The Role of Self within the Community of Student Affairs- How Can I ...

The Role of Self within the Community of Student Affairs- How Can I be Authentic and Play
Multiple Roles?
Jan Arminio, Shippensburg University
Susan R. Jones, The Ohio State University
In this introduction, we (Jan and Susan) aim to explore the tensions between assumptions
and values of the student affairs field related to leading authentic lives and the identity
consequences that potentially result when fulfilling multiple roles in our work. We introduce
multiple interpretations on this issue primarily by inviting responses from two colleagues in an
effort to provoke conversations and questions while exposing possible places of common
ground. We begin with our introduction, followed by responses from Ryan Holmes and Glen
Sherman, both student affairs educators, and conclude with a few comments that summarize and
integrate the themes that emerge from this analysis related to the vexing nature of authenticity in
the context of institutional and professional settings. The primary purpose of presenting these
multiple perspectives is to improve educational practices for students at our institutions by
exposing identity issues experienced by student affairs educators and their potential impact on
our ability to be successful and authentic in our work.
Student development theory and identity development more specifically, have served as
the theoretical bedrock of student affairs practice for many years. From the Student Personnel
Point of View (1937) forward, the education of the whole student has served as a central guiding
philosophical principle for student affairs practice. Related, as Shields (2008) summarized, “In
contemporary American society, identity is emphasized as a quality that enables the expression
of the individual’s authentic sense of self” (p. 301). In student development scholarship, self-
authorship (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2009; Kegan, 1994) is advanced as a theory that
1

describes a holistic portrait of development. According to Kegan (1994), the demands of public
life, including in the work place, requires a self-authorship that “can coordinate, integrate, act
upon, or invent values, beliefs, convictions, generalizations, ideals, abstractions, interpersonal
loyalties, and intrapersonal states (p. 185). However, although holistic in the integration of
cognitive, interpersonal, and identity domains of development, self-authorship does not
necessarily integrate dimensions of race, social class, culture, or sexual orientation, for example
(Jones, 2010). When these dimensions are incorporated explicitly into the study of identity,
authenticity becomes more complicated (Jones, Kim, & Skendall, in press) and the work place
serves as one significant context in which individuals wrestle with how to live authentic lives.
For the most part, up until the recent past, it was expected that employees give up identity
and culture at the employer’s door. As a result, employees took on the culture of the employer
with little question. For some individuals this necessitated that employees “code switched” or
“passed” as the prevailing norms and values of the institution or work place required that some
individuals give up more of themselves than others (Willie, 2003). Code switching or code
shifting refers to altering “from one linguistic code to another depending on the communication
setting or context” (Morrison, 2010, p. 95). However, people shifted not only how they spoke,
but also what they wore, how they acted, and even what music they listened to at work. Passing
“points to an act of deception as one is being accepted for something one is not” (Davidson,
2010, p. 359). Willie (2003), in her study of college-educated African Americans from either an
HBCU or a PWI, distinguished between playing with racial expectations and stereotypes and
passing. She wrote, “The ability to ‘play’ with racial stereotypes or assume them for a specific
purpose tells us about the malleability of race and racial stereotypes. Unlike ‘passing,’ this is
2

less about pretending to be something one is not and more about pretending to be something one
is thought to be” (p. 153).
Generally, employees altered their behavior from home to work to comply with
employers’ expectations and the cultural norms of the institution. However, with the recognition
of the importance of cultural and social identity and the increased diversity of the work force,
this dynamic created a tension among employees, some of whom became more reluctant to turn
off or turn away from their culture or social identity. For example, numerous accounts exist of
working class, poor, and first generation faculty and student affairs educators’ experiences in
transitioning to a middle class environment. In writing about her interest in attending college,
for Sowinska (1993) this meant:
Leaving behind the familiar validations of experience and community offered by my
family and friends. My own passing included, among its manifestations, altering my
speech, changing the way I dressed, remaining silent during conversations about my
family, pretending to have enough money when I didn’t, claiming I wasn’t hungry when I
was. I also developed a tendency toward automatic lying, filling in what I perceived as
gaps in my background. (p. 152)
To what degree is code switching and passing still expected or necessary? Moreover, how do
these coping strategies detract from an authentic self? About authenticity Morgaine (1992)
wrote, “Authenticity is considered the natural by-product of self-formation processes founded on
mutuality and respect” (p.11). Prellwitz (2010) described three dimensions of authenticity, “the
quality of being or possessing reality, the quality of expressing truth” (p. 52), and the quality of
acting within one’s authority. Yet, Jones (2010) asked whether authenticity is possible “given
the shifting terrain of identity negotiations and the external constraints to authenticity, which are
3

influenced by context and the structures of power, privilege, and oppression” (p. 233). In a
recent study using intersectionality as a framework, one participant captured this dynamic in
relation to authenticity and the necessary negotiating of identity when others’ perceptions (such
as in the workplace) are a significant factor:
A mother, a wife, a woman, a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a niece, a professional, a
student, I am who you want me to be in different environments in different places at
different times, but it does not stop here. I am Christian, I am Black, I am from the south,
I am middle class, I am African American, which is the first identity seen by others when
I walk down the street, or enter a room. So to answer the question, who am I as a person,
I am all of the above to different people in different settings at different times. (Jones,
2009, p. 293)
Beyond the questions raised above connecting issues of identity to behaviors at work, to
what degree should it be expected that employees, including those in student affairs, “suck it up”
and comply with institutional expectations particularly those outside their specific position
description? How does the need to “suck it up” fit or not fit with our profession’s values of
identity, integrity, teamwork, collaboration, and authenticity? To what point does a student
affairs professional have the right to advocate for personal values or the values of others? How
do institutional politics influence this? In what instances should student affairs professionals
“suck it up” and comply because a supervisor requires this? Contrarily, in what ways is the new
generation of professionals expecting to be accommodated?
The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher education (CAS)
Characteristics of Individual Excellence for Professional Practice in Higher Education (2009)
lists two potentially contradictory statements: professionals “Abide by laws and institutional
4

policies and work to change policies that are incongruent with personal and professional
principles” and professionals “Re-evaluate continued employment when personal, professional,
and institution goals and values are incompatible and inhibit the pursuit of excellence” (p. 22).
How does one know when it is time for the latter? Is the latter unreasonable considering the
economic realities of employment opportunities in higher education? What groups are more
vulnerable in these situations?
This critical view essay then in essence asks, what does it mean to be authentic in today’s
work context? How does a director of the multicultural center represent both students and the
institution when students believe campus police are harassing students of color and the
administration does not? How should male employees respond to being asked to remove their
earrings before alumni days? Should employees be forced to wear campus spirit shirts? How
should employees follow procedures as written when one of the players involved is inept?
As Bronfenbrenner (1979) makes clear, people are influenced by several ecological
spheres of influence. In student affairs those spheres include ourselves, our institutions, and our
profession. Few would deny that the socialization process for professionals entering student
affairs is imperative and involves the integration of the self acting within the culture of the
institution (Collins, 2009). Furthermore, as professionals, we profess our commitment to a
vocation by using its principles as guides (Arminio, 2011). Additionally, critical to institutional
culture are its leadership practices. To what degree is leadership hierarchical, transactional, or
transformational and when and how should one adapt to these cultural characteristics?
Added to the complexity of this issue of authenticity in the workplace is the current
economic recession. The means that the ability to accomplish goals is often dependent upon
5

esources and student affairs is embedded in an environment of declining public support. How is
authenticity impacted as educators grovel for adequate resources?
Howe and Strauss (2000) tried to debunk the idea that the millennial generation (those
born from 1982-1998) is self-absorbed, instead they described this generation as “cooperative
team players” (p. 8). Contrarily, these authors also noted the many social supports were initiated
to protect this generation. Such supports include increased safety regulations many of which
were prompted by the millennials’ boomer parents. How does being the target of consistent
protections as a child influence the life as a working adult? Yet, do not all generations lament
the perceived lack of talent of the next?
In contemplating the above questions in the context of the relationship between the self
and the community of student affairs, Susan and Jan welcome the reflections and experiences of
others on balancing the needs of self and student affairs roles in relation to the question of
leading authentic lives and increased understanding about the tensions and identity negotiations
involved. Below are two such reflections that add to the perspective of balancing self with
professional roles in the context of authenticity. The first respondent, Ryan Holmes, uses his
own experience and identity to frame his response. The second respondent, Glen Sherman,
adapts a philosophical approach by drawing on the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas to frame
his response.
The Will is the Limit: A Response to Arminio and Jones’ “The Role of Self within the
Community of Student Affairs”
Ryan C. Holmes, University of Texas at El Paso
6

In their comments above, Arminio and Jones make many thought provoking points with
regard to the landscape of higher education. In their essay, the authors present that many
professionals on the college/university campus have the chance to be more “authentic” than they
ever have been. It is offered that professionals may not necessarily have to change their speech
patterns, dress, and/or music choices as was the case a few decades ago. Further, it is argued that
employees may be less prone to limit their cultural and identity expressions at the request,
spoken or unspoken, of their employers. Yet, conversely, the authors question whether
employees should “suck it up” for the values of our profession or for the employer? While the
upcoming response will not be all-encompassing in approaching such a vast set of issues, it is my
hope that this perspective will be accepted as being from a student affairs professional who truly
loves the profession while not consciously trying to fit in at the expense of self.
To better understand my position, one must consider my perspective; that of a large (6’1,
300+ lb), heterosexual, African American male, who has been afforded opportunities while
having to overcome adverse circumstances, and still does not accept the belief that the United
States is in a “Post” anything (i.e. post-race, post-gender, post-sexual orientation, post-
socioeconomic status) time in our country’s history. Yes, it can be seen that the ability to be
more authentic has improved relatively speaking. Relative to a previous time where affirmative
action policies had to be instituted for persons outside of an accepted class to gain entry to the
workplace and admission to certain institutions of education. Relative to political climates that
prompted a civil rights movement in the 1950s, women’s rights movements in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, and the Stonewall Riots of 1969, the event largely regarded as a catalyst for
the LGBT movement for civil rights. However, authenticity in the ideal sense that many believe
surfaced in the aftermath of the 2008 Presidential Election is not truly pervasive. Further, the
7

impacts of true authenticity that include institutions of higher education and the student affairs
profession will probably not be seen for some time to come.
In the professional realm of office environments and higher education, it is still (in many
cases) expected that employees “adjust their identity and culture at the employer’s door.”
Sowinska (1993) provides the example where “familiar validations of experience and
community” are left behind, where the act of self-denial is a key to not drawing unwanted
attention, and where it is assumed that maximizing one’s potential is contingent upon how well
you get along with colleagues so that what you know can be appreciated. This still happens
today. It happens when someone of multiple oppressions changes the way he/she speaks since
his/her degrees or pertinent life experiences cannot be seen in the conversation. It happens when
the underrepresented person takes several loans to finance higher education and degree
attainment so that the remaining earned income (after payment of loans) may not be enough to
join colleagues in building a social network. It happens when a person feels the need to dress up
a bit more because dressing comfortably may be viewed as unprofessional unless the person is
well known or has a “professional” look to offset negative perceptions. It happens when one has
very few colleagues of one’s own cultural background based on hiring practices or lack of
opportunities; unless one “passes” for possessing the ideals of the mainstream. It happens when
a person has a “work” music playlist that would never feature certain music selections for fear of
being typecast. However, many of these situations, although noticed, are noticed silently. Such
acts of self-denial are proof that bigotry exists in the institutions that tell students to be authentic
as they strive to maximize their potential; as we tell students and other professionals that we
value diversity.
8

These aforementioned instances display that being authentic is a continuous struggle and
that “wearing the mask” and “code switching” are still prevalent. Yet, there is no better place to
witness a break from “masks” than at a conference, specifically a national one. Such a setting
allows professionals to use the time between sessions and after hours to spend time with
colleagues across the country who accept them for who they really are. It also allows
professionals to dress how they feel rather than how they are expected to, and provides a forum
for subgroups of people to converse in the style that displays their upbringing and not how they
have been trained to speak. Nonetheless, these freeing experiences must be enjoyed before one
returns to the office where he/she is paid to assume the “whole” role of being a professional. It is
then that code switching must be employed until the person has been there long enough to be
seen as “non-threatening” or simply “ok.” Even then, the context in which the person lives and
works determines how long acceptance will take and /or decides if the person can ever work
toward authenticity. In fact, there are many facets that can determine a person’s space to be
authentic. The dividing line between what is acceptable or not can be determined by the
demographic of the location (urban, rural, affluent, underprivileged), institutional type (ivy-
league, community college, liberal arts, technical) or in some cases, the department (i.e. Vice
President’s Office, Student Activities, Student Conduct) just to name a few. Another aspect that
can possibly determine a person’s level of authenticity is position title. I am quite sure that a
coordinator in a traditional student activities office would be granted more of an exception to be
authentic than a director, Dean or a Vice President. However, the coordinator’s promotion may
be in jeopardy, regardless of how well they are versed in the profession, if it is determined that
the person is not in line with institutional culture because they have chosen not to suppress who
he/she really is. Why? Because even though one is given more access and autonomy at the
9

upper levels to make decisions on behalf of the institution, there is less autonomy to be an
individual while simultaneously being an ambassador.
One of most crucial questions presented in Arminio and Jones’ essay can be reduced to
the following three words: is authenticity possible? To answer Jones (2010), I do believe that
authenticity is possible. However, by not achieving authenticity in a way that is permissible by
cultural power centers, one may very well be volunteering to limit his/her upward progress. One
could be seen as not playing by the “established” rules and, by not doing so, could be less
understood and subsequently less trusted. “If I place this person on a search committee, would
this person represent the university well?” “What would the members of a divisional committee
think of this person’s opinion if her/his hairstyle serves as a distraction?” Also, it must be
understood that though authenticity can be seen as an individual battle, many (who subscribe to
social groups) may still view authenticity as a social group struggle and will guide their actions
based on the perceived readiness of the locale to accept their attempts at authenticity. For
example, social groups as well as individuals can be the targets of oppression (Holmes, Edwards,
DeBowes, 2009). The word oppression is used purposefully, because societal structures support,
encourage, and reinforce prejudices that have been put in place by those who have been afforded
unearned advantages (Holmes, Edwards, DeBowes, 2009). In this case, unearned advantages
can also manifest themselves in not having to be concerned with adapting to a mainstream office
environment.
There is yet another way to interpret the actions of those who choose to be “inauthentic.”
There may be many who “play a role,” “wear the mask,” and “code switch” not because they are
inauthentic but because they would rather use their energies in other areas than the energy-
draining arena of fighting to change perceptions on a road to false equity; a road that manifests
10

itself in scholarly discourse but not in deeds, advocacy, and opportunities. There are many who
would rather blend in so that they can remain valuable resources for the students that remind
them of their earlier years; so that they can hold true to the student affairs mantra of being
student-centered even if it comes at the expense of being true to themselves.
It is important to note that I am not suggesting that the world of student affairs, or the
work environment, should be a free-for-all with no regularity. There are some aspects that
should be uniform in the higher education environment: life-long learning, scholarship (which
can differ from life-long learning), and the desire to work with and for students. If cultural
and/or identity manifestations interrupt the flow of the aforementioned then, yes, they do need to
be checked. However, I find it hard to understand how an individual being personally authentic
can cause interference. It seems to be the goal of many student affairs professionals to
encourage students to be themselves, to find their aims, and to establish/achieve their goals. Yet,
I have personally seen that if one allows their personal values to shield them from accepting the
newest student affairs trends, he/she can be seen as too conservative to meet students where they
are. Yet, what if we are teaching students how to lie to the world by being personally inauthentic
as we teach them to strive toward authenticity?
And yet, there still remains the realm of institutional politics. Institutional politics only
influence genuineness to the point that individuals allow themselves to be controlled. This
includes the person’s desire to be “liked,” the likelihood of gathering resources for programs, and
wondering if the work setting will change to the point that it impacts the person’s desire to
remain in the environment. Any person has the right to advocate for whatever cause they choose
so long as it does not target protective classes or constitute hate speech; it is a constitutional
right. Yet, the person must also understand that the institution has the right to select who
11

epresents it. Hence, it is my belief that one can tell a lot about an institution by merely
observing its workforce. Not necessarily the surface diversity (though that is still important even
today), but by observing the messages that come forth from its decisions, stances, and traditions.
Then all can see how authentic is “too” authentic and who is afforded the privilege of exhibiting
such authenticity.
In closing, one must merely look to the past for lessons about authenticity. We remember
those whom we consider to be the greatest of their time for one reason; they were genuine. They
did not ask for permission to live, but they lived boldly while presenting a different side of
humanity. This was the same for Muhammad Ali, Mother Theresa, Cesar Chavez, and Harvey
Milk just to name a few. These people challenged the system to accept them as they were; to
honor them as members of the social groups that they claimed and represented. They also
displayed true courage in societal climates that were arguably much more hostile than they are
currently. Finally, if student affairs professionals hope to inspire and create whole students, it is
equally important that the profession seeks to inspire genuine professionals.
Compelling Each Toward the Other: The Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas
Glen L. Sherman, William Paterson University
The challenges young student affairs professionals face are many and varied. Barely
having mastered or, more likely, still learning various theoretical approaches to practice, they are
thrust into institutions with traditions and expectations they may not be fully familiar with and
which may or may not coincide with their personal values and beliefs. They are also probably
still integrating the professional standards and ethical principles they learned about in graduate
school, while also figuring out their own professional value systems and simultaneously putting
12

them into practice. ACPA’s own Ethical Principles and Standards encourage members to
“adopt a personal value system congruent with the basic tenets of the profession” (ACPA, 2006,
p. 3).
All of this is quite complicated and probably happening for the young professional
outside the realm of explicit consciousness, unless or until something happens that presents an
ethical dilemma. Such a dilemma, like the possible clash of personal and professional values
described in Jan and Susan’s Introduction (e.g., a male employee who is asked by a supervisor to
remove an earring prior to an Open House, or an employee concerned about bringing to a
supervisor student complaints of unfair treatment by Campus Police toward certain students
based on race or ethnicity), presents young professionals with a conflict, perhaps even a crisis, as
they encounter the issue of what the traditions and beliefs of the institution really are, and
attempt to sort out what they think and believe, how they feel, and what they wish to do.
Jan and Susan pose the issue as one of both authenticity, the young professional
remaining true to his or her own personal, ethnic, familial, socio-cultural, or economic values
and “self,” and how the individual navigates between owned individual values and a supervisor’s
or the institution’s values and requirements of employees, referred to as institutional culture.
The latter issue, according to critical theory, tends to lead to discussions of power, privilege, and
oppression. Critical theory, briefly stated, explores human freedom as it may be circumscribed
or constrained by social, political, or economic conditions (Hayes & Singh, 2012). I believe that
this perspective is prevalent in higher education. This is understandable given the diversity and
economic disparity present in our institutions. However, I would like to pose another perspective
on this situation, one which seems equally relevant. The perspective emanates from the ethical
writings of Emmanuel Levinas, a twentieth century French Continental philosopher perhaps little
13

known to the field of student affairs. Levinas proposes an original understanding of ethics which
offers a unique perspective on the dilemma Jan and Susan have posed. I will introduce Levinas
by way of a few brief biographical facts and then sketch his philosophy of ethics. Finally, I will
apply the questions raised by his philosophical ideas to the examples cited.
Levinas was born and raised in Eastern Europe in the early nineteen hundreds. He was
raised in an orthodox Jewish family, where the study of Talmud, Jewish law, was strictly adhered
to. He grew up also reading the premier “existential” Russian authors of the time (e.g.,
Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy). He moved to France as a young man, where he enrolled in university
and focused his studies on philosophy. Levinas then went to Freiburg, Germany, where he
studied philosophy with Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Subsequently, Levinas was a
soldier in the French army. He was captured and although Jewish, spent time as a prisoner of
war rather than in a concentration camp. He survived but the majority of his family was killed in
concentration camps. This is an important fact to recall as we consider Levinas’ reflections on
human ethics. (For a deeper understanding of authenticity and how it applies to work in student
affairs, see Sherman, 2009.)
In many respects, much of Levinas’ writing is a response to other philosophers’
contentions that consciousness defines our relationship to the world and others and that
authenticity may be defined as an individual being true to her “own most” self. Levinas thinks
that these basic definitions, or essential philosophical assumptions, are misguided readings of the
phenomena, the text and texture of experience. This is so because for Levinas it is a
misconception to think of the self as an autonomous entity which is the starting point of
experience and ethical thinking. Rather, for Levinas, ethics and the ethical relation begin with
the way that the subject is first and foremost compelled by the “face of the other.” Otherness
14

constitutes the subject before the subject is even aware of it (i.e., before even the time of
intentional consciousness) is perhaps the most difficult idea at the heart of Levinas’ philosophy.
In positing this notion of the subject, Levinas challenges notions of temporality as revolving
around a present which binds the past and future through a present identity (what he calls the
“Same”), one of the main concepts around which student affairs theory is built. To go one step
further, as much as student affairs work and theory is also grounded in respect for the other,
fairness and justice, Levinas’ suggestions about how the other factors into our very being and
reckoning as a self, and how this bears upon interpersonal relations, is very different than the
usual conceptions of the self and interpersonal relations in student affairs. Typically the self is
conceived as an autonomous, self-identical psychological entity. Depending upon the school of
psychology one adheres to, the psychological self might be seen as primarily comprised of
thoughts (cognitions) or feelings (affects), or as has been the case in seminal student affairs
documents, as a combination of feelings and thoughts in a “whole” person. Interpersonal
relations (such as those discussed by Baxter Magolda, 2001) are then conceived of as two
separate identities or selves interacting with one another. This difference has far-reaching
implications for a student affairs ethic.
To frame ethics from this radical starting point is to contradict a long line of ethical
thinking (going back, for instance, to Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative) but it also goes
against our typical thinking in student affairs, which extols the self, whether in terms of our
reverence for psychologically based developmental theory, or our inclination to assert and
defend individual human rights above all else. What is unique and compelling about Levinas’
ethical philosophy is his contention that giving individual consciousness priority in defining who
we are is misguided. Such claims, he argues, come too late. They are based on an ontology, a
15

easoning about being, which misses a more primordial dimension of experience which occurs
before the separation of self and other. In fact, Levinas describes this more essential dimension
of human being as “the one for the other.” What this phrase suggests is an essential
responsibility to the other which comes first, and comprises who we are just as much as our
individual level of need and want which we become aware of in consciousness. This premise
pre-scribes an indelible responsibility to the other which marks our being-in-the-world. The
“other” is in a fundamental sense constitutive of the self, and presents the self with an irresistible,
undeniable responsibility before even the ontic (everyday, conscious) level of their demand. To
say “other” then is to imply two things; first, in ordinary terms, another person, another subject
who stands before the self in an encounter and second, the way, for Levinas, the other’s presence
actually constitutes the self in an essential manner.
Levinas’ philosophy is a critique of the metaphysics of being, of presence, from which
notions of individuality, commitment, ethics and morality, as acts of will, stem. Rather, for
Levinas, the self’s more basic responsibility to the other stems first and foremost from the fact
that the other’s presence is fundamentally constitutive of subjectivity, and which may more
accurately be defined as “the-one-in-the-place-of-the-other” or “substitution.” The self’s
fundamental responsibility and obligation to the other exists because that is who the “I” is, before
presence, before the present time in which the self becomes aware of itself as a subject. In fact,
following this line of thinking through, Levinas describes how the other actually emanates from
the self, seizing it before any reflective awareness. It is out of this past that the self’s obligation,
commitment, and the necessity to address the other arises.
To be clear, it is not that Levinas was oblivious to the everyday phenomenal experience
of the self as individual, as the “oneself” as he puts it. Having lived through the holocaust (and
16

having experienced great personal loss), he also was certainly not blind to man’s potential
inhumanity to man. However, his analysis attempts to penetrate more deeply within, or
antecedent to the oneself, and in a very original way, this led him to the “other.” For Levinas,
subjectivity, before it is “for itself,” an object of reflection which returns to itself, is first and
foremost “for the other,” in the “face of the other.” This is not to say that individuals cannot turn
away from this and deny another’s humanity. But Levinas saw this possibility as secondary to
the ethical obligation that is primary.
What does this have to do with our young student affairs professional? First and
foremost, Levinas’ position suggests that we frame the ethical dilemma of the young professional
remaining true to his or her own personal “self” as primarily between individuals infused by the
unique dynamic described above, that I first am myself because of others, who I am is self-in-
relation, and I must consider who I am with you. An institution (any institution) may always be
conceived as comprised of individuals. Even if an institution creates mission and values
statements, goals and objectives, these documents are always interpreted, represented, and
enacted by individuals in relation to one another – in this case the supervisor with the young
professional, or perhaps the young professional in relation to students. But for Levinas, an
individual is always an individual in relation to another, not separate and distinct. In any
interpersonal situation, there is always already an ethical demand which precedes the surface-
level relationship, a prior claim of accountability to the other, a way the other’s needs are already
embedded in the imperative to respond. Certainly, the subject can turn away, turn a deaf ear to
the needs of the other – that is, refuse to consider whether there is any merit to the other’s
request, whether policy needs to be changed, – and take a stand on abstract written policy, but
this is already a denial of the other’s demand, and a negation of one’s incarnate obligation.
17

This obligation cuts two ways. The supervisor must hear the young professional’s needs and
concerns, must reckon with them, even as they reckon with the principles of their supervisor and
the policies they are attempting to uphold. It is always a question of someone for another, a
series of relations between real people already engaged with the other’s needs. It is not simply a
question of the supervisor rationally defending institutional principles to the young professional
and the professional being left to sort out their decision in isolation. To frame the problem in
this vacuous way is to miss the obligation each has to the other, the investment already running
through, saturating the encounter. It is emotional; it is a matter of livelihood. It is not primarily
a question of sorting out whose values make more sense, or who holds the power to enforce
certain values. Levinas would argue that the ethical relation speaks first and compels each
toward the other in an intimacy which compels a different type of “saying,” more original and
authentic than an arguing over whose values are right or make more sense. Such saying elevates
the dialogue beyond right and wrong or a demand that the other comply with one’s wish or
value. It is not simply a question of who has greater power.
Very concretely, through dialog with the supervisor, the young professional might have a
change of heart and remove the earring because he comes to see that the open house is about the
success of the institution not the individual’s identity, not simply because the supervisor says so.
Similarly, the young professional’s supervisor, after considering the possibility that students are
being treated unfairly, may take the young professional’s “case” to their superior. There they
would engage in a similar person-to-person dialogue which the young professional just engaged
the supervisor in about the significance of the institution’s values statement proscribing the
behavior in question and what the institution is really doing about living up to its word. These
examples transcend personal values and authenticity; they are a function of what emanates from
18

the prior obligation and demand of the interpersonal encounter, the claim the other makes. It is
only a question of the self remaining open to and heeding this demand, rather than closing it off
and ignoring it. While we might initially be inclined to sympathize and side with the less
powerful, young professional’s right to their personal values about how they dress, for example,
or automatically assume the institution, as represented in the supervisor, will remain deaf to the
possibility of institutional racism, Levinas, I think, would argue that more is possible. Similarly,
I think Levinas would say that simply defending the values of the institution and the young
professional’s choice to leave it if the values are not a good fit, is insufficient. Both positions
overlook the possibility that before either posed their position, they are two subjects whose
individual claims are preceded by the claims of the other.
Summary
The discourse here reminds us that the supervisor who comes to ask the employee to
remove his earring already has a relationship with the employee. The two already have
meanings attached to their roles, what they wear, and why. Neither comes to this interaction as
autonomous actors. What happens next depends on many variables including how closely the
earring represents the employee’s authenticity and how strongly the supervisor believes the
earring is unprofessional. According to Kegan (1994) if our society demanded more of us, the
employee and supervisor would refuse to be each other’s opposite. They would travel frequently
to each other’s world and work to establish new norms. In reading these essays we have traveled
to Glen and Ryan’s worlds. How might we see their perspectives less as oppositional and more
as an integrated whole, reflecting an obligation to the other?
19

The question of the role of power in the context of authenticity remains. Ryan’s essay
points to the ways in which power operates while Glen’s focuses the reader away from power
toward the ethical obligations to one another. Perhaps a third perspective, bridging this
perceived gap, is to suggest that the very question of the relationship of the self to the institution
and authenticity implicates power dynamics and ethical obligations to one another. Osei-Kofi
(2011) captured this dilemma well by suggesting,
When we see our own commitment to social justice as the result of coming to know the
Other without implicating ourselves in what we come to know, we position the Other as
what is to be known in the service of our transformation while erasing any
acknowledgement of the social conditions that structure relationships between dominant
and oppressed groups. (p. 389)
So, as a profession then, how might we create new norms such as the employee in turn asking the
supervisor to remove his wedding ring and the employee agreeing to attend a President’s Cabinet
meeting?
20

References
ACPA: College Student Educators International. (2006). Statement of ethical principles &
standards. Retrieved January 23, 2012 from http://www2.myacpa.org/statement-of-
ethical-principles-and-standards.
Arminio, J. (2011). Professionalism. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student
services: A handbook of the profession (5 th ed.; pp. 468-481). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Baxter Magold, M. B. (2009). The activity of meaning making: A holistic perspective on college
student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 621-639.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, D. (2010). The socialization process for new professionals. In A Tull, J. B. Hirt, & S.
Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs administration (pp. 3-27).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). CAS professional
standards for higher education (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Davidson, M. (2010). Identity change. In R. L. Jackson, II, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Identity (Vol.
1, p. 44-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hayes, D. G. & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
21

Holmes, R.C., Edwards, K., & DeBowes, M. M. (2009). Why objectivity is not enough. In J. M.
Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.). Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice
through a social justice lens (pp. 50-64). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Jones, S. R. (2010). The contributions of an autoethnographic and intersection approach. In M.
Baxter Magolda, E. G. Creamer, & P. S. Meszaros (Eds.), Development and assessment
of self-authorship: Exploring the concept across cultures (pp. 223-244). Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Jones, S. R., Kim, J. K., & Skendall, K. C. (in press). (Re-) framing authenticity: Considering
multiple social identities using autoethnographic and intersectional approaches. Journal
of Higher Education.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Morgaine, C. A. (1992). Enlightenment for emancipation: A critical theory of self-formation.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Alberta.
Morrison, C. D. (2010). Code-switching. In R. L. Jackson II (Ed.), Encyclopedia of identity (pp.
94-95). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Osei-Kofi, N. (2011). Beyond awareness: Student affairs educators as social justice advocates.
In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.), Contested issues in student affairs
(pp. 387-392). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Prellwitz, J. H. (2010). Authenticity. In R. L. Jackson II (Ed.), Encyclopedia of identity (pp. 52-
53). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
22

Sherman, G. L. (2009, November). Martin Heidegger’s Concept of Authenticity: A
Philosophical Contribution to Student Affairs Theory. Journal of College and Character,
Vol. X, No. 7.
Shields, S. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301-311.
Sowinska, S. (1993). Yer own motha wouldna rechanized ya: Surviving an apprenticeship in the
“knowledge factory.” In M. M. Tokarczyk & E. A. Fay (Eds.), Working class women in
the knowledge factory: Laborers in the academy (pp. 148-161). Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Willie, S. S. (2003). Acting Black: College identity and the performance of race. New York,
NY: Routledge.
23