sta, and community members.
Once stakeholders were identied and contacted, the research team collected data through in-person individ-
ual and focus group interviews. Additional individual interviews were conducted via phone for participants
who were not available during the team’s visit to campus. is resulted in the team interviewing 52 indi-
viduals. In addition to detailed notes taken during the data collection process, each interview recording was
transcribed. e research team then engaged in a process of individually reviewing the transcripts to identify
emergent themes. After each member developed a list of themes, the research team deliberated to reach con-
sensus among the themes.
We endorse a methodological stance in this work to value the knowledge that we each brought to the project.
As a diverse team, we valued our lived experiences in the academy as important sources of knowledge. is
allowed us to discuss, and own, our biases and experiences and to understand how they shaped our interpre-
tations of the data. In addition to the data collected at the University of Missouri, we were informed by our
own research and practice, within and outside of higher education, on issues of leadership, race, equity, and
diversity. ese experiences, in combination with the University of Missouri data, informed all aspects of this
project.
Finally, we recognize that studying one institutional context is insucient and does not represent all of higher
education. However, if ever there existed a case example that captures the complexity and intensity of a cam-
pus racial crisis, it would be the unfolding events at MU. Very few campuses in recent history have had the
We recognize that studying
one institutional context is
insufcient and does not
represent all of higher education.
However, if ever there existed a
case example that captures the
complexity and intensity of a
campus racial crisis, it would be
the unfolding events at MU.
collective activism and impact to shape the national discourse on campus racial climate, as has MU. Moreover,
while racial incidents have been occurring at a variety of institution types, it is the case that they occur most
often, and with the greatest damaging eect, at traditionally white insti-
tutions like MU.
In the sections below, we provide examples from the University of
Missouri as often as possible to make concrete the ideas and ndings.
e university was a valuable case to understand how context aects a
racial crisis and the trauma that emerges. We outline eective responses
to such trauma; however, there are instances where Mizzou had not yet
taken actions advised by these frameworks for overcoming a racial crisis.
During the time of our data collection, less than two years from the
crisis, they were in the early stages of this journey. erefore, there are
sections of the report where we do not reference or provide examples
from the case. Instead, we provide examples from other campuses in the
news or from other research studies. We also acknowledge that the scope of our analysis focuses primarily on
the racial crisis that unfolded at Missouri; other sources may provide a more comprehensive analysis focused
on dierent aspects of the crisis. We will be returning to Mizzou in roughly 12–18 months to gauge their
further progress.
e report is organized as follows:
1. A brief case description highlighting key events shaping the University of Missouri context.
2. A review of important historical contexts shaping the case at the campus, local, system, state, and national
levels.
3. An introduction and discussion of the framework for capacity building and resiliency.
4. An examination of campus contexts after a racial crisis and the emotions that linger.
5. A review of a trauma collective trauma recovery framework that addresses the needed healing process. We
include key observations about how to navigate a campus racial crisis and key campus actions that lead to
success.
6 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Case Description
In the fall of 2015, the University of Missouri experienced a major racial crisis following a series of racist inci-
dents that took place on campus and in the surrounding local and regional community. For example, in 2010,
cotton balls were spread out in front of the Black Cultural Center. In 2015, the president of MU’s student
government was verbally assaulted with racial slurs by a group of people driving by him in a pickup truck. He
posted the incident on Facebook, which bought it to the attention of the broader campus community. Shortly
after that incident, a drunken white student yelled a racial slur at the Legion of Black Collegians, a student
government organization, as they were preparing for homecoming activities on campus.
Adding to the intensity were the racial incidents unfolding beyond the campus. In 2014, the killing of an
unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, occurred just two hours from the campus, in Ferguson, Missouri.
Protesting in Ferguson following Brown’s death is often cited as a culminating factor that led to the Black
Lives Matter movement. Students were disappointed when MU’s leadership failed to respond to events hap-
pening so close to home. In August 2015, during a time of growing community frustration, graduate students
were given notice of only 24 hours that subsidies to their health insurance would expire. Many discussed the
on-campus and regional events as a perfect storm that accelerated into a crisis.
Like many universities, the leadership of the University of Missouri was ill-prepared to adequately address
these incidents in a thoughtful and timely manner. e board, president, and administrative team had built
too little capacity around racial uency and crisis management, and oered limited coordination and com-
munication on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. As a result, both graduate and undergraduate students
across the university began organizing protests and demonstrations to hold leaders accountable for neglecting
student concerns. One of the rst organized protests in the fall of 2015 took place in response to the graduate
student health insurance changes, which were viewed as aecting another vulnerable population. From this
point, resistance among students, faculty, and sta continued to spread.
Concerned Student 1950, named after the year the rst black student was admitted to MU, was the student
group that sparked the most national attention through a series of rallies and demonstrations. By their own
description, “Concerned Student 1950 . . . represents every Black Student admitted to the University of Mis-
souri since [1950] and their sentiments regarding race-related aairs aecting their lives at a predominantly
white institution.” During MU’s annual homecoming parade on October 10, 2015, Concerned Student 1950
organized a public demonstration to demand that the university president, Tim Wolfe, address their concerns.
Wolfe did not address these concerns during the demonstration, and the student protesters were escorted out
by police.
On October 21, Concerned Student 1950 submitted a list of demands to the University of Missouri System
and MU administration. After meeting with Tim Wolfe in person, the students still felt that the demands and
concerns were not taken seriously. roughout the student demonstration, student protesters set up a camp-
site on the lawn facing the MU administration building. As the student protests gained national attention,
media began to ood the campus to cover the story.
2
In an eort to protect the student protesters, several fac-
ulty and sta members surrounded the area to keep media from entering the territory. An untenured faculty
2 In the appendix, we provide links to media accounts for further details about the unfolding events from 2015. See also CNN’s
detailedtimeline of the University of Missouri protests (Pearson 2015).
American Council on Education — 7
member in communications, Melissa Click, entered into a verbal and physical altercation with a photojour-
nalist. Ultimately, the board of curators terminated Click’s contract. Many faculty signed a letter in defense of
Click’s actions.
As acts of hate continued to occur, including the appearance of a swastika drawn in human feces in a residence
hall, student leader Jonathan Butler began a hunger strike on November 2, 2015. e hunger strike marked
an important turning point in the continued protest on behalf of Concerned Student 1950. When no actions
were taken by the administration by November 7, the MU football team announced a strike, boycotting all
games and practices until Tim Wolfe resigned from oce. Two days later, Tim Wolfe resigned from his posi-
tion as system president. Following his resignation, more leaders left campus, resulting in signicant turnover.
Since November 2015 the UM System has taken signicant action, including hiring new campus leadership,
allocating funds for an Oce of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, hiring an executive for this oce, and con-
ducting climate studies and audits to understand the capacity for issues of diversity and inclusion. e UM
System Oce of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion implemented an Inclusive Excellence Framework for the rst
time, in an eort to increase inclusive practices and programming across system and campus oces.
While the new leadership has made incremental progress in regaining the trust of community members on
and o campus, the racial tensions continue to exist. In fact, recent diversity and inclusion priorities have
led to political tensions among legislators. Since MU is a land grant institution, the university relies on state
funding. erefore, university leadership has to negotiate with and appeal to a variety of dierent stakeholders
across the political spectrum. Along similar lines, admissions ocers are attempting to rebuild enrollment
because of a signicant drop in the fall of 2016—one year after the racial crisis. is drop in enrollment has
resulted in a budget shortfall.
A member of Concerned Student 1950 gives an impromptu announcement after
Tim Wolfe’s resignation. Photo: Mark Schierbecker.
8 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
History and Context Shaping Crisis
and Recovery
A campus racial crisis does not emerge from thin air. Such crises are deeply embedded within the social,
cultural, and political contexts of a given campus. e historical legacy of race and racism on campus, as well
as the political climate at the local and state levels, contribute signicantly. In addition, racial crises occur
within the broader national and political context of race and racism.
is suggests that navigating a racial crisis is not a linear process, and
it requires all levels of leadership to consider the various dimensions of
context that shape crisis and recovery. Moreover, this suggests that lead-
ers need to customize responses in order to reect these unique campus
contexts. We briey review some of the relevant contexts that emerged
from the interviews at the University of Missouri. ese contexts were
mentioned repeatedly by many of the participants during data collection. Below is a diagram to help leaders
visualize and understand the various context features that shaped the University of Missouri crisis.
FIGURE 1. CONTEXTS THAT SHAPED THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI CRISIS
NATIONAL CONTEXT
STATE CONTEXT
SYSTEM CONTEXT
HISTORY
MEDIA
CAMPUS
CONTEXT
University
of Missouri
A campus racial crisis does not
emerge from thin air. Such crises
are deeply embedded within the
social, cultural, and political
contexts of a given campus.
American Council on Education — 9
University of Missouri Campus Context
Our interviews suggested that the events of 2015 were shaped by the context of a long history of the Univer-
sity of Missouri declining to address racial incidents on campus. In their demands document from October
2015, Concerned Student 1950 dates the origin of racial tensions there to 1935, “when Lloyd Gaines peti-
tioned the university to be its rst Black law student and was denied admission.” It was not until 1950 that
MU admitted its rst African American students. Since then, students of color attending MU have consis-
tently been the targets of bias-motivated incidents during their time on campus. From the 1950s up to present
day, the black student body has fought to bring this to the attention of campus leaders and administrators. In
1964, MU’s ocial black student government, called the Legion of Black Collegians, was established follow-
ing displays of campus-wide bias-motivated incidents at a football game and with no campus action to address
the incident (Dalton 2015).
As with many other predominantly white research institutions, MU saw increased recognition of black
students and faculty and their place on campus in the 1960s and 1970s, with the rst black professor hired
in 1969 and MU’s Black Culture House established in 1971. In the
1980s, students and faculty marched to demand the enrollment of more
students of color and also challenged MU’s ocial homecoming theme
of 1988, “Show Me Old Mizzou” (Dalton 2015). e historical context
of racial incidents at the University of Missouri provides a foundation
upon which subsequent incidents are layered. When this history is
ignored and left unaddressed, the built up racial unrest can fuel and
ignite current campus incidents.
By not addressing racial incidents throughout its history, the contem-
porary incidents previously described were all the more damaging and
caused instability among the MU community. As evidenced by the
culmination of events in fall 2015—including the demands made of
the administration and the accounts of community members—students, faculty, and sta of color at MU
have long felt unsafe and unwelcome. Importantly, we also learned from our interviews that white colleagues
were deeply impacted by the racial climate; several described feeling unsafe in a culture where racial incidents
went unaddressed. e university, like other institutions across our nation, has struggled with the hiring (e.g.,
obtaining a diverse candidate pool as well as getting search committees to hire candidates in the pool) and
retaining of new faculty and sta of color, which further perpetuates this problem. (University of Missouri,
internal report, 2016; French, Adair, and Cokley 2015)
LOCAL CONTEXT
e University of Missouri campus is embedded within the local context of Columbia, Missouri. rough
our interviews with local community members of Columbia, we learned of a small number of key individuals
within the community who are highly involved and interested in engaging with the MU community in this
time of recovery. However, we also learned from community members that there has been a series of racial
incidents within Columbia, including in its K–12 school system, resulting in racial tensions (see Appendix
A for news accounts). is local context is a key aspect to consider in the process within which MU will be
recovering, particularly in potential partnerships and collaboration beyond the campus walls. Indeed, climate
within the local community context is critical to consider when examining contextual impact on crisis and
recovery.
It is a complex balance between
campus and system roles
and responsibilities, and it is
important to acknowledge the
delicate and complicated nature
of initiating and navigating
between campus-level and
system-level priorities during
a crisis.
10 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
SYSTEM CONTEXT
Being a part of a large system of universities can complicate recovery. MU’s campus community may feel that
the UM System is doing too much or too little, while campus leaders may worry that system ocials are not
knowledgeable enough about specic campus context to provide appropriate advice or strategy for recovery.
It is a complex balance between campus and system roles and responsibilities, and it is important to acknowl-
edge the delicate and complicated nature of initiating and navigating between campus-level and system-level
priorities during a crisis.
STATE CONTEXT
e social, political, and economic conditions of a state can shape recovery from a crisis in signicant and
meaningful ways. e University of Missouri campuses reside within the state context of Missouri. Like all
states, Missouri faces its own complex struggles of historical racial climate and incidents. In August 2014,
the state of Missouri experienced national attention following the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man,
Michael Brown, by a white police ocer and the subsequent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. e comments of
an interviewee illustrate the complexity of the state and the challenge that it faces as holding “ingrained white
nationalist narrative and the Confederate lost cause.” ese comments point to the deeply embedded racism
that shaped the early history of the state. ese historical vestiges of white supremacy continue to inuence
the racial climate today in the state of Missouri (NAACP 2017; Marans and Stewart 2015). Both the histor-
ical and present day racial climate pervasive within a state can have a signicant impact on an institution’s
ability to recover from a racial crisis.
Students support the Black Lives Matter movement by studying in Jesse Hall at
the University of Missouri, as part of Black Lives Matter Study Hall, on October
6, 2015. Photo: Mikala Compton.
American Council on Education — 11
e conservative politics of the state legislature of Missouri have further created a political climate that
directly aects the University of Missouri System. Some interviewees shared perceptions that members of the
state legislature wanted the university to be more aggressive in stopping the student protests. Participants also
noted the MU campus represented a “blue dot” in a politically conservative state and expressed fear of the
campus being “hurt” further if they were to speak up against the state legislature’s inuence. Some fear that
expressing their values, opinions, or emotions regarding the campus crisis will lead to further punitive actions
or contribute to negative views of the campus.
e nancial and funding climate for the University of Missouri System and MU campus are further strained.
e state legislature imposed severe budget cuts to the University of Missouri System, which has strained
MU’s campus. MU has also experienced a signicant decline in enrollment since the crisis, which has led to
sta layos and negative implications for the funding and management of programs (Keller 2017; Seltzer
2017; Williams 2017). Finally, the state of Missouri is limited in its funding for education in general, which
must be noted as a key state-level contextual factor shaping the crisis and recovery process.
NATIONAL CONTEXT
e enduring historical challenges of racial hatred, anti-immigration policies, and political divisiveness in the
United States continue to inuence the current American cultural context. ese issues contribute to signi-
cant challenges for higher education. College campuses experience acts of hate and violence that are reected
in society, and institutions are increasingly vulnerable targets for hate groups. Anti-immigration policies per-
sonally impact many students, faculty, and sta, and their extended families. Campuses are challenged to nd
ways to increase support and resources to assist students, faculty, and sta who may be aected by changes in
immigration policies. While this report does not explicitly examine the broader American racial context, we
would be remiss not to acknowledge the interwoven impact that the current national context has on every
college campus in the U.S. and particularly the University of Missouri’s ability to heal and recover.
ere is greater polarization and division, particularly by race, across many communities in the United States,
fueled in part by the rise in white nationalism in the months around the 2016 election. Prominent public
expressions of racist attitudes, as well as documented increases in hate crimes across the country (including on
college campuses), add to the divisiveness of the national context in which the state, system, and campus are
embedded.
Media and Social Media
In addition to the layers of context in which the MU campus is embed-
ded, media and social media have played, and continue to play, a large
role in the campus’s recovery process. During the 2015 campus protests,
tensions existed between student protesters and media outlets. Journalists
attempted to photograph and lm the protests, while at the same time
students wanted to maintain a safe space beyond the public eye.
Beyond this context on campus, social media and inaccurate or mislead-
ing news reporting added a complicated layer from the outside world in
understanding the events taking place on campus. For example, inter-
viewees reported that some media outlets used video coverage and photos
Alt-right groups used social
media to push the campus
further into chaos and fear. While
many of the social media reports
turned out to be inaccurate, it
was challenging for the campus
community, as well as police and
authorities, to discern and dispel
inaccurate information.
12 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
from the events at Ferguson to inappropriately tie them to the student protests at MU, implying that the
campus protests were becoming similarly out of hand.
Social media posts at the time suggested that white supremacists were marching on MU’s campus to attack
students. Alt-right groups used social media to push the campus further into chaos and fear. While many of
the social media reports turned out to be inaccurate, it was challenging for the campus community, as well as
police and authorities, to discern and dispel inaccurate information. Communication from campus leadership
was limited and a challenge throughout the crisis. e public could not clearly determine the veracity of the
media and social media coverage and the campus’s current recovery process continues to exist in this context
of media and social media.
Politics of Diversity and Inclusion
For each potential racial crisis, the context features described above result in their own set of political and
power dynamics that leaders will need to address, which complicates the recovery process. Leaders should
consider the various contexts and work to develop a strategy for managing the power and politics at play. is
would likely be a complementary, but separate, strategy in addition to the one needed to help the campus
overcome a racial crisis.
In particular, this strategy would be focused more on managing external relationships that shape the campus,
including reaching out to alumni, legislators, and politicians at various levels, as well as community groups.
ese very groups, if unaddressed, can work against campus eorts to improve the racial climate, or may
create a backlash that keeps the campus in the crisis. One example of such a strategy to address the external
context would be for a campus to partner with a prominent business organization that believes in the impor-
tance of diversity. Such a relationship can build a bridge to the state legislature and promote dialogue.
Leaders could also start with prominent alumni and friends of the university, who can champion diversity
eorts while serving as important ambassadors for the university. eir public support can work to educate
and inform policymakers of the importance of diversity work. Every campus has a unique and distinct context
that must be considered by the leadership as they assess their institution’s capacity and resiliency to respond to
a racial crisis. Failure to do so could result in misdirecting time and energy necessary to prevent the crisis from
escalating.
3
3 For more information on how context aects the change process and how to create deep changes around race, see Kezar’s How Col-
leges Change (2014). For information about better understanding politics in a diversity initiative, see Kezar’s 2008 article “Under-
standing Leadership Strategies for Addressing the Politics of Diversity.”
American Council on Education — 13
Framework for Campus
Capacity Building and Resiliency
Five key areas must be in place to build the capacity of a campus to respond to racial crises:
1. strategic planning, institutional mission, and guiding values,
2. leadership expertise,
3. building trust and respect across stakeholder groups,
4. institutional investment in continual learning for faculty, sta, and students, and
5. evaluation and assessment practices.
Campuses may exhibit other key factors; however, these ve areas provide insight into what a campus values
and the types of commitment and actions that need to occur.
We have conceptualized the framework for campus capacity building around three levels: high, moderate, and
low levels of capacity building. Within this structure we summarize key tendencies and strategies that con-
tribute to leaders’ campus actions and commitments. We conclude by oering a set of observations about the
key tendencies that appear to have shaped the capacity for D&I work at the University of Missouri that led to
the crisis and resulting trauma to the campus and community. We recognize the limitation in oering these
observations as they reect a particular point in time and should not be interpreted as repaired or representing
current eorts at the University of Missouri; however, we do oer some insight below into the current eorts
to rebuild the campus. In a subsequent report we will explore in greater detail how the university is building
its capacity and moving forward in its diversity and inclusion work.
We consider capacity building to be inclusive of the power that key leaders on the campus have that provide
strategic leadership to support the needs of the campus over an extended period of time. Capacity building is
evident in the skills and abilities of leaders to communicate eectively
and convey empathy and understanding of the historical, sociopolitical,
and cultural aspects of race and racism. Essentially, capacity building is
reected in all aspects of campus response, values, and behaviors. Finally,
how a campus applies resources, time, and energy to build a plan for
diversity and inclusion is a measure of its capacity. Damon Williams,
author of Strategic Diversity Leadership (2013), submits that many
universities do not engage in building a diversity agenda that can be
sustained thus they are often spending “more time putting out diversity
crisis res than building a robust, sustained diversity agenda” (163).
It is important for a campus to invest adequate time in developing an agenda for diversity and inclusion, as
this establishes the foundation for its capacity to respond when a crisis does occur. Having a plan in place that
is regularly critiqued and evaluated for its eectiveness is further critical. e elements that are identied in a
plan will build and strengthen the capacity of the university community to understand issues of race, equity,
and diversity. And as we describe below, dierent types of diversity plans can build campuses’ capacity to
greater and lesser degrees. However, it is not sucient to simply have a plan that sits on a shelf; rather, univer-
Capacity building is evident in
the skills and abilities of leaders
to communicate effectively
and convey empathy and
understanding of the historical,
sociopolitical, and cultural
aspects of race and racism.
14 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
sities must continually engage in diversity and inclusion work to understand what is eective for their campus
and to build relationships and trust across key stakeholder groups. ese relationships are pivotal during a
crisis, when campuses need to move quickly.
High Levels of Capacity Building
Institutions demonstrating high levels of capacity for D&I work (to include racial incidents and campus racial
climate) have moved well beyond the rhetoric of diversity to investing signicant resources and time in devel-
oping a strategic plan for diversity and inclusion. is includes developing knowledge of diversity issues and
building important opportunities for leaders to become educated. Such institutions understand the emotional
labor that is required to do this work and have put in the time to listen to, and learn from, a wide range of
individuals’ experiences on campus. is builds trust and respect between and among communities. Such
campuses understand the importance of eective and timely communication to the community. ey regu-
larly assess their progress. Ultimately, high capacity institutions endeavor to transform their campus culture to
be truly inclusive, and likely have a chief diversity ocer (CDO) while also recognizing that D&I work is an
important aspect of all leaders’ responsibilities.
Leaders who work on campuses with high levels of capacity keep a pulse on the day-to-day realities of the
campus and will detect problems before they become a crisis. ey rely on their networks and have a diverse
group of individuals who they can turn to for advice and campus
updates. ey support and participate in campus programs and have a
genuine relationship with many social identity groups on campus. ey
understand the sustained nature of D&I work and the need to remain
invested even when things appear to be “improving.” ese campuses are
willing to confront the reality of racism. ey are able to stretch to meet
the demands of a crisis and can deploy important resources to support
the campus. ey have the ability to gather key communities and
campus stakeholders from the many contexts that inuence the campus.
us they can tap into key connections and relationships with legislators, alumni, and business owners who
are invested in diversity and inclusion work. ey endeavor to lead their campus through a crisis while
maintaining a campus environment of trust, and respect, as they move toward a resolution.
Moderate Levels of Capacity Building
Institutions demonstrating moderate levels of capacity building will likely have a diversity plan and mission
statement but they may not reect a thoughtful, strategic approach to thinking about D&I issues. e plan
may focus more on the rhetoric of diversity, as it is an expectation in higher education that campuses have
some “language” around diversity as part of their mission. Iverson (2007), in her article “Camouaging
Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies,” challenges universities to really
examine the discourse and language that they use in diversity plans. Essentially, how are people of color being
described and positioned? Are diversity plans describing people of color in decit ways, as needing access and
at a disadvantage, or as outsiders to the mainstream community? Moderate level capacity campuses may have
key leaders who are charged with responsibility for D&I work; however, they do not see the need to invest in
leadership training across the campus. ey demonstrate less evidence of making the needed level of invest-
ment in educating the campus community, and there is no sustained eort to build trust across diverse stake-
holders. Evaluation eorts to assess the campus climate tend to be sporadic and siloed, and may be valued
only after a crisis has occurred.
Leaders who work on campuses
with high levels of capacity
keep a pulse on the day-to-day
realities of the campus and will
detect problems before they
become a crisis.
American Council on Education — 15
Campuses with moderate levels of capacity building may see D&I work as primarily the responsibility of
the CDO and his or her sta. is will limit the campus’s capacity during a crisis, given a limited number
of individuals to turn to for leadership, and given the related lack of campus-wide responsibility for D&I.
Even if there are D&I champions on campus, including the president and other cabinet-level leadership,
crisis response is likely to be seen as supercial or inconsistent. Campuses with moderate capacity will have an
initial response to a racial crisis; however, they may undervalue the emotional labor required to support the
community. An extended crisis will test their capacity, especially if there have been few eorts to build trust
and respect across communities and stakeholders. ese campuses may nd themselves trying to update poli-
cies, procedures, and educational programs while they are working through the demands of a crisis.
Low Levels of Capacity Building
Campuses exhibiting low levels of capacity building have invested little to no eort in developing a strategic
plan for D&I work. ey have few policies in place to guide campus actions and expectations. Policies that do
exist may be outdated and ineective. e leadership of the campus may show little interest in or understand-
ing of D&I work. e campus climate may reect real tensions, lack of trust across communities, and ongo-
ing racial incidents that accumulate and add to the tensions. Campus programs and educational opportunities
may exist but are not connected to a strategic plan of action. Evaluation of the campus climate may be
nonexistent, and if an evaluation does occur, ocials may not know how to interpret the ndings or may not
be forthcoming about them for fear of creating more tensions. On campuses with low levels of capacity,
diversity work may be viewed as obligatory and lack the thoughtfulness that is required for real change.
Leaders might naively assume that a major racial incident will not occur on their watch. ese assumptions
Young Americans for Liberty - University of Missouri Free Speech Wall. Photo:
Mark Schierbecker.
16 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
may be based on the homogeneity of the campus as well as regional assumptions about the cultural context in
which they exist. Leadership is not able to mount an eective response to a given crisis.
Leaders and administrators on campuses with low levels of capacity may
value the diversity on their campuses, yet not have invested in getting
to know the experiences of minoritized communities. If and when a
racial crisis occurs, these campuses may nd themselves quickly stretched
beyond their capacity to respond. ey may be caught o guard and
lack the mechanisms for eective communication and leadership across
many constituent groups. Leaders on these campuses may also worry
that if they talk about a racial incident then they will be adding fuel to
the tensions on campus. Yet avoidance of the crisis only intensies the
situation, and leaders on these campuses may be forced to make decisions without accurate information and
understanding of the context.
Key Tendencies
LOW D&I CAPACITY MODERATE D&I CAPACITY HIGH D&I CAPACITY
• No D&I plan, mission
statement, and/or very basic
document in place
• Leadership lacks knowledge
and understanding of D&I
issues
• Trust is lacking, resulting in a
tense and/or negative campus
climate
• Few, if any, learning
opportunities to expand
knowledge of D&I work
• Evaluation processes may be
nonexistent or cursory
• Limited time and resources
are invested in D&I work
• Few public discussions occur
about D&I values and work,
even when incidents occur
• Strategic plan and mission
statement are in place, but
they may not fully reect
institutional values
• Leadership expertise on D&I
issues is limited and may
reside in few key individuals
• Little to no effort is made to
invest in building trust with
diverse communities
• Cursory educational programs
and continual learning on D&I
issues
• No systematic evaluation of
efforts to improve campus
climate
• Mechanics of doing D&I work
(e.g., task forces, committees)
are the focus
• Limited time and resources
are invested in D&I work
• Strong diversity plan, mission
statement, and guiding values
for D&I work
• Leaders exhibit knowledge of
D&I practices and research
• Leaders work to build
trust and respect across
stakeholder groups
• Investment in continual
learning, education, and
training at all levels
• Regular assessment of
campus progress with
feedback loops
• Active disruption of
oppressive practices and
systems
• Opportunities and support
provided to marginalized
communities
• Value placed on individuals/
units that provide D&I
leadership on the campus
Campuses with low levels of
capacity may value the diversity
on their campuses, yet not have
invested in getting to know
the experiences of minoritized
communities.
American Council on Education — 17
University of Missouri
Based on the data at our disposal, we would place the University of Missouri’s capacity for D&I work prior
to the campus protest at the low end of moderate capacity; however, at the height of the crisis we found that
the university was operating in low capacity. e initial placement in low
moderate is based on a history of some D&I work, including the devel-
opment of a plan. ere is also evidence that some campus leaders (e.g.,
deans, faculty members, and other administrators) were informed about
D&I issues, and had the capacity to lead in their academic unit and or
department. For example, many of the students involved in the protest
were enrolled in the College of Education; thus, the leadership in that
college remained engaged in working to support students and to educate
the campus. Several individuals we interviewed recognized the leadership
of key faculty who provided leadership for students and the campus. Like
many large comprehensive universities, MU had various academic and
social programs across campus, addressing issues of diversity and inclu-
sion. However, these programs were not connected to a larger strategic
planning eort to educate the community and to advance learning on D&I. Despite nationally recognized
D&I champions at MU, at the time these individuals did not have the same level of inuence and power as
the current D&I sta have to move the campus community forward during the crisis.
Most of our assessment places the university in low capacity during the crisis. Although there had been previ-
ous plans and mission statements about diversity, we found little evidence that the campus was being guided
in its actions by a thoughtful strategic plan for diversity. It was evident that the campus had not thoroughly
developed a plan that involved key campus and community stakeholders who knew how to work through a
crisis. We learned through the interview process that the campus did not have important policies in place to
govern campus actions. Communication with the internal and external communities was uneven and at times
ineective. We found that insucient eorts were made to build trust and community on the campus; this
lack of investment in building trust became very apparent during the crisis. Leaders at the highest levels did
not exhibit the kinds of knowledge and skills one would want to see from senior ocials. Key leaders took
too long to respond after a campus incident and oered cursory and ineective responses to student concerns.
Interview participants talked about the lack of trust in the administration and how this was impacting the cli-
mate of the campus. Not surprisingly, trust eroded even more when the mounting campus incidents were left
unaddressed. As students began to demand more action from the campus, the leadership became less eective.
By the time the intensity of campus interactions reached the point of the hunger strike and the football team
refused to play, the campus was overextended and in full crisis mode. e low level of capacity was evident in
leaders’ demonstrating inconsistency in communication, inability to respond to students, and inappropriate
campus actions. Internal as well as external communities began to question more intensely the actions of key
campus leaders. Leadership could not eectively meet the demands of the crisis, resulting eventually in signi-
cant leadership changes, including the resignation of the president.
Based on the data at our
disposal, we would place the
University of Missouri’s capacity
for D&I work prior to the campus
protest at the low end of
moderate capacity; however, at
the height of the crisis we found
that the university was operating
in low capacity.
18 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Rebuilding Capacity
Fortunately, the capacity of the university has changed in the past two years. Rebuilding capacity after a crisis
is not easy and does not occur overnight. e university has initiated a number of key engagements that we
plan to describe in more detail in a second publication. In the meantime, we have included in the Appendix
B links to key programs and resources currently in place that describe important steps being undertaken to
strengthen the campus’s capacity for D&I work. Below are highlights of such activities:
• Collaborative development of a system-wide strategic diversity, equity, and inclusion plan called the
Inclusive Excellence Framework
• Adoption of the framework by a plethora of local community organizations to serve as a backdrop
for the city of Columbia and Boone County in an eort to become an Inclusive Excellence city and
county
• Creation of a mandatory, musically infused diversity, equity, and inclusion workshop for incoming
rst-year and transfer students, called Citizenship@Mizzou
• Creation of a corresponding musical workshop for faculty and sta called Citizenship Too
• Inclusive excellence grants to support research with diversity, equity, and/or inclusion implications
• Inclusive teaching grants to support the infusion of diversity, equity, and/or inclusion subject matter
into the curriculum
• National Eminent Scholar Mentoring initiative that supports diverse tenure track faculty retention
Student athletes high-ve Mizzou Inclusive Excellence Mile participants at the
nish line of the second-annual event. By showing up, participants expressed
their commitment to fostering a community where everyone feels welcomed,
valued, and respected. Photo: Ryan Gavin.
American Council on Education — 19
Campus Contexts After a Racial Crisis:
Facing Trauma
When a racial crisis occurs on a given campus, results will vary depending on the campus’s capacity built prior
to the incident. Many campuses with low and even moderate capacity will be left with a community in
trauma, because they have not yet built the capacity described in the last section. We outline the contours of a
community impacted by trauma because it is important for campuses to
recognize what they will need to contend with if they are poorly posi-
tioned to handle a racial crisis.
Trauma leaves a great deal of collective emotional pain with members of
a campus community. As individuals talk about their experiences and
express their feelings, the intensity of this process can impact others and
escalate emotions around the campus. e inuence of collective emo-
tional pain can be understood in part by the work of scholars like Sara
Ahmed (2015), who writes in e Cultural Politics of Emotion about the
complexity of theories of emotions and how individual emotions aect the collective community. According
to Ahmed, once individual emotions are expressed and released into the community, these feelings can sway
others who absorb the feelings and emotions, and have their own response.
Ahmed describes the sociality of emotion, in which scholars see emotions as not simply psychological states,
but as social and cultural practices that have an impact on the individual and the collective. Essentially, emo-
tions inside an individual come out, and emotions outside in society come in to impact the individual. Given
the bidirectional nature of this process, it is important to understand how the intense emotions of anger, fear,
and distrust that often accompany a racial incident can easily build during a crisis to a point of impacting
individuals and the collective community. e range
of emotions can vary signicantly during a racial crisis,
and the aftermath of the trauma must be understood
and addressed.
If leaders do not create space for the community to
process this trauma, the campus may not be able to
function eectively and will not be able to face serious
challenges moving forward. Anger, distrust, fear, and
fatigue are the primary areas that campuses will need
to address. As we later describe the ways to lead and
navigate out of a racial crisis, we develop recommenda-
tions about how to address these four dynamics. Here
we want to make visible what is typically less visible,
unexamined, or ignored in the aftermath of a racial cri-
sis. Because emotions are often ignored and minimized
in organizations, it is particularly important for us to
shed a light on them here. We visualize this context of
trauma in Figure 2.
If leaders do not create space for
the community to process this
trauma, the campus may not be
able to function effectively and
will not be able to face serious
challenges moving forward.
A
N
G
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
U
S
T
F
E
A
R
F
A
T
I
G
U
E
TRAUMA
FIGURE 2. ELEMENTS OF TRAUMA
20 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Anger
A climate of anger is one in which there is active animosity and hostility between groups and individuals on
campus. Anger due to a racial crisis is connected to the experience of racism, which leaves those who are the
target of a racist act, or others who bear witness to the act, with rage. Anger may be directed not only toward
those who perpetuated such acts, but also toward those who are passive and accepting of these acts of racism.
At MU, anger was rooted in feelings of abandonment by an administra-
tion. Members of the campus community felt that the administration
was complacent and allowed the poor racial climate to foment. Further,
they felt there was an absence of a clear, well-articulated vision for a path
forward following a slew of racial incidents that included verbal and sym-
bolic attacks. Faculty and sta described both their anger and exhaustion
at the fact that individuals were verbally attacked with racial slurs simply
for walking across campus.
Perhaps no incident so clearly demonstrates the various sources of anger
as what took place on October 10, 2015, during the university’s home-
coming parade. A group of black students, with arms locked, blocked
President Wolfe’s car as an act of protest to the racism that permeated
their campus. As they listed their grievances through a megaphone, the crowd began to chant “M-I-Z-Z-
O-U”—an attempt to silence the protesters. Some locked arms to form their own line and buer between
Wolfe’s car and the protesters. And throughout this entire time, President Wolfe never once responded to the
student protesters or left his car.
In the aftermath of a racial crisis, feelings of anger are to be expected. We want to be clear in stating that anger
is not inherently and inevitably harmful. However, if left unaddressed, anger simmering on a campus leaves a
community fragmented. Specically, unaddressed anger can make it very dicult for groups to interact and
communicate with one another, as individuals are operating at a heightened level of self-preservation. is can
easily lead to groups focusing almost exclusively on their own interests. is dynamic lays the foundation for
an emotional wound that results in distrust, fear, and fatigue.
Distrust
A climate of distrust is one where campus community members lack condence in university leadership to
act eectively, transparently, or in partnership with the community. Consistent with our understanding of
traumatic events, the trauma of a racial crisis can produce or exacerbate distrust within a community. is can
be particularly apparent when a campus responds in a way that exposes its low levels of capacity building.
ere were several factors that contributed to the climate of distrust at the University of Missouri. Most
evident from our interviews was the series of poor decisions—and sometimes the lack of decisions at all,
which made things worse—made by the university chancellor and system president throughout the crisis
(e.g., refusal to listen or respond to student requests and critiques of the racial climate). e administration
also made many critical decisions without adequately explaining their decision-making process and without
including dierent stakeholder groups in that process. For example, they put a policy in place to limit public
protest with no input from faculty or sta. Compounding these factors was a long history of not addressing
In the aftermath of a racial
crisis, feelings of anger are
to be expected. We want
to be clear in stating that
anger is not inherently and
inevitably harmful. However,
if left unaddressed, anger
simmering on a campus leaves
a community fragmented.
American Council on Education — 21
racism on campus, poor race relations in the state of Missouri, and a signicant amount of sta turnover
following the crisis.
In addition to very visible decisions that left members of campus with concern, there were also less visible
slights that took place, creating tension. A major issue that created distrust was repeated unanswered requests
by students to meet with the administration. eir concerns were repeatedly not taken seriously, which led
students to perceive the administration as an impediment to the changes they wanted to see, rather than as
partners. Yet, some of the slights to students were visible to the community (as well as a national audience,
through social media), such as the previously described incident in which the then-president refused to engage
protesters during the homecoming parade, resulting in further distrust by the community.
In addition to casting doubt on campus leaders, distrust impacts the way other stakeholder groups interact
with one another. We found that a climate of distrust made it especially dicult for some community mem-
bers to completely buy into the “new direction,” even after the departure of prior leadership. Despite sup-
porting the ways that campus leaders spoke about the path forward, there remained a sense of skepticism and
hesitation regarding the sincerity and commitment to actually doing what was necessary
Fear
A climate of fear is one where campus community members are apprehensive to act because they are afraid
their actions will be unsupported or penalized (e.g., through retaliation) by university leadership. Individuals
and communities often develop fear in the aftermath of a traumatic event. e fear that develops can be both
deep and lingering.
Examples of what caused members of the MU community to experience an enormous amount of fear varied
across stakeholder groups. Some felt personally threatened as a result of the poor racial climate on campus.
Others were traumatized by racially hostile and oensive messages that were coming from outside the cam-
pus (e.g., on social media). For some it was the denial of tenure to a faculty member active in supporting the
student-led movement, and for others it was the elimination of critical sta positions on campus. Collectively,
these all contributed to community members feeling a deep sense of vulnerability and fear, making many less
willing to challenge the decisions made by the administration.
e ring of faculty member Melissa Click by the UM Board of Curators was noted as particularly critical to
inciting fear throughout the campus—the curators were seen as personally attacking an individual member of
the campus community. Click was active in supporting the student movement and came to national attention
when she was recorded asking for assistance to remove a student journalist from what had become movement
members’ primary protest site. Her ring was particularly troublesome not because everyone agreed with her
actions, but because the governor-appointed board bypassed important, long-standing academic governance
procedures in its decision. Even as it remained uncertain what would happen in Melissa Click’s case, the
board’s involvement made it clear that anyone who acted in ways that they disapproved of were also uniquely
vulnerable.
e climate of fear produced what some participants described as a culture of silence on the campus. Most
community members responded to the presence of fear by “keeping their heads down” and not causing what
might be perceived as too much trouble for fear of retaliation. A culture of silence can result in a keen sense
of vulnerability and lack of willingness to challenge the decisions made by the administration. People also
found themselves afraid to express their opinion for fear of saying the wrong thing. Ironically, the vulnerability
produced by fear made people fearful of being vulnerable.
22 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Fatigue
A climate of fatigue develops as community members expend signicant emotional and physical labor to
respond to campus needs during a racial crisis. Often this labor exists outside of explicit job responsibili-
ties, and the feelings of fatigue are intensied when this labor does not appear to lead to signicant change
and is not valued by campus leadership. Investing eort and energy without seeing any results and without
having your eort and energy valued can be a traumatic experience. Many scholars have written for decades
about “racial battle fatigue” (Smith 2004) and how the social and psychological stresses in society and on our
campuses are causing physical and emotional decline. Students, faculty, and sta who experience racial battle
fatigue are frustrated, shocked, angry, lled with anxiety, and at times feel a sense of hopelessness with each
new campus incident.
Students, sta, and faculty of color at Mizzou were overtaxed in terms of eort, energy, and support during
the racial crisis and its aftermath. As is the case in similar situations, the most vulnerable and marginalized
provided the most labor and leadership; at all levels of engagement, including student leadership, women,
racial/ethnic minorities, and in particular black women, led these eorts. In addition to the daily expense of
energy among racial/ethnic minorities in predominantly white spaces, the personal, emotional, psychosocial,
and familial toll of facing the crises and leading the movement have led many faculty, sta, and students of
color in the MU community to feel racial battle fatigue and race-related stress (Smith, Yosso, and Solórzano
2011).
e crisis that unfolded at MU was years in the making. If we turn to the list of demands presented by Con-
cerned Student 1950, not only as a way to understand what was necessary moving forward, but also as insight
into the “gaps” students, sta, and faculty had been laboring to ll, we can better understand the buildup of
fatigue. Year after year these stakeholders sought to ll the gap created by an underrepresentation of faculty of
color, a lack of a comprehensive plan to improve racial awareness, and a lack of a strategic plan and resources
to retain marginalized students. While this gap-lling work does not always show up in job descriptions and
yearly reviews, it happens, and it takes its toll.
Fatigue can have many eects on a campus community. At MU, the lack of attention given to invisible labor
invested by students, sta, and faculty made various stakeholders feel as if their work was being done in vain,
and not in partnership with campus leadership. is led some to experience campus leadership as detached
and isolated from the community. Additionally, community members found it dicult to be energized to do
the necessary, challenging work of improving the campus climate in the aftermath of the crisis.
As campus leaders respond to a racial crisis, they should understand that their work must acknowledge the
trauma associated with such events. Although this trauma impacts community members dierently, they
often feed into a general sense of anger, distrust, fear, and fatigue that ultimately contributes to a poor over-
all campus climate and morale. What is more, if the trauma is not addressed a poor campus climate will be
prolonged. us, an important part of the recovery process is acknowledging the trauma and then using the
collective trauma framework we outline next to help address these highly charged feelings. We map for readers
exactly how the strategies will combat distrust, reduce anger and fear, and eliminate fatigue.
American Council on Education — 23
Navigating a Campus Racial Crisis
We begin the section by describing what leaders absolutely should not do in the immediate aftermath of a
crisis: set up a task force, collect data, and develop a report with recommendations. Developing a report does
not address the emotions described in the last section. Additionally it contributes nothing to the key work
needed for attending to a racial crisis that we describe next. is routinized approach to responding to racial
issues on campus rarely creates change and will be particularly weak in
addressing the trauma that ensues from a racial crisis. Unfortunately, this
routinized response is not only common but also destructive to campus
communities that need authentic engagement from their leaders.
Instead, we suggest the following framework for recovering from “col-
lective traumas.” It is much better aligned with the situation campuses
nd themselves in after a racial crisis (Saul 2014). A diagram of this
framework is presented in Figure 3. As discussed, a racial crisis results in
fear, fatigue, and distrust that can fundamentally destroy communities.
In place of routinized approaches, campuses need to focus and engage in processes that move the community
toward healing. While the techniques may sound more like individual steps to address trauma, we will provide
detailed examples of how leaders can enact this trauma recovery framework in ways that address the collective
community. e general features of collective trauma recovery frameworks include active listening, speak-
ing from the heart, and “acting with” (Saul 2014). ese traits are in fact mutually reinforcing and need one
another to work well. Denitions of each are below:
Active listening is a structured form of listening and responding that focuses the attention on the speaker—
instead of on one’s own perspectives—and improves mutual understanding without debate or judgment. It
is a powerful method of responding to stressful
and traumatic situations and events. It allows the
speaker to share problems and struggles, engage
with dicult feelings, gain perspective on the
experience, take ownership of the situation, rebuild
relationships, nd their own solutions, and build
self-esteem and resilience. For example, leaders
often create open forums to address situations
like this but come in with an agenda—speak for
a while and then when they open up the meeting,
take questions and respond—often defensively. In
active listening forums, the process begins with
listening, not talking to stakeholders, and their
comments are summarized back for understand-
ing, not responded to with answers.
It is not the leader’s role to process people’s feelings
or try to replay traumatic experiences, as most
individuals do not have such therapeutic skills.
We begin the section by
describing what leaders
absolutely should not do in the
immediate aftermath of a crisis:
set up a task force, collect
data, and develop a report with
recommendations.
1
2
3
ACTIVE LISTENING
SPEAKING FROM THE HEART
“ACTING WITH”
RECOVERY
FRAMEWORK
FIGURE 3. RECOVERY FRAMEWORK
24 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Leaders are there to provide a stable, attentive presence. Active listening involves acknowledging and accepting
what people are saying, arming the speaker, paraphrasing what speakers say, asking questions, and being
attentive to non-verbal cues. You are not actively listening if you are engaging in the following: advising, iden-
tifying, judging, rehearsing your own statements, or comparing their perspective to your own.
Speaking from the heart involves honest communication from leaders free from political spin. Speaking
from the heart, as is suggested by the phrase, means invoking and responding to emotions. Too often it is the
impulse of leaders to get prepared comments after a tragedy so that they do not say anything “wrong” that
might further oend people. When leaders speak from the heart, they build trust needed to overcome fear and
fatigue. e very act of speaking from the heart builds the necessary skills that leaders need to know to operate
in spaces of vulnerability with authenticity.
W. Kent Fuchs, president of the University of Florida, is an example of a leader that spoke from his heart in
response to a visit by white supremacist, Richard Spencer, in October 2017. e president talked about his
compassion for historically underserved minority groups aronted by Spencer, labeled Spencer’s dialogue as
hate, and identied him as a white supremacist who aimed to cause harm and violence to communities of
color and Jews. rough multiple venues, he encouraged the campus to operate from a space of love and to
recognize the power of love to overcome hate.
“Acting with” suggests that leaders need to move forward by directly engaging with community and especially
members most aected by the traumatic events. Too often leaders rush ahead with actions to “solve” the prob-
lem and do not engage and act with the community, negatively aecting collective recovery from the trauma.
“Acting with” requires leaders to move in a measured way that deeply connects to community members as the
campus actively listens to inform their strategy forward.
1. Active Listening
We learned about several important practices that leaders can engage in that demonstrate or reect active
listening. While many of the recommendations below speak to communication, it is important to focus on
active listening as the main and critical aspect across these avenues of communications, from governance to
dialogues. Key takeaways include the following:
BE OPEN AND NOT DEFENSIVE
After a racial incident, leaders are often defensive about how or why
actions unfolded, and may be unlikely to listen to the campus com-
munity and ask for feedback. us, engaging in active listening with
members of the community—faculty, sta, and students—is essential.
Holding forums for people to share their concerns, ideas, and challenges
is very important. Typically, a crisis occurs because the campus has not
been listening to community members; stopping and really listening to
people provides needed feedback that has been missing and often led to
the crisis in the rst place.
It is particularly important to be open to criticism about how the campus
handled the racial crisis and its work to address diversity and inclusion over time. After a racially motivated
incident at American University (DC), the public safety oce solicited direct and anonymous feedback from
students, via Twitter, to assist in their investigation. e counseling sta also provided impromptu drop-in
After a racial incident, leaders
are often defensive about how
or why actions unfolded, and
may be unlikely to listen to the
campus community and ask
for feedback. Thus, engaging in
active listening with members of
the community is essential.
American Council on Education — 25
hours. University leadership followed up with a community forum to hear student voices and perspectives.
Another example occurred when the president at Evergreen State University (WA) allowed the students and
faculty to criticize and bring forward concerns about addressing the growing negative climate on campus and
concerns over hate and freedom of speech. While this did not oset the crisis that ensued, it did position the
president as a person who was open and willing to listen.
BUILD UP GOVERNANCE AND TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
Campuses in the best position to weather a crisis have robust two-way communication channels—formal and
informal mechanisms to tap into faculty, sta, and other members of the campus community and various
avenues for hearing from dierent community members. Beyond the channels themselves, it is important to
examine if they are working. If a sta assembly exists, for example, do they get the opportunity to speak with
administrators or to faculty? When and how often? Examining these dierent channels can identify strong,
and in other instances, weak or nonexistent systems. e institution’s formal governance system is one of these
communication channels and so should be explored as a way to receive community feedback and to actively
listen. e new president of the UM System set up regular meetings with faculty, students, and sta on all
three of the campuses with an open agenda to hear their thoughts and allow them to ask any questions. In
addition, the board adopted a luncheon during board visits, for students and faculty advisors to listen and
hear what is on their minds. ese kinds of opportunities for two-way communication, relationship building,
and listening are essential to building back trust. At the University of Missouri, such eorts are currently in
the process of restoring trust to the community.
RECOGNIZE SILENCE
Active listening entails encouraging discussion even when it may be challenging. Without it, campus leader-
ship will not know if the community is moving forward. After a racial crisis, many leaders see a quiet campus
as a sign of things calming down and moving back to “normal”; this, however, is rarely the case. e desire for
campus leaders to move to silence is understandable after an extended period of intense emotion. However,
quiet does not necessarily mean the campus is back to normal. In fact, quiet most often means that problems
are simmering just below surface, which only invites setbacks. us, part of building capacity and moving
forward is being able to engage in dicult conversations.
Several interview participants at the University of Missouri perceived that the campus was in a state of silence
and that many individuals were fearful to talk about issues of diversity. Despite campus-wide engagement on
issues of diversity, campus members described how “real” communication had gone “underground” and that
communities are talking less to each other. is is an important nding as it underscores the lasting impact of
early missteps in handling racial crisis and the amount of time that it takes to rebuild trust.
CREATE DIALOGUE OPPORTUNITIES AND MODEL ACTIVE LISTENING
In the midst of a racial crisis, leaders need to establish forums for dia-
logue in which there are clear ground rules about individual engagement
in ways that foreground active listening. Without continued dialogue on
issues of race, anger, pain, and confusion remain. Avenues for people to
process their feelings and for campus community members to actively
listen and hear are needed. Importantly, MU leaders are actively con-
cerned about the aforementioned “quiet” that community members are
feeling, and are creating space for dialogue. One solution is that cam-
pus leaders have engaged professionals in the local community who are
Importantly, MU leaders are
actively concerned about the
aforementioned “quiet” that
community members are feeling,
and are creating space for
dialogue.
26 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
expert at creating dialogue around race to overcome the silence that has emerged. Leaders need to check the
pulse of the climate so they know whether they are moving forward or not
Leaders on campus can model active listening and encourage it among sta, faculty, and students as they
engage in campus dialogues. Well-trained facilitators and moderators can be particularly eective to help
structure such sessions and guide community members through the process of active listening.
REACH OUT TO SPECIFIC GROUPS, PARTICULARLY STUDENTS
During a racial crisis, there are members of the community who will be feeling particularly acute trauma.
Campus leadership is right to reach out to faculty, sta, and students of color to acknowledge their pain and
to seek their perspectives. ese are groups that often need to feel heard. ey have typically been ignored in
the days or weeks preceding a racial incident and are likely to be feeling vulnerable.
It is critical for campus leaders to engage student groups and ensure there are robust systems for including
student voices in any campus dialogues. MU’s student government had little connection to other campus
governance structures, thus limiting and minimizing this important outlet for student voice, and proving
particularly harmful during the crisis. During 2016, the administration has created rm ties to its student gov-
ernment and has built numerous forums to collect student input in other spaces. is includes the fostering of
informal relationships between key university sta and student groups. e MU student government has also
added a chief inclusion ocer to coordinate with stakeholders on campus and to review student government
practices.
IDENTIFY NEEDED RESOURCES
As the leadership at the MU campus listened, they heard from the community the need for services they had
not been adequately focused on, including counseling and mental health and wellness services. As one mem-
ber of the campus notes: “We heard about the need for increased hours for the counseling center, for mental
health or counseling in general.” As a result of this feedback, campus leaders increased resources for mental
health and wellness resource centers and encouraged these service providers to conduct outreach to the cam-
pus community to ensure people who needed support were aware of and could access services. Only through
active listening will needed supports and resources be identied.
2. Speaking from the Heart
Leading by example and taking risks are important steps for leaders to take when confronting a racial crisis.
is includes speaking from the heart—particularly on issues of racism and injustice. Unless campus constit-
uents hear leaders speaking truthfully about dicult issues, they will not feel it is safe to bring up challenging
ideas such as examples of racism on campuses. Such a lack of safety can block important feedback the leaders
need to receive through active listening. One member on campus reected on Interim President Michael Mid-
dleton’s ability to speak from the heart: “After November 2015 what was helpful was our interim president,
who helped us on how to move forward. He was able to do that in a very productive way. It was very well
received. A lot of people quite honestly admired him for speaking openly and honestly about it. He said here
is what we did wrong and here is where and how we’re moving forward.”
OWN CAMPUS RACISM AND HISTORY
Perhaps the most important illustration of speaking from the heart during a racial crisis is owning and
acknowledging racism and the specic campus’s history of racism. Many stakeholders at Missouri spoke about
Perhaps the most important
illustration of speaking from
the heart during a racial crisis
is owning and acknowledging
racism and the specic campus’s
history of racism.
American Council on Education — 27
the healing power of Michael Middleton, interim president, who came in after the racial crisis. Middleton was
adept at articulating the problem of racial injustice, the campus’s own history with injustice, and the impor-
tance of owning its history of racism. He could speak to his own experiences of racism as an undergraduate
student at the university in the 1950s, and was able to connect the cur-
rent crisis with the campus’s history of racism. is insight was powerful
for campus stakeholders to hear. His understanding helped to surface
people’s emotions, and process the collective feelings on campus. While
not all leaders will have their own experience with racism to draw upon,
all presidents can acknowledge their campus’s history of racism.
DIALOGUES ON RACIAL HEALING
Campuses need to engage in deep dialogue among dierent campus
stakeholders about the impact that race has had on their experience and on their interaction in the campus
community. Two clinical psychology graduate students at MU organized racial healing circles in response to
the heightened negative racial climate on campus. ese spaces created an open invitation for community
members to come share and process their feelings about existing racial tensions. e healing circles allowed
anyone in the campus community to articulate and speak about emotions they were feeling. is space creates
open dialogue and communication for people to not only heal, but also hear from people who they may not
engage with outside of this space. While the healing circles were not initiated by university leadership, the
community has gained an invaluable resource that is aimed toward healing and development of restored com-
munity trust. In all situations, leaders can encourage and support these kinds of interventions.
CELEBRATE STUDENTS AND THEIR COURAGEOUS LEADERSHIP
When speaking from the heart, leaders are wise to acknowledge key individuals who have helped shepherd
the campus community through the crisis. At the MU, students were these leaders. Students made enormous
sacrices—they fasted, led marches, camped out during exams, reached out to external groups for advice and
support, and strategized with community leaders. Furthermore, as exemplied in the development of the heal-
ing circle, students continued to advance community healing in the aftermath of crisis. To acknowledge the
demands made by students’ advocacy and activism in fall 2015, the university’s Division of Inclusion, Diver-
sity and Equity documented a range of eorts that contributed to campus healing and progress on the univer-
sity website in 2016–17. Faculty in the College of Education also mentioned taking the time to celebrate the
fall 2015 events as a way to preserve and honor the student sacrices.
DEFINING THE CAMPUS COMMUNITY AND VALUES
Many of the prior recommendations related to “speaking from the heart” reect the values of the campus. For
example, by acknowledging its role in racism, the campus is taking responsibility for its actions. Establishing
racial healing circles supports a value of openness. e issues, practices, and policies that leaders prioritize
during the recovery of a crisis establish and reinforce the values of the community. Campuses often struggle
between competing pressures to speak truth or to engage in political posturing. Engaging in political spin is
tempting as it distances leaders from the onslaught of criticism that is likely to occur during a racial crisis.
e risk in avoiding criticism is the perception that leaders want to quickly return to the status quo—instead
of disrupting the current existence of racism and white supremacy. Leaders, who despair a divided campus,
romanticize the myth of a time when everyone felt included, embraced, and valued. Wishing everyone could
just get along reects values of white fragility and the need to make the white community comfortable. By
acknowledging and taking responsibility for racism, hatred, microaggressions, and pain, and directly accepting
criticism, leaders stand for anti-racist values that can support a campus through the crisis.
expert at creating dialogue around race to overcome the silence that has emerged. Leaders need to check the
pulse of the climate so they know whether they are moving forward or not
Leaders on campus can model active listening and encourage it among sta, faculty, and students as they
engage in campus dialogues. Well-trained facilitators and moderators can be particularly eective to help
structure such sessions and guide community members through the process of active listening.
REACH OUT TO SPECIFIC GROUPS, PARTICULARLY STUDENTS
During a racial crisis, there are members of the community who will be feeling particularly acute trauma.
Campus leadership is right to reach out to faculty, sta, and students of color to acknowledge their pain and
to seek their perspectives. ese are groups that often need to feel heard. ey have typically been ignored in
the days or weeks preceding a racial incident and are likely to be feeling vulnerable.
It is critical for campus leaders to engage student groups and ensure there are robust systems for including
student voices in any campus dialogues. MU’s student government had little connection to other campus
governance structures, thus limiting and minimizing this important outlet for student voice, and proving
particularly harmful during the crisis. During 2016, the administration has created rm ties to its student gov-
ernment and has built numerous forums to collect student input in other spaces. is includes the fostering of
informal relationships between key university sta and student groups. e MU student government has also
added a chief inclusion ocer to coordinate with stakeholders on campus and to review student government
practices.
IDENTIFY NEEDED RESOURCES
As the leadership at the MU campus listened, they heard from the community the need for services they had
not been adequately focused on, including counseling and mental health and wellness services. As one mem-
ber of the campus notes: “We heard about the need for increased hours for the counseling center, for mental
health or counseling in general.” As a result of this feedback, campus leaders increased resources for mental
health and wellness resource centers and encouraged these service providers to conduct outreach to the cam-
pus community to ensure people who needed support were aware of and could access services. Only through
active listening will needed supports and resources be identied.
2. Speaking from the Heart
Leading by example and taking risks are important steps for leaders to take when confronting a racial crisis.
is includes speaking from the heart—particularly on issues of racism and injustice. Unless campus constit-
uents hear leaders speaking truthfully about dicult issues, they will not feel it is safe to bring up challenging
ideas such as examples of racism on campuses. Such a lack of safety can block important feedback the leaders
need to receive through active listening. One member on campus reected on Interim President Michael Mid-
dleton’s ability to speak from the heart: “After November 2015 what was helpful was our interim president,
who helped us on how to move forward. He was able to do that in a very productive way. It was very well
received. A lot of people quite honestly admired him for speaking openly and honestly about it. He said here
is what we did wrong and here is where and how we’re moving forward.”
OWN CAMPUS RACISM AND HISTORY
Perhaps the most important illustration of speaking from the heart during a racial crisis is owning and
acknowledging racism and the specic campus’s history of racism. Many stakeholders at Missouri spoke about
Perhaps the most important
illustration of speaking from
the heart during a racial crisis
is owning and acknowledging
racism and the specic campus’s
history of racism.
28 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
3. “Acting with”
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE
During a crisis, a democratic leadership style is warranted—one that seeks broad feedback on decisions across
all campus groups (sta, students, community members, alumni, and administrators) and is not only open,
but transparent about decisions. Such transparency, especially by the most senior leadership, helps to break
down fear that is rampant after a racial crisis. e Inclusive Excellence
Framework used by University of Missouri subsequent to the crisis is
premised on a democratic leadership approach. In the next report, we
will detail the components of the framework. Here it is important to
note that as the campus has moved forward they are acting with the
community to build trust and engagement in the process of developing
the Inclusive Excellence Framework. Even as leaders employ democratic
values during a crisis they also need to be decisive when necessary and
be able to interpret when they have enough information to act. Fear
among leaders can lead to paralysis.
BROAD PLANNING MECHANISMS
e best plans of action that campuses put together involve a broad group of stakeholders. At the University of
Missouri, the Inclusive Excellence framework, a strategic planning document, is serving this purpose. Rather
During a crisis, a demo-
cratic leadership style is
warranted—one that seeks
broad feedback on decisions
across all campus groups
and is not only open, but
transparent about decisions.
Ashley Yong and Shekyna Doughzae pose at Mizzou’s International Day. The
celebration, which included speeches and a parade with cultural clothing and
ags, culminated with photos on Traditions Plaza. Photo: Ryan Gavin.
American Council on Education — 29
than create a plan in isolation, the UM System Oce of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion engaged all campus
stakeholders (community members, sta, administrators, faculty, and students) in developing and dening the
plan. As a result, it provides a common language and understanding the work to improve the campus racial
climate and makes it part of the work of everyone, not just a few oces or individuals on campus.
RISK-TAKING AND LEADERS MODELING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS
Part of “acting with” is seeking out mentorship and professional training and development about how to speak
about race, racial injustice, power, and white privilege. Leaders can seek out and learn from others, on and o
their campus, who have expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion, including how to talk about such issues
with sensitivity and awareness. Merely assigning such experts on campus to speak about race does not show
the risk-taking and role modeling the community is looking for, nor does this approach build trust. As high-
level leaders are visible within the community, taking risks and engaging in dicult conversations around race
can contribute to moving the campus forward. Also, leaders challenging themselves to take on the work of
speaking about challenging issues of race models for other members of campus who has part of broad plan-
ning processes will also be tasked with taking on diversity work. is ensures that diversity work is not owned
only by diversity experts; instead, it is owned by everyone.
COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
“Acting with” also means that everyone is accountable and responsible for the campus racial environment.
Leaders need to reinforce how everyone is a part of creating the plan, as well as living up to that plan. e
University of Missouri’s Inclusive Excellence Framework embeds goals and metrics for every member of the
campus community. We constantly heard faculty and sta reiterate: “If this is only the Oce of Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion’s plan, then it will not work. We all have to own it.” Such visible forms of accountability
dispel fear that all the work will end up with communities of color and allies. Many spoke about key leaders
during the campus recovery process that held all campus constituencies accountable for racism and the strate-
gic plan: “e Title IX coordinator was important because she held others accountable and helped provide a
legal lens. Additionally, if something happened then she would send an email and ask—‘Hey, are you okay?’
She was responsible to individuals and for xing the system.”
AMPLIFYING CAMPUS CHAMPIONS
“Acting with” also means recognizing and amplifying existing diversity work. Most campuses will have
bottom-up leadership eorts among faculty, students, or sta that can be identied, amplied, and
connected. At MU, there were eorts lead by faculty, sta, and students that have been impactful in helping
the community to move forward through healing practices including Citizenship@Mizzou, the College of
Education, and Black Collective and Allies. At the UM System oce, the system-wide Diversity Task Force
was created, which engaged in important diversity inquiry, problem solving, and planning, and included
members from MU, the University of Missouri–Kansas City, the Missouri University of Science and
Technology, and the University of Missouri–St. Louis.
AMPLIFYING OFF-CAMPUS COMMUNITY WORK
Local and regional communities groups should also be tapped to support and be part of campuses’ eorts to
overcome the racial crisis and heal. Community relationships are pivotal to recovery, and if these relationships
are built prior to the crisis, campuses will be more resilient and have more resources to draw on. If campuses
do not have strong relationships with the local community, they need to work to build them and to do this
complex work. e MU Division of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity built on some pre-crisis work in which
30 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
they had partnered with the community but then strengthened these relationships with the local community.
For example, they created an advisory board that included all the key government and nonprot groups in the
local area, including the Ward 4 Columbia City Council, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Diversity
Awareness Partnership, and the Heart of Missouri United Way.
e community advisory board established their own inclusive excellence framework to guide city planning to
address racism and inclusivity. City leaders are taking action to improve race relations and to be a more inclu-
sive community to support the campus. e community can also serve as a source of expertise on race and
inclusion. In fact, for MU, much of the diversity expertise was drawn from the local community. For exam-
ple, campus leadership is collaborating with the Diversity Awareness Partnership to host constructive healing
dialogues, centered on race.
REWARDING THOSE WHO SUPPORT RACIAL HEALING AND INCLUSIVE CLIMATE
A crisis leaves a toll not only on those who may have been targets of racial violence but also on faculty and
sta who conduct diversity and inclusion work on campus and who support victims of racism. At Missouri,
many sta and faculty put in extra eort to support and help a student, a fellow faculty member, or a sta
colleague. e campus is recognizing and arming individuals who
supported the collective good, by oering small tokens of appreciation
in terms of gifts, notes, and awards acknowledging their leadership.
Acknowledging and celebrating faculty, sta, students, and administra-
tors who played a leadership role during the crisis also relieves fatigue, as
individuals see that others recognize the work they have done. Leaders
should continue granting rewards and awards moving forward, as doing
so provides support for faculty and sta eorts to “act with” leadership
in support of a better racial environment.
CONSISTENT ACTIONS
Faculty, sta, and students noted the importance of consistent actions by leaders, as that consistency is critical
to rebuilding trust and addressing fear. Consistent actions and speech take time, and come in many forms.
Some on campus observed that the many “one-o” activities by prior leadership did not build capacity or trust
in the community. In contrast, community members have appreciated the newly implemented inclusive excel-
lence framework that reects a strategic, interconnected set of activities that seem to be consistent over time.
Several people indicated that while they are condent in the competency of the current leadership of the cam-
pus, they have not been in their leadership positions long enough to truly determine how they would respond
in a crisis. Yet they felt condent that the current leadership team would know how to handle situations long
before they became a crisis. is was illustrated by the comments of a participant who stated, “I think the dif-
ference today is there are a lot of things that happen before a crisis becomes a crisis. I think there are some key
people in place now who do the collective groundwork to avoid a long-term crisis. I think there’s a lot more lis-
tening by a few key individuals, a lot of awareness. Unlike the weather, crises don’t just manifest overnight; they
manifest over time. I think there are some key people who will prevent those kinds of crises from happening.”
In the Table 1, we highlight some of the ways these strategies help heal the campus by addressing fear, anger,
fatigue, and distrust. is work is necessary to allow the campus to begin to work again toward building its
capacity. But if a trauma is not addressed, capacity is unlikely to be built up, and even if there is some progress
in capacity building it is likely to take much longer.
Acknowledging and celebrating
faculty, staff, students, and
administrators who played a
leadership role during the crisis
also relieves fatigue, as individuals
see that others recognize the work
they have done.
American Council on Education — 31
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TRAUMA FRAMEWORK APPLIED TO CAMPUS RACIAL CRISIS
CAMPUS ACTION AREA IT ADDRESSES
Active listening
Be open and not defensive
Mitigates anger by allowing people to express critiques without interruption or excuses. Demon-
strates that people are being heard without debate or judgment.
Build governance and two way
communication channels
Builds trust through structured, ongoing communication. Alleviates fatigue by providing open
and uid opportunities for feedback, rather than having barriers in place to access leadership.
Recognize silence
Builds trust by ensuring faculty, staff, and students of color that the issues are not being ignored.
Create dialogue opportunities
Addresses anger by creating space for people to express feelings of frustration and process
ways to move forward. Builds trust by supporting communication across varying communities.
Reach out to specic groups,
particularly students
Builds trust by providing direct attention to specic groups that feel marginalized. Mitigates
anger by ensuring that groups feel valued and visible to the community.
Identify needed resources
Alleviates the fatigue and addresses anger by providing support to those who are emotionally,
mentally and physically overextended.
Speaking from the heart
Own campus racism and
history
Mitigates anger through an emphasis on honesty and acknowledgment of problems. Alleviates
the fatigue by validating the need for campus diversity and inclusion efforts.
Dialogues specically on
racial healing
Alleviates fatigue of racism. Builds trust across racial groups through safe and supportive com-
munication spaces. Reduces fear for those who do not feel safe engaging in dialogue outside of
controlled spaces.
Celebrate students and their
courageous leadership
Mitigates anger by acknowledging and validating the work of student activists.
Dening the campus commu-
nity and values
Builds trust by avoiding strategic political jargon. Reduces fear by confronting community con-
cerns directly.
“Acting with”
Democratic leadership style
Builds trust by involving students, staff, and faculty in decision-making processes. Redirects
anger by allowing students, staff, and faculty to voice concerns.
Broad planning mechanisms
Reduce fear by acknowledging history and mapping out ways to distribute power in new ways.
Mitigate anger through leadership efforts that confront unaddressed issues of injustice and
inequity.
Risk-taking and leaders mod-
eling dicult discussions
Addresses anger by leaders’ willingness to engage in critical dialogue that may challenge their
position. Builds trust by demonstrating that leaders are willing to be vulnerable and acknowledge
areas of needed growth. Alleviates fatigue by leaders taking on some of the emotional labor that
comes with risk-taking.
Collective accountability
Mitigates anger by ensuring that diversity and inclusion efforts are prioritized and not aban-
doned. Reduces fear by ensuring that diversity and inclusion efforts are accounted for in all
areas of the university. Alleviates the fatigue of individuals who have had to work above and
beyond to make up for a lack thereof in the past.
Amplifying campus champi-
ons
Alleviates the fatigue of individuals and groups who have already been engaging in diversity and
inclusion work. Builds trust of people who are already leading healing and education efforts.
Amplifying off campus com-
munity work
Builds the trust of the local community, students, staff, and faculty. Addresses anger and resent-
ment by working with the local community on issues that have manifested over time.
Rewarding those who support
racial healing and create an
inclusive climate
Addresses anger and resentment from community members who did not feel that racial justice
and equity was valued by the university in the past. Alleviates the fatigue of individuals whose
efforts work toward the healing of community. Encourages others to step up, share responsibility,
and contribute in similar ways.
Consistent action
Builds trust overtime by communicating investment in the values of everyday actions. Alleviates
fatigue by instituting leadership with a critical lens, rather than waiting on community members
to voice concerns.
32 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Conclusion: The Long Road to Enhancing
Campus Racial Climate
At present, the University of Missouri System and the MU campus continue to work steadily on improving
the campus racial climate. However, once a campus falls into a collective traumatic state and loses its resil-
iency, the road back to a positive campus environment can be long. Addressing the anger, fear, fatigue, and
distrust takes years of following the collective trauma framework we highlighted within this report as well as
sustaining a commitment to building high capacity for D&I work.
e University of Missouri is on its way to recovery, and we feel very grateful that they allowed us to fol-
low their journey. Too often, studies of this type are conducted long after the actual racial crisis, and do not
document the early “felt” environment and initial steps by leaders to navigate a crisis. We saw many indicators
that the University of Missouri is moving in the right direction (outlined at the end of the capacity building
section). When we return to the campus we will be exploring how they are further addressing elements of the
trauma framework as well as building capacity to address diversity, equity, and inclusion.
New members of the Mystical 7 secret honor society join with recent inductees
in celebration on the Francis Quadrangle at Mizzou’s annual Tap Day tradition.
Photo: Ryan Gavin.
American Council on Education — 33
References
Ahmed, Sara. 2015. e Cultural Politics of Emotion. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Bath, Howard. 2008. “e ree Pillars of Trauma-Informed Care.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 17 (3):
17–21.
Birrell, Pamela J., and Jennifer J. Freyd. 2008. “Betrayal Trauma: Relational Models of Harm and Healing.”
Journal of Trauma Practice 5 (1): 49–63.
Concerned Student 1950. 2015. “Concerned Student 1-9-5-0 Presents List of Demands to the University of
Missouri.” https://drive.google.com/le/d/0B5pPLuvq-gBqZjNDTDI2RmZVVEU/view?pli=1.
Dalton, Deron. 2015. “e University of Missouri’s Tough History with Race: A Timeline.” e Daily Dot,
November 11, 2015. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/mizzou-racial-history-concerned-student-1950-
timeline.
French, Bryana H., Zakiya R. Adair, and Kevin Cokley. 2015. “As People of Color Formerly Employed by
Mizzou, We Demand Change.” Hungton Post, November 17, 2015. https://www.hungtonpost.com/
bryana-h-french-phd/people-of-color-employed-mizzou-demand-change_b_8584756.html.
Iverson, Susan VanDeventer. 2007. “Camouaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University
Diversity Policies.” Educational Administration Quarterly 43 (5): 586–611.
Keller, Rudi. 2017. “University of Missouri Enrollment to Decline More an 7 Percent; 400 Jobs to Be
Eliminated.” Columbia Daily Tribune, May 15, 2017. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170515/
university-of-missouri-enrollment-to-decline-more-than-7-percent-400-jobs-to-be-eliminated.
Keller, Rudi. 2018. “Mueller Indicts Russian Agency Cited as Origin of University of Missouri Disruption
Eort.” Columbia Daily Tribune, February 16, 2018. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20180216/
mueller-indicts-russian-agency-cited-as-origin-of-university-of-missouri-disruption-eort.
Kezar, Adrianna J. 2007. “Learning from and with Students: College Presidents Creating Organizational
Learning to Advance Diversity Agendas.” NASPA Journal 44 (3): 578–609.
Kezar, Adrianna J. 2008. “Understanding Leadership Strategies for Addressing the Politics of Diversity.” e
Journal of Higher Education 79 (4): 406–441.
Kezar, Adrianna J. 2014. How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and Enacting Change. New York:
Routledge.
Kezar, Adrianna J., and Peter Eckel. 2005. Important Journeys: Presidents Supporting Students of Color.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Kolowich, Steve. 2017. “A Radical College’s Public Meltdown: How a Season of Racial Protests Turned
Evergreen State College’s Self-Examination into a National Spectacle.” e Chronicle of Higher Education,
October 27, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Radical-College-s-Public/241577.
34 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
Mainiero, Lisa A., and Donald E. Gibson. 2003. “Managing Employee Trauma: Dealing with the Emotional
Fallout from 9-11.” e Academy of Management Executive 17 (3): 130–143.
Museus, Samuel D. 2014. “e Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model: A New eory
of Success Among Racially Diverse College Student Populations.” In Higher Education: Handbook of eory
and Research, vol. 29, edited by Michael B. Paulsen, 189–227. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
NAACP. 2017. “Travel Advisory for the State of Missouri.” News, August 2, 2017. https://www.naacp.org/
latest/travel-advisory-state-missouri.
Pearson, Michael. 2015. “A Timeline of the University of Missouri Protests.”CNN, November 10,
2015.https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-protest-timeline/index.html.
Saul, Jack. 2014. Collective Trauma, Collective Healing: Promoting Community Resilience in the Aftermath of
Disaster. New York: Routledge.
Seltzer, Rick. 2017. “Missouri’s Money Problem.” Inside Higher Ed, June 5, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.
com/news/2017/06/05/university-missouri-system-tries-turn-cuts-new-direction.
Smith, William A. 2004. “Black Faculty Coping with Racial Battle Fatigue: e Campus Racial Climate in
a Post-Civil Rights Era.” In A Long Way to Go: Conversations About Race by African American Faculty and
Graduate Students, Higher Ed, vol. 14, edited by Darrell Cleveland, 171–190. Bern, Switzerland: Peter
Lang.
Smith, William A., Tara J. Yosso, and Daniel G. Solórzano. 2011. “Challenging Racial Battle Fatigue on
Historically White Campuses: A Critical Race Examination of Race-Related Stress.” In Covert Racism:
eories, Institutions, and Experiences, Studies in Critical Social Sciences, vol. 32, edited by Rodney D.
Coates, 211–238. Leiden, Netherlands, and Boston: Brill.
Svrluga, Susan. 2016. “Mizzou Professor Who Pushed Reporter Away from Protesters Is Fired.” e
Washington Post, February 25, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/25/
mizzou-professor-who-pushed-reporter-away-from-protesters-is-red/?utm_term=.2dd10c7fe1c5.
omason, Andy. 2015. “What Is Going on at the University of Missouri?” e Ticker (blog), e Chronicle
of Higher Education. November 6, 2015. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/what-is-going-on-at-the-
university-of-missouri/106430.
Williams, Damon A. 2013. Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher
Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Williams, Mará Rose. 2017. “UM System Cutting $101 Million from Its Four Campuses.” Kansas City Star,
June 2, 2017. http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article154134704.html.
Wooten, Lynn Perry, and Erika Hayes James. 2008. “Linking Crisis Management and Leadership
Competencies: e Role of Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 10
(3): 352–379.
American Council on Education — 35
Appendix A. Media Coverage
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
CNN: “A Familiar Protest: Missouri Racism Demonstrations Are Rooted in History” (https://www.cnn.
com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-racism-protests-history/index.html)
Hungton Post: “Why Missouri Has Become the Heart of Racial Tension in America” (https://www.hungtonpost.com/
entry/ferguson-mizzou-missouri-racial-tension_us_564736e2e4b08cda3488f34d)
CAMPUS CLIMATE AND RESISTANCE
Missourian: “Protesters Use Recruiting Day to Voice Concerns About Racism at MU” (https://www.columbiamissourian.
com/news/local/protesters-use-recruiting-day-to-voice-concerns-about-racism-at/article_a8477d70-8579-11e5-
ae8c-6f3361124450.html)
e Intercept: “New Film Shows Real-Time, Inside Account of the University of Missouri Student Protests” (https://
theintercept.com/2016/03/22/concerned-student-1950-new-lm-shows-inside-account-of-university-of-missouri-
protests)
Los Angeles Times: “Hunger Striker Gives Credit to Fellow Activists Fighting Racism at University of Missouri” (http://
www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missouri-hunger-striker-20151110-story.html)
e New Yorker: “A Hard Rain at Mizzou and Yale” (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-struggles-at-
mizzou-and-yale)
Hungton Post: “Students Share What It’s Like to Be Black at Mizzou” (https://www.hungtonpost.com/entry/students-
share-what-its-like-to-be-black-at-mizzou_us_56439736e4b0603773476699)
CNN: “University of Missouri Campus Protests: ‘is Is Just a Beginning’” (https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/us/
missouri-football-players-protest-presidents-resigns/index.html)
FOOTBALL TEAM BOYCOTT
USA Today: “Missouri Football Players to Boycott until President Tim Wolfe Resigns” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/
sports/ncaaf/2015/11/07/missouri-tigers-football-players-boycott-tim-wolfe-president-resigns/75399504)
CNN: “Black Football Players at Missouri: We’ll Sit Out until System President Resigns” (https://www.cnn.
com/2015/11/08/us/missouri-football-players-protest/index.html)
SYSTEM PRESIDENT RESIGNATION AND CAMPUS CHANCELLOR TRANSITION
e New York Times: “University of Missouri Protests Spur a Day of Change” (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/
university-of-missouri-system-president-resigns.html)
ESPN: “Missouri President Tim Wolfe Resigns amid Student Criticism of Handling Racial Issues” (http://www.espn.
com/college-football/story/_/id/14089689/missouri-tigers-president-tim-wolfe-resigns-amid-racial-unrest)
ABC News: “University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe Resigns and Chancellor Steps Aside Amid Protests” (https://
abcnews.go.com/US/university-missouri-president-tim-wolfe-resigns-amid-protests/story?id=35076098)
e Washington Post: “U. Missouri President, Chancellor Resign over Handling of Racial Incidents” (https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/09/missouris-student-government-calls-for-university-
presidents-removal)
36 — Speaking Truth and Acting with Integrity: Confronting Challenges of Campus Racial Climate
MEDIA COVERAGE FOLLOWING RESIGNATIONS
St. Louis Today: “Freshman Enrollment at Mizzou to Take a Steep Drop in August” (https://www.stltoday.com/news/
local/education/freshman-enrollment-at-mizzou-to-take-a-steep-drop-in/article_b7417bf6-268e-58c4-b358-
ac369c4481fc.html)
Kansas City Star: “University of Missouri Struggles to Rebuild Image after Hits to Reputation, Enrollment” (https://www.
kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article152939139.html)
e Washington Post: “Mizzou Professor Who Pushed Reporter away from Protesters Is Fired” (https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/25/mizzou-professor-who-pushed-reporter-away-from-
protesters-is-red)
Hungton Post: “Missouri Lawmakers Push to Punish Mizzou Because Students Protested” (https://www.hungtonpost.
com/entry/missouri-lawmakers-mizzou-student-protest_us_56be1eb4e4b08ac12495)
Kansas City Star: “MU’s Record Fundraising Crosses $1 Billion, a Sign of Recovery from 2015 Protests” (https://www.
kansascity.com/news/local/article214619635.html)
Appendix B. University of Missouri
Programs and Resources
Collaborative development of a system-wide strategic diversity, equity, and inclusion plan called the Inclusive Excellence
Framework
Adoption of the Framework by a plethora of local community organizations to serve as a backdrop for the entire city of
Columbia and Boone County in an eort to become an Inclusive Excellence city andcounty
Creation of a mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion, musically infused workshop for incoming rst-year and transfer
students called Citizenship@Mizzou
Creation of a corresponding musical workshop for faculty and sta called CitizenshipToo
Inclusive Excellence grants to support research with diversity, equity, and inclusion implications
Inclusive teaching incentives to support the infusion of diversity, equity, and inclusion subject matter into the curricu-
lum
National Eminent Scholar Mentoring initiative that supports diverse tenure track faculty retention
Men of Color, Honor and Ambition (MOCHA), a personal, academic, cultural, social, professional, and leadership
development program for undergraduate men, and the inaugural MOCHA Conference
Diversity leadership development programming for faculty, sta, and students, including annual oerings of Social Jus-
tice Mediation Training, faculty from the Social Justice Training Institute, and Diversity 101
Inaugural statewide Show Me Title IX Conference
American
Council on
Education
