Demonization, Deviance and Higher Education

I learned something new, and mildly horrible, this week: there is this thing called “Broken Windows” Education. I stumbled on it via an article “PunitiveSchooling” by Owen Davis in Jacobin Magazine Online. Basically this is the application of Zero Tolerance Policing to K-12 education. Davis describes the process in the following way:

As the policing theory goes, minor instances of supposed disorder —spraying graffiti, panhandling, selling single cigarettes – createsan environment of lawlessness, leading to acts of theft and murder.Busting jaywalkers and homeless people for misdemeanors, it follows,will decrease the homicide rate. Some of the fastest-growing charter school networks explicitly draw on ...  law enforcementmethods to run their schools...”

I find it extremely bizarre to think that “law enforcement methods” can be a considered an acceptable way to run an educational institution. That is just an odd pedagogical stance. But I don't want to spend time indicting this system. Methinks if you approve of it, nothing I can say would change your mind about it. If you don't approve, then I am just preaching to the chorus. (Plus the Jacobin Magazine article does a pretty good job of it.)

But this dovetails with something similar I have been thinking about: parallels between our criminal justice system and schooling. 

Jock Young in his book TheExclusive Society lays out a framework to think about how we, as a society, approach the concept of "criminalization."  He argues that as America has moved from a “Modern Society” into a “Late Modern Society” we have gone from being “inclusive” to “exclusive.”(5-9) He condemns both, but for different reasons. The Modern, inclusive society was framed in terms of integrating everyone into society; that everyone could “get in.” Unfortunately, as he points out, this approach “demanded uniformity, a homogeneity of culture and identity." (149) You were expected to become like everyone else. (If interested, this link connects to a 1999 essay by Young“Cannibalization and Bulimia”  that appeared in the journal Theoretical Criminology and that later became Chapter two of The Exclusive Society .)

In the Late Modern Exclusive society, things have changed. Young argues we are now much more tolerant of difference. We celebrate diversity and don't expect everyone to be like everyone else. At the same time, we have become less tolerant of difficulty. (59)  You can be different, as long as you don't cause problems or make work for other people. Those that are “difficult” are viewed as deviant, then “demonized” and removed from society (as in criminals being sent to prison). (16-17)

He lays out this framework in extensive detail – relating it to crime at many levels, showing how entire cultures have bought into the system. He even lays it out to account for the spiraling number of African-Americans in prison. (16-20; 75)  He makes a fairly compelling argument. A few generalizations aside, I found most of his claims reasonable.

More significantly, I also found them disturbing. As I was reading, I kept thinking that his inclusive/exclusive criminalization model, applies almost perfectly to higher education. Despite numerous calls for more access to college, the actual system has become increasingly “exclusive” and many people, in and around higher education, spend a lot of time “demonizing the other.” Too often intentions and actions are divorced from each other.

Proponents of the Broken Windows approach  are fully aware of what they are doing. They have made a conscious choice to select a zero-tolerance approach. They know very well they are applying the same standards to children as they might apply to criminals. (Although maybe they would disagree with my wording here.) By showing zero-tolerance they believe they can prevent “deviance” from developing.

To a certain extent I respect them for the depth of their beliefs. They are both “talking the talk” and “walking the walk.” Even if I disagree with it – at least they are trying to do something and they are very up front about it.

What bothers me is I feel like I have seen their same attitude from many people in higher education. People, I suspect, who would claim outrage at the Broken Windows method approach. They argue for inclusion and understanding – but then turn around demonstrate most exclusionary behavior. They talk one talk but walk a very different one. I think this is a huge problem in higher ed.

To really make this argument I want to go back to one of the classics of sociology Robert Merton's 1938 essay “Social Structure and Anomie.”In it, Merton lays out five categories of response to socialization: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreat, and rebellion. (676) Seeing that education is a process of socialization, I want to use Merton's categories as a lens to study student types in higher ed. What I have found is, over-generalizations aside, students exhibit these categories of behavior almost perfectly.

Merton claims that two primary forces work on the individual – the immediate culture and the larger institutional forces of society. Individuals who develop a strong sense of the former, usually develop a stronger sense of identity, of who they are, and will develop some inner strength. Those who develop a stronger sense of the latter, end up more “other directed” , have a weaker sense of identity and will look to the outside for guidance.(672-676) The five different categories depend on the combination of reactions as below in Table 1:

Response	Cultural Goals	Institutional Means
I Conformity	+	+
II Innovation	+	-
III Ritualism	-	+
IV Retreat	-	-
V Rebellion	+/-	+/-

Table 1: Merton's five responses to Socialization. A “+” sign indicates positive relation while a “-” sign indicates negative relation. (676)

I want to skip category V Rebellion. (It may be part of a later blog entry.) Instead I want to focus on the other four, starting with students who have a positive societal orientation (a "+" in the Institutional Means  column).

Conformity is basically the “win-win” category. These students have had a positive cultural upbringing and have developed a healthy sense of identity. At the same time, perhaps because they are comfortable with themselves, they are equally comfortable with the rules and guidelines laid out by society.(677)

I would argue these are generally the more successful students, and as instructors, probably the type of student most of us prefer. After all, they are the “easiest” to deal with. They are fairly well-adjusted and have sufficient inner “gumption” that they have a sense of independence while still recognizing where/how they fit into the larger social structure. These students do their work, probably do it fairly well, and are usually good citizens in the classroom.

In contrast, those in the Ritualism category, while also having a strongly developed society orientation, lack the inner strength or well-formed identity to balance it out. As a result, they look to the outside for guidance, prefer to have others tell them what to do. (Merton 678)

Personally, I find these the students the most frustrating to work with. They are not bad students. In fact, they can be quite good. And quite nice. But they are often uninspired. Even worse, many seem to not want to become inspired.

These are the straight-C students who want to know they are doing just well enough to get by. Or they may be stronger B (or even A) students who have never had an original thought in their lives. They have some gumption so they do all their work and technically, do it well. However, they have gotten so used to being told what to think, they have forgotten how to think.  They are simply not critical thinkers.(I suspect this was, at least partially, me coming out of high school.)

These students are generally easy to work with -- though for all the wrong reasons. Their work may not be sterling, but it is almost always good enough.  They hit every deadline and fulfill every requirement. They cross the T's and dot the I's perfectly.  They want to be left alone so they do nothing that draws attention. Their goal in life is to move forward (invisibly, if possible). If you oblige, you probably forget about them 10 minutes after they leave your class. (I try not to oblige. Which I suspect has made some students very unhappy with me. :))

I worry that in this day and age, this group may make up the biggest population at many schools -- at least outside elite circles. And I worry that things like Broken Window Initiatives will increase their number. Employers claims they need workers who are good critical thinkers, but what sort of critical thinking does one learn by sitting with hands in lap, having all spirit squashed out of you?

In many ways, these students offer something more valuable than being "good"; they offer obedience. They do enough, and do it well enough, to always get passed on through. Because they are so “easy” and play so well by the rules – they are rewarded. After all, who can get angry at a student who turns in every assignment on time and shows up for every class (especially in this day and age)? A friend of mine who is a Dean often remarks: “Half of passing is just showing up.” This is truer than he may even realize.

Merton's other two groups are not nearly as easy with which to work. These are the “deviants” – individuals who in some way act outside accepted academic or behavioral norms.

Interestingly, the Innovation group is my favorite typology – though I suspect there are a LOT of teachers who feel different.

Innovators are students who have developed a strong sense of identity, but have chosen to reject some/many societal standards. They are the entrepreneurs, smart types who chafe against limitations. They don't play by the exact rules but neither do they necessarily thumb their nose at the system.  If anything, they try to co-opt the system for their own purposes. (Merton 678) How much they can "get away with" often depends on how “brilliant” they are.

I have worked and taught at an architectural college. Design school is a very challenging environment and tends to prize skills that differ from more conventional schooling. I have seen some very “difficult”students given a lot of leeway because they were “brilliant designers.” At the same time I saw others, who had fair, but less-enticing, talent  - and a set of demands - given no flexibility at all. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits, but I always had the sense people around the school felt these latter students just weren't worth the bother. They weren't gifted enough to make an effort for. People just wanted them to “behave” and do what was asked of them. To advocate for them after they  openly “broke the rules” would encourage future bad behavior. (For the record: I spent a lot of time advocating for these students. :))

For all the talk about critical thinking and independent thought, there are a lot of people working in higher education who do not want to be bothered by Innovation students. They are “demonized” and may even earn bad reputations. I recall one student who was referred to me for academic support. She came with less than glowing recommendations. Two separate administrators rolled their eyes about her and warned me to that she was “difficult.”

I found her delightful. Fun to talk to. Good sense of humor (though with a sarcastic edge - which may have been the issue).We completed her work. She got an A. She later came to work for me as a tutor. As close as I could tell, everyone else liked her. I later had her in class and yes, she was a bit challenging to work with – her work came in at odd intervals – but it was always good work. Maybe she was not the most “gifted designer” but she was a good student and a nice person. But she had clearly done something to earn that "difficult" label. 

These “difficult” innovators are viewed as “problem children"  because they ask questions; they raise issues; they challenge rules. And often what they turn up has a lot of legitimacy so cannot just be dismissed. That is what makes them such a pain in the neck for an administrator – the last thing anyone wants is another problem.

I really find it ironic that we currently talk about needing to breed entrepreneurs for our economy. But the baseline educational approach is to stifle this perspective. Double ironically –we now have entire programs that teach entrepreneurship – I guess to replace everything that was previously quashed. (Or is there a way to be an entrepreneur without being “difficult”?)

Merton's second deviant typology is the Retreat student. These do exactly that – they pull back; they give up. They have a poor sense of self and they have rejected, or just can't handle, institutional rules. ( They choose not to play. As Merton puts it they "are in society, not of it." (677)

Currently this is an omnipresent and very demonized group in higher education. These are the under-prepared students who in the past would not have gone to college; but because college is now the accepted path to success they attend.

Unfortunately, many are not ready to be there. They lack knowledge. Or they lack skills. Or they have behavioral issues. Or they just don't understand the ins-and-outs of academia. Ofttimes they just sit there with deer-in-the-headlights" expressions too frozen to do any work.  And this makes them "deviant." Even worse, this seems to make them a threat to the academy itself. Critics start crying that standards are under attack and education is being diluted. In addition, some professors complain about being forced to work with students who are far needier than college students are supposed to be.

I once had an instructor literally say to me about such a student (and an advanced student at that): “This is not part of my job description.” To give her credit, after we talked, she went back and worked extensively with the student – who passed her class. But she was so resentful.

This is where Young's framework really comes into play. There may be a lot of talk about inclusiveness in higher education. People talk about wanting to give students opportunity. There is the oft repeated line that education leads to social advancement (even though a lot of evidence suggests otherwise). But the only place this lens is sincere is in the external lens. Diversity and access may be talked up by Admissions. Inclusiveness may prominent in mission statements. Unfortunately, it just doesn't always make it past the mission statement. Once these students matriculate – the exclusion process begins.

What happens is a subtle process of demonization. Yes, some students simply do not do well and need to leave school. I am talking about something different. The problem is less the "deviant" performance itself as how many people react to that performance.

Demonization is the internal attitude of the instructor who came to me and saying it wasn't her job. It is in the professor who writes atop a paper  in big letters (with multiple exclamation points): “GO TO THE WRITING CENTER!!!!!” communicating that the student's work is defective (and ergo, so is the student). It is in the attitude of the professor who is incensed that such an unprepared student can be at the college; not because of the fact the school took his money, but because it is having a negative effect on the professor's workload.  It is deciding that just because a student has somewhat bloodshot eyes, that he must be a stoned, which accounts for why he isn't doing his work. It is a creeping attitudinal neglect where people treat/view students in ways that diminish them. In ways they themselves would probably not want to be treated or viewed. It is death by a thousand cuts – often by the people who think they have the student's best interests at heart.

For me this issue is exemplified by an encounter I once had with a high-level administrator. I was talking to her about a long-standing academic disciplinary issue. We had given a student multiple opportunities to address some problems; every time he dropped the ball. It was time to take more drastic action. As I tried to fill this administrator in, she took on an air of deep concern about the student and his well-being. Every time I said something, she interrupted with, “Well, have you tried this? Have you tried that?”  She communicated caring and concern at all levels. 

I finally was able to tell her the entire, long story – that we had tried EVERYTHING without success. At that moment, without missing a beat, she then said: “Well, we don't want that type of student in this school.”  And the student's dismissal papers were signed by the end of the day.

The student needed to take some time off. There were academic issues that were as extreme as any I have ever seen. It was an unhappy resolution to an unhappy overall situation. But what has stayed with me most about it is the statement: “We don't want that type of student in this school.” (The emphasis was hers.) What happened to all the concern? The caring? In a flash, the student went from being a person to worry about to being something that could be discarded by the side of the road.  

For me this summarizes a significant aspect of what is wrong in higher education. Many people talk a brave talk about access, opportunity, and diversity, but when it comes time to walk the walk – they don't want to be bothered by "that type of student." Saying you want to provide opportunity to someone is easy. Let him or her in the school.  What is not so easy is dealing with the difficulties that follow if that person is not ready to be there. If a school enrolls a student, it is the responsibility of everyone there to make sure that student can do the best he/she can. The student can not be a problem that is just foisted off on someone else. If higher education is going to actually be inclusive this "difficult" student is the exact type of student everyone needs to embrace and deal with.   If inclusiveness is even possible at the college level, it requires a level of commitment that I am not sure a lot of people are really ready to give. (They may think they are, but then they get into the trenches and the commitment goes away. "It is just too hard.")

I am not a believer in "college for all." I just don't think it is appropriate for every person. Trying to force everyone down this same path is counter-productive, and ofttimes damaging to the student. I believe we should be developing alternatives -- lots and lots of alternatives. However, as long as we are going to maintain the facade that college is for all -- and that any one can succeed there -- there need to be some attitudinal adjustments from those on the inside (maybe especially from those who most loudly advocate for access). Too many people embrace the sanitized buzzword of multiculturalism rather than the key underlying concept of difference.  It is easy to heap criticism on the Broken Windows approach as a spirit-quashing, homogenizing methodology; but as I said earlier, at least they are up- front with what they believe; their words and actions match up. I would maintain that a lot of people need to ask themselves:"How many spirits have I quashed (even inadvertently) because, in some way, I deemed the student wasn't the "right type of student"? I have seen too many allegedly progressive people demonstrate the most intolerant attitudes the moment they decided a student was not worth the problem. All I can say is -- if a school has accepted them, they are worth the effort. Not just because the school has an ethical obligation to those they accept, but also because they are human beings. I feel like in our corporate, Neoliberal culture, this latter point is too often overlooked.



WORKS CITED

Merton, Robert. "Social Structure and Anomie." Reprinted in American Sociological Review.  Posted to: <https://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Merton_ASR_38.pdf>.  Accessed: 27 Oct 2014.

Young, Jock.  The Exclusive Society. LA: Sage Publication, 2007.