BlogU

  • #NASPACPA Consolidation - Are we practicing our values?

    By Eric Stoller January 31, 2011 10:15 pm EST

    My first post about the proposed consolidation between ACPA and NASPA (they are the largest student affairs associations in higher education) was mostly neutral. I will admit that it had a slight pro-consolidation bent to it. However, I tried to present a list of resources that I thought would be helpful for members as they contemplate the proposed consolidation logistics. Am I for consolidation? Yes. Do I think that there is still a lot of work to do in order to create a unified student affairs association? Absolutely. Now that I have outed my thoughts on consolidation, I want to segue to an interesting development in the emerging controversial consolidation conversation.

    Last week, an email was sent out to members of NASPA from a group calling themselves the "NASPA, Yes! Consolidation, No! Committee" (NYCNC). The full text of the email can be found at Kevin Guidry's blog. According to a tweet from Eric Grospitch, the email was sent out to all NASPA members. Even though I am a member of NASPA, I did not receive the email. Thankfully, a couple of my peers sent me copies to make sure that I saw it.

    The NYCNC is made up of an extremely powerful and influential group of student affairs practitioners. In fact, I have debated writing anything about them because of a slight fear of professional retaliation. It is difficult to challenge the wisdom, experience, and positional power of such a well-known group of senior leaders. Especially since as a higher education consultant, I might be upsetting potential clients. When I mentioned this sentiment on Twitter yesterday, Chris MacDonald-Dennis said something that inspired me to continue writing:
    "[W]e teach our students to speak truth to power." The issue of consolidation has the potential to polarize the global student affairs community. It reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from bell hooks: "To build community requires vigilant awareness of the work we must continually do to undermine all the socialization that leads us to behave in ways that perpetuate domination."

    The rhetoric on the NYCNC site comes across as hierarchical and is extremely negative towards ACPA. Change is framed as being detrimental and preservation of the current NASPA structure is placed in a position of quasi reverence. Overly charged words like "abolished," "monstrous," and "complicated" are peppered throughout the site. As someone with a degree in public relations, I must say that my PR hackles went up immediately as I read words that were clearly intended to generate an emotionally polarizing response.

    Change is something that student affairs professionals talk about quite a bit. It's almost a mantra for the profession. We champion change because it is how we improve the future. The intro to the "Why Vote No" section of the NYCNC site leads with the historical meeting of three deans of men. It is fairly ironic when you think about it. NASPA was created by 6 men. Women weren't invited to the table due to the overt sexism of the day. The history of NASPA on the NASPA website talks about the "old boys" club mentality that was pervasive in the early days of the association. The NYCNC site feels like a last minute grab for power. When you frame NASPA as a top-echelon association and simultaneously affirm that graduate students should not have a vote regarding consolidation, I feel that that is more about preserving/maintaining power than it is about what we can do for our students and our profession.

    The language around "professional status" is extremely disturbing. Prohibiting graduate students from having a vote on association matters / bylaws is so blatantly hierarchical. I worked in Student Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago prior to beginning my graduate program at Oregon State University. According to the NYCNC site, I had professional status while at UIC, but then I lost it when I became a graduate student at OSU. Really? We talk about equality and justice in student affairs. It's part of our shared professional values and yet when power and tradition is threatened due to the possibility of change, we readily throw them out. It's really disappointing. The NYCNC says that "professional status is earned by employment in the field." Last time I checked, the majority of student affairs graduate students are employed via graduate assistantships.

    The NYCNC website lists several reasons for why consolidation should not occur. In fact, the reasons are rather fallacious. The wording uses "will result" instead of "may result." It's a textbook PR maneuver.

    Here are my thoughts on each point:

    • "Unnecessary organizational complexity": We work in higher education. Organizational complexity is something that we all deal with. Creation of a new association will most likely involve some challenges. However, both ACPA and NASPA weren't created overnight. It takes time for a new association to find its way.
    • "Loss of a volunteer run association": This one is a bit tricky. The language that is used is overtly polarizing...I highly doubt that people will stop being involved in significant volunteer leadership roles.
    • "Abandoning NASPA's many successes": The use of "abandoning" is a blatant attempt to tug at our professional heartstrings. Our memories and histories will not simply disappear. Brands come and go all of the time...it is the people who are involved in our associations that truly matter.
    • "Unknown costs": This is a brilliant tactic. Higher education funding has been a source of consternation for several years. Whether intentional or not, this affects folks due to the subconscious connections of unstable higher education funding that might be taking place on their own campuses. Of course the costs are going to be unknown. Fear of the unknown should not stop us from acting.
    • "Marginalization of important constituencies": The trope of "us" versus "them" makes an appearance in this bullet. Voices will only be marginalized if we allow them to be marginalized. The ironic part of this is that I feel that NYCNC has, through creation of their site, covertly marginalized the voices of those who are in less powerful positions.
    • "An unnecessarily large organization": The rhetoric surrounding the joint conferences has been used over and over again as a lever against consolidation. However, and I know that this might sting a bit, just because there were significantly negative issues with previous conferences does not mean that future mega-conferences would be less than successful. Meaningful connections can be made at large events. It's all about structure, format, and logistics.
    • "Eliminating NASPA and ACPA's long-standing cooperation": This is like comparing apples to oranges. Merging two associations into one would not "eliminate," it would "create."
    • "Reducing the important diversity of multiple 'voices.'": The fact that this bullet point begins with "Rhetoric aside" should be enough to call for its elimination from the list. And/or it at least acknowledges that the rest of the reasons against consolidation have been spun rhetorically. ACPA and NASPA are the "general" student affairs practitioner associations. Again, comparing the effectiveness of other functional area associations is just another apples to oranges comparison.

    I think that the "Why not the best" pro-consolidation piece does a great job of explaining why consolidation should take place. I do want to disclose that Dr. Larry Roper, one of the co-authors of "Why not the best," was, and still is, one of my professional mentors. He is one of the wisest student affairs practitioners that I have ever known. It should be noted that both Dr. Roper and Dr. Michael Jackson (the first name on the NYCNC site list) were both awarded NASPA's "Pillars of the Profession" awards.

    I want to mention that I really appreciated reading consolidation-related blog posts from Kristen Abell and Sean Grube. They presented extremely articulate and insightful responses to the NYCNC email/website. I found their words to be quite inspiring and instrumental as I framed my own opinions on the matter.

    Unification / consolidation has been a topic of conversation for the past 30 years. I think it's time to make consolidation happen. Let's keeping talking and find a way to make it a reality. Let's act on our shared values and continue to serve our students and our profession.

    If you want to follow the #NASPACPA consolidation conversation on Twitter, please use the hashtag: #NASPACPA.

    Do you tweet? Let's connect. Follow me on Twitter.

Go to comments (11) »
Advertisement
Open Job?

Comments on #NASPACPA Consolidation - Are we practicing our values?

  • Posted by Deb Schmidt-Rogers , Director of Residential Education at DePaul University on February 1, 2011 at 8:45am EST
  • Thanks for a very thoughtful blog on this very difficult topic. I remember when ACPA dis-affiliated from ACA...I served briefly on the disaffiliation committee while living in DC and can remember some very pointed and contentious conversations. Contentious conversations should not scare us, we all need to probe and push, as we would for any election...to determine what we believe is best for the FUTURE (key word) of our profession. This is not really about the past, but about where we csn go from here, and how we can do it together. I think I vote yes...still probing.
  • Not representative
  • Posted by DLD on February 1, 2011 at 10:15am EST
  • Anyone notice the job titles of those involved in this campaign against a new student affairs organization? Almost all are senior student affairs officers or faculty. Who speaks for the entry-level? Who speaks for the middle managers?
  • Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and What Happens to Empty Houses
  • Posted by Sean Cook , Career Coach at Higher Ed Career Coach on February 1, 2011 at 10:15am EST
  • Hi Eric,

    Thanks for deconstructing the argument and laying out your thoughts. I've been following this discussion for a while, and staying on the sidelines, in part because, like you, I don't want to alienate the "powers that be." As someone who ventured outside the traditional fold, I don't want to be pushed out of the discussion altogether, dismissed as an irrelevant outside voice, or worse, face hostility from either side.

    The thing that is missing in this discussion is the acknowledgement of middle ground stakeholders (like grad students, or higher ed consultants) in the outcome. Besides that, it ignores the simple fact that alternatives to association membership are widely available, and that some of us, given the choice, will choose to avoid the drama and find more productive ways to network and build our skills and competencies outside of this framework altogether, leaving both organizations stripped bare, like the many foreclosed houses across the country, built in better times, now standing empty, stripped of all their copper wire, with no interested buyers on the horizon.vote

    If I had a vote inside either organization, it would be for consolidation. For now, I'm happy to concentrate on what is best for me and my professional development, and I am finding it in one-to-one networking, identifying my skill and experience gaps and filling them. And I'd encourage others to do the same.
  • A Marketing Perspective
  • Posted by Kristen Abell , Associate Director, Residential Life at UMKC on February 1, 2011 at 11:15am EST
  • Eric - I think this is a great post specifically because what you are calling out is the marketing involved in that message, and I don't know that many people have recognized that. I, like you, was hesitant to post at first because of the names involved, but I decided that if they were going to make it public, they needed to be open to criticism. Also, if their goal really is to get people to vote no, they need to understand how they're alienating the voting base (and even the non-voting base) by how they're stating their message.
    Thanks again for the linkage - glad you got something from that post.
  • We have nothing to fear.
  • Posted by Annette Martel , Associate Vice President for Career Development at United Tribes Technical College on February 1, 2011 at 11:30am EST
  • Eric, thanks for your wise post. I was really put off by the email that I received from NASPA. I am a fan of both organizations, but have long been only a member of NASPA, because it seemed like a better fit for me.

    However, the anti-consolidation email just seemed so laden with fear that I found myself asking similar questions to the ones you posed. I remember in grad school when I was new to student affairs thinking, "Why in the world would they have two professional organizations that do essentially the same thing?"

    I am voting yes on consolidation for many of the reasons you outlined, as well as those articulated in Dr. Larry Roper's piece on the matter. We have nothing to fear. We only have to open ourselves up to the idea of a bigger, brighter, more collaborative future.
  • A focus on serving students
  • Posted by Kevin Cleary , Coordinator, Center for Student Involvement and Leadership at The University of Arizona on February 1, 2011 at 12:00pm EST
  • Eric,

    Thank you for breaking down this argument and the marketing tactics behind the NYCNC. I've been following this debate for a while now. I must say, I was disappointed when I received the e-mail from NYCNC. I think what was most disappointing to me about it was the lack of discussion about how this impacts the work we do with students. To me, the arguments presented by the NYCNC focus on the bureaucracy of the organization. It is disheartening as a newer professional to see a group of well respected, SSOs seeming to care more about an organization and the structure, than on how it would effect the students we work with.

    I know that I got in to this field because I am passionate about student learning and growth. for me, this vote is about what will help me be the best student affairs professional possible. I believe that by moving forward with consolidation, we can create a better future for this field, as well as better serve our students. That is why I will be voting yes on consolidation.

    Whatever your vote, I urge you all to put the needs of our students first, and then consider whether consolidation will best serve their needs. I choose to follow the mantra, not of "NASPA, Yes!" but of "Students, Yes!" and urge everyone to do the same.
  • Culture change
  • Posted by Cindy Kane on February 1, 2011 at 6:30pm EST
  • I also received the NASPA email and it showed me that a culture change is needed.

    Whether the culture change is a combined association or not is what we have to decide. From where I sit, I am now convinced that change is needed and that the new association has more potential to design a new future for our "unified voice" in our profession than the current associations have potential to reinvent themselves.

    I can understand why there is polarization around this issue, especially from SSAO's who have devoted so much of their careers to supporting this association that may end up dissolving as they know it. I have been part of another association's restructuring efforts and it's painful and difficult work.

    Obviously, we have to decide what's best for advocacy and growth for our profession overall.
  • agreed
  • Posted by Jeff Jackson , Assoc Dir of Student Affairs at San Antonio College on February 2, 2011 at 12:30pm EST
  • Eric thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject. NYCNC will provide a great case study of influence and power in student affairs.
  • Hard to let go
  • Posted by Conni Claflin , Doctoral Student, Higher Ed and Adult Learning at Walden University on February 3, 2011 at 11:45am EST
  • Eric,
    I think your points are very valid, and hone in on some important discrepencies in the email that went out to NASPA constituents. First, from a personal standpoint, I found the email offensive. I think it made NASPA look bad, and had the reverse effect when it made some people mad enough to reconsider thier position. I also really want to know why a subset part of the organization had access to the email distribution list that is supposed to be used for NASPA business, not a smear campaign agains ACPA and the consolidation initiative.

    Now from a professional standpoint, I see it from both sides. I am a member of both organizations and understand that there are unique characteristics of NASPA or ACPA that appeal to certain people who are at certain points in thier career. But when it really comes down to it, these two agencies have the same purpose. In a day and age where education is being put on the back burner, won't it make our profession even stronger to combine these two organizations and lobby for change from a position of greater power?

    I have worked in student affairs for 14 years, and have supervised many entry level professionals. When it comes time for them to choose an organization that they would like membership for, there is always an ACPA vs. NASPA debate. Why do we need to choose? Why do we need to be either a "NASPA person" or an "ACPA person"? Both organizations have a lot to offer, and by staying seperated we are asking our colleagues to choose one or the other, unless they want to pay for both. It's ridiculous - we are one profession, and should have one leading organization. Staying apart is polarizing our profession, weakening us, and causing contention. I can't wait for this debate to finally stop and for our two organizations to finally be one.
  • Thanks
  • Posted by Brian Root , Assistant Director of Housing & Residence Life at University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg on February 6, 2011 at 6:45am EST
  • Thanks for sharing your comments about the NASPACPA merger. I'm trying to learn as much as possible about all of this. Your article has helped a lot!
  • Posted by Julie Larsen on February 7, 2011 at 12:15pm EST
  • Eric,

    I enjoyed your post. I think you put a voice to many of the thoughts folks have been having regarding the email and consolidation, but have not been able to/comfortable with sharing.

    I joined NASPA in 2004 when I started graduate school. I have tried to be an active member -- reviewed proposals, volunteered with committees, attended national conferences, and organized the hosting of a NUFP fellow at my last institution.

    I have struggled through the years because, as a young professional, I do not believe that NASPA has had open ears to my concerns and ideas. (I site not letting graduate students vote on consolidation as evidence for my statement.) I have been told by others with more seniority, "you just need to wait", and "it's all about who you know". I don't believe that a professional organization which operates in this manner is beneficial to it's members. To be fair, I have only joined ACPA this year, and do not know much about their internal workings. However, I have been impressed with their transparency through out the consolidation process.

    While NASPACPA may not solve the problem of access for younger professionals, I believe that one united group will be better able to focus on developing our field, whereas the current model divides our resources.

Print
© Copyright 2011 Inside Higher Ed