3

This chapter outlines the concepts of social class privilege,

highlights the experiences of students navigating social class, and
examines the role of code-switching as a strategy to navigate higher
education.

Code-Switching to Navigate Social Class in

Higher Education and Student Affairs
Becki Elkins, Eran Hanke

“Class is something beneath your clothes, under your skin, in your reflexes,
in your psyche, at the very core of your being” (Kuhn, 2002, p. 117).

College students arrive on all of our campuses with class at the very
core of their beings. The extent to which they acknowledge, or even rec-
ognize, this core, however, varies as social class remains largely an invisi-
ble identity on campus. As they become aware of social class differences,
particularly among their peers, students employ multiple strategies for bal-
ancing on the “emotional tightrope” (Reay, David, & Ball, 2005) between
their class background and the social mobility purported by higher edu-
cation (Hurst, 2010). Code-switching is one strategy that students use to
navigate social class. Code-switching occurs when individuals choose their
styles of communication, both verbal and nonverbal, and identity perfor-
mance based on the situation and who is involved (Alvarez Cáccamo, 2002;
Deggans, 2013; Wheeler & Swords, 2004). Factors such as race, region, and
social class status elicit code-switching behaviors as individuals learn to ma-
neuver through multiple contexts. This chapter (a) briefly outlines the con-
cepts of social class privilege and bias in higher education, (b) highlights
the experiences of students navigating their social class of origin and that of
their higher education context, (c) examines the role of code-switching as
a strategy of navigation, and (d) identifies implications for student affairs.

Social Class Bias and Privilege in Higher Education

As with other societal institutions, higher education is a classed system
(Hurst, 2010). Distinct from other systems, though, higher education has
a long history of being touted as the avenue by which those in the work-
ing, working-poor, and lower classes might, by merit alone, advance to a
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES, no. 162, Summer 2018 © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ss.20260 35
36 SOCIAL CLASS IDENTITY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS

middle- or upper-class status (Lareau & Weininger, 2008). In fact, col-

lege is perceived by many to be the “great equalizer” (Mather & Jarosz,
2014), granting opportunities for upward mobility. While it is the case
that individuals with college degrees tend to have higher earnings than
their noncollege-educated peers, the assertion that higher education is the
great social class equalizer overlooks issues of social class privilege and bias
within the system of postsecondary education, a system that increasingly
serves to separate the classes (Mather & Jarosz, 2014).
Given the emphasis on middle- and upper-class values (Hurst, 2010),
the very idea of “higher” education fosters social class bias. Liu, Pickett,
and Ivey (2007) defined social class bias as the “focus on upward mobil-
ity and the belief that people should always strive to improve their social
classes and positions” (p. 196). Inherent in the rationale offered to lower-
and working-class prospective students by high school counselors, college
admissions representatives, family members, and employers is the idea that
a college degree opens doors to new opportunities and offers a way out of
their existing class situations. Reay (2005) argued that this emphasis on
meritocracy rendered one’s working-class status as something that must
be left behind. Meritocracy is the idea that individual progress in society
is based on hard work, ability, and talent as opposed to class privilege or
wealth (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.; Dictionary.com, n.d.). Other scholars
have echoed this sentiment, noting in particular the shame often associated
with being from a social class identity that must be abandoned (Borrego,
2007, 2008; Hurst, 2010; Reay et al., 2005).
While students from lower- and working-class backgrounds “are inher-
ently devalued by the ideology of meritocracy” (Steinmetz, 2008, p. 155)
fostered by U.S. postsecondary education, the same ideology promotes fac-
tors of hard work and merit-based recognition in higher education in ways
that value the middle class (Borrego, 2008). Students from upper-class
backgrounds often are reticent to identify themselves as coming from the
upper echelons of social class status (Gilbert, 2008; Sanders & Mahaling-
ham, 2012). Thomas and Azmitia (2014), in a study using social identity
theory to examine the social class experiences and interpretations among a
diverse population of emerging-adult university students, argued the pos-
sibility exists that upper-class students in college settings become “self-
conscious of their high status and aware that they already have what their
lower-class peers lack: access to the American Dream” (p. 208). In fact, the
results suggested that, in their daily experiences, social class status was as
salient for upper- and middle-class students as for working-class students.
Research conducted by Sanders and Mahalingham (2012) also noted that
upper- and middle-class students sought to demonstrate having worked
hard to gain entrance into their university, dispelling notions that they re-
lied solely on privilege. For these students, denying their privilege, often
by passing as another class (Gilbert, 2008) or claiming to be a “unique”
member of their class (Thomas & Azmitia, 2014), may be easier than

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

 CODE-SWITCHING TO NAVIGATE SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 37

acknowledging the opportunities and benefits their class status affords them
(Borrego, 2008; Goodman, 2011; Sanders & Mahalingham, 2012).

Navigating Multiple Social Classes

Class bias and privilege, thus, serve to push students toward the perva-
sive middle, as evidenced by how the vast majority of U.S. citizens (Pew
Research Center, 2008), including college students (e.g., Ostrove & Long,
2007), identify as middle class regardless of objective socioeconomic mark-
ers. For working- and lower-class college students, identification with the
middle class reflects the social mobility promised by higher education. For
upper-class students, such identification may reflect the desire to be rec-
ognized for one’s merits as opposed to the benefits of unearned privilege.
Although both situations result in students attempting to navigate their so-
cial class of origin and the dominant class status of their institutions of
higher education, only working- and lower-class students receive implicit
and explicit messages that their identities must be left behind for the sake
of social mobility (Borrego, 2008; Reay, 2005).
White and Ali-Khan (2013), examining the role of academic discourse
in the success of students of color, highlighted that their participants’ expe-
riences in higher education highlighted how college success was predicated
on knowing, understanding, and following the set “‘rules’ of a distinct ‘dis-
course community’” (p. 32). These rules, according to the authors, “rest on
an assumed familiarity and fluency that hides the privilege of those who
do not have to learn to ‘speak right’ (i.e., White)” and serve to “highlight
the linguistic disequilibrium” of students of minoritized identities “whose
language practices, though legitimate, fluent, eloquent and vibrant in their
home communities, are misplaced, frowned upon, silenced and disempow-
ering in the university setting” (p. 32). Although their study focused on the
experiences of students of color, the conclusions drawn could be translated
to apply to students from working, working-poor, and lower-class back-
grounds as well.
In fact, Borrego (2008), citing Rendón (1996), noted that working-
class college students had to engage in “border living”—that is, they had to
navigate the space between working-class values (home) and middle/upper-
class values (university). Indeed, colleges and universities yield an abun-
dance of situations in which working- and lower-class students must strad-
dle these multiple social class identities. Research on college students and
social class has highlighted such issues as managing differences in clothing
and language, observing differences in material wealth, having to work, hav-
ing access to specific types of work, talking with faculty or administrators,
and asking for assistance (Jack, 2016; Martin, 2015; Schwartz, Donovan, &
Guido-DiBrito, 2009; Steinmetz, 2008).
In a study of the meaning Mexican American males made of social
class in the university environment, Schwartz et al. (2009) found that their

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

38 SOCIAL CLASS IDENTITY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS

participants identified dominant culture social class rules and symbols as

important. One student, for instance, claimed that middle-class rules in-
cluded “knowing how to talk,” in general, and knowing how to talk with ed-
ucators and administrators, in particular (p. 58). Another student claimed
it included not only knowing how to talk with administrators but also
knowing how to dress appropriately. Steinmetz’s (2008) study of the ex-
periences of low socioeconomic status students at an elite public university
revealed that students actively chose how to dress and how to speak in ways
that would allow them to “pass” and “hide” clues about their social class
(p. 148). Martin’s (2015) research on the experiences of lower-class stu-
dents revealed students’ attempts to keep their social class under the radar.
Finally, citing multiple other studies, Thomas and Azmitia (2014) noted
that students could pass as another class by their use of speech as well as
how they dressed and the possessions they held. Broadly speaking, this col-
lection of research points to the role of code-switching in students’ efforts
to negotiate social class in college settings.

Code-Switching as a Means of Navigating Social Class

Code-switching offers students one strategy to navigate the tensions be-
tween their social classes of origin and the perceived social class identities
and environments associated with their institutions of higher education. To
fully understand students’ uses of code-switching and its implications for
higher education, student affairs professionals must consider the historical
basis for, and evolution of, the term; a practical definition; and examples
of its manifestation among college students. This section begins by con-
sidering the origin of the term and the multiple definitions offered by lin-
guists, sociolinguists, and educators. It offers a practical definition of code-
switching in the context of multiple arenas and expectations of social class
status specific to higher education. The section concludes with examples of
students using code-switching to maneuver through the landscape of social
class in higher education.
Historical Evolution of Code-Switching. Although the term “code-
switching” originated in the 1950s as linguists adapted the concept of
“codes” from communication engineering research (Benson, 2001), there
does not exist today a single, settled-upon definition (Alvarez-Caccamo,
2002). In the 1940s, communication engineers—those working in the
acoustic sciences—developed the idea of “codes” as material objects of
speech. Communication engineers, such as Fano (1950), focused on the
“interpretation of speech sounds by the hearer” (Benson, 2001, p. 26), ar-
guing that they “switched codes” to recognize and mentally adapt to accents
(Alvarez-Cáccamo, 2002; Benson, 2001). Linguists in the 1960s, popularly
recognized as the beginning of the study of code-switching, aligned the
concept with speech patterns used in bilingual and, eventually, multilin-
gual contexts. In the study of linguistics, then, code-switching is generally

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

 CODE-SWITCHING TO NAVIGATE SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 39

accepted to mean the “use of two languages or language varieties within

one conversation or text” (Benson, 2001, p. 25).
According to Benson (2001), sociolinguists as early as Barker (1947)
used code-switching not simply for linguistic purposes but also to exam-
ine the use of language by communities. Sociolinguists incorporated code-
switching research as a means to “attempt to correlate the observed language
use with social function, that is, group membership, social status, and so-
cial networks” (Benson, 2001, p. 29). By the 1970s, according to Alvarez-
Cáccamo (2002), sociolinguists recognized code-switching as “convey[ing]
pragmatic meanings” and “signal[ing] social identities” (p. 4). Pavlenko
and Blackledge (2004) further suggested that interactional sociolinguists
(e.g., Jacobsen, 1998; Myers-Scotton, 1998) observed the fluidity of so-
cial identities and acknowledged the roles of code-switching and language
choice in negotiating those identities. Indeed, Labov (2010) contended
that individual speech behaviors must be examined in the context of so-
cial group membership, and Wheeler and Swords (2004), citing sociolin-
guist and education scholars, noted that even “who learns what language”
(p. 477) stems from political, sociocultural, and structural dimensions of
society.
Sociolinguists, with poststructural and critical theory backgrounds,
in the late twentieth century began to highlight and argue the ways in
which language choices were grounded in larger societal political, eco-
nomic, cultural, and social systems (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Ac-
cording to Pavlenko and Blackledge, these scholars expanded the thinking
of the French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu, who saw “linguistic practices as
a form of symbolic capital, convertible into economic and social capital, and
distributed unequally within any given speech community (language strat-
ification)” (p. 10). For Bourdieu, a language’s legitimacy came from dom-
inant groups and institutions (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Bourdieu’s
argument rested on what he claimed to be the complicit role of the sub-
ordinated group, suggesting that “the official language or standard variety
becomes the language of hegemonic institutions because both the domi-
nant and the subordinated group misrecognize it as a superior language”
(Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, p. 11). Bringing poststructural and critical
theory to bear on the question, later scholars (e.g., Gal, 1989; Heller, 1992;
Woolard, 1985) simultaneously challenged and built on Bourdieu’s argu-
ment, in particular establishing the use of code-switching as a means of re-
sistance to dominant power structures. For instance, Heller (1992), based
on ethnographic research of language choice in Canada, called to attention
the notion that language choice and identity negotiation were “bound in
power relations” (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, p. 12).
These works laid the foundation for Pavlenko and Blackledge’s argu-
ment that analysis of code-switching should recognize it as one practice,
among many, that people use to accomplish their goals and resist domina-
tion (Heller, 1992). Alvarez-Cáccamo (2002) recognized this dynamic as

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

40 SOCIAL CLASS IDENTITY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS

the need to focus not so much on the “codes” but rather on the agency im-
plied in the act of “switching” codes. Pavlenko and Blackledge, in their ex-
ploration of how identity was negotiated in multilingual contexts, asserted
that languages and discourses provided the linguistic tools by which iden-
tities were established while, at the same time, “ideologies of language and
identity guide ways in which individuals use linguistic resources to index
their identities and to evaluate the use of linguistic resources by others”
(p. 14). In other words, language and identity from this perspective are per-
petually linked and code-switching exists as a linguistic resource available
to users as they negotiate identity across multiple contexts.
A Practical Definition. The challenge associated with linguistic and
even some sociolinguistic definitions of code-switching stems from the fact
that they have been “hypertechnified” (Alvarez-Cáccamo, 2002, p. 1) yet
remain of limited use outside of academic fields. Alvarez-Cáccamo argued
the need to “re-situate what is called code-switching within the universal
human ability to communicate, that is, to make use of whatever signaling
resources humans differentially have at their disposal in order to convey in-
tentions and meanings” (p. 2). More recently, code-switching, as a concept,
has gained some practical ground in nonacademic arenas. In 2013, for in-
stance, Eric Deggans, television and media critic and contributing journalist
for National Public Radio (NPR), explained:

For linguists, code-switching describes the simple act of switching between

two languages in a conversation. But in today’s increasingly multicultural,
multiethnic society, the term’s deeper meaning involves shifting between dif-
ferent cultures as you move through life’s conversations – choosing your com-
munication style based on the people you’re dealing with. It’s the reason why
some black people speak with more grammatical attention when in all-white
settings – especially at work – but let their slang hang out when among friends
or mostly black people. And it’s not just a black thing. Children of Boston
who lay on the Southie accent when they visit the old neighborhood and
Oklahoma kids who sound a bit more down home among fellow Southerners
do it, too. (para. 7)

Several years later, NPR launched its popular podcast Code Switch: Race
and Identity Remixed, a venue in which shifting one’s language, clothing, and
other ways of being is discussed by journalists, academics, and everyday
people navigating race and racial identity.
A more practical definition of code-switching today entails shifting not
simply between different languages or dialects but also different cultures.
Educators in K-12 settings (c.f., Hatley, Winston-Proctor, Paige, & Clark,
2017; Reay, 2005; Sweetland & Wheeler, 2014; Wheeler & Swords, 2004)
have studied how students shift between school and home settings, learn-
ing to move back and forth across multiple cultural arenas. London (1992)
defined this experience of biculturalism as “being divided between two

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

 CODE-SWITCHING TO NAVIGATE SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 41

worlds” (p. 484). Given this bicultural border-living experience (Rendón,

1992), the simplest definition suggests that “to codeswitch is to choose
the pattern of language appropriate to the context” (Wheeler & Swords,
2004, p. 475) in which one is located at any given moment. Expanding that
definition, as suggested by Alvarez Cáccamo (2002), demands that code-
switching include not only material language but strategies for conveying
symbolic meaning as well. Thus, code-switching in higher education can be
defined as the ways in which individuals shift speech and nonverbal com-
munication patterns as well as their performances of social class via physical
appearance, material possessions, and personal stories to maneuver differ-
ent class contexts.
Class-Related Code-Switching on Campus. Recent research on
social class identity among college students offers some insight into
how students from lower- or working-class backgrounds employ code-
switching strategies to move between social class contexts (c.f., Martin,
2015; Schwartz et al., 2009; Steinmetz, 2008). In the studies conducted by
Martin (2015), Schwartz et al. (2009), and Steinmetz (2008), students ref-
erenced the need to “speak right” or use other means to “pass” (Thomas
& Amitia, 2014). How might such needs appear on our campuses? Several
examples follow.
Jonathan is a traditional-aged White, cisgender male student from the
South attending a private, liberal arts college in the Midwest. A student from
a working-poor class background, he works to hide his southern accent
after recognizing that his peers did not speak in the same way. When he
returns home for winter break, Jonathan’s older sister teases him for “talking
funny” and “using big words.” While at home, he allows himself to slip into
his natural accent, using the vocabulary and grammatical structures familiar
to his family and friends. As he returns to school, however, he again begins
to shift his accent, sentence structures, and vocabulary to more closely fit
those of his Midwestern college peers.
Aesha is a first-generation, low-income TRIO student in her junior year
at a large, public university. She was elected to Student Senate as a class
representative this year. Aesha, who identifies as an African-American cis-
gender woman, is very outgoing and outspoken when with her TRIO peers.
In Senate meetings, including committee meetings, she appears quiet and
withdrawn. She only speaks if directly asked a question and, even then, she
offers only minimal responses.
Devan, who identifies as genderqueer, grew up in an impoverished
White single-parent family and waited tables full time to pay for college.
They are in their second year of law school, which is being funded by grants
and loans. In a conversation with their advisor, Devan reveals a fear of miss-
ing out as they watch their peers making connections with faculty and law
firms. When the advisor asks whether they talk with faculty after class or
during office hours, Devan indicates doing so would be very uncomfortable
because they would not know what to talk about.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

42 SOCIAL CLASS IDENTITY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS

Jamie is a cisgender female returning student from a White working-

class background. She attended community college in her early 20s, earn-
ing an associate’s degree in advanced welding. Now in her late 30s, Jamie
attends a regional 4-year public institution while continuing to work part
time as a welder. She dresses in her best clothes when attending class to
appear “more professional” and regularly meets with faculty during their
office hours. Although proud of all that she has accomplished, she limits
discussion of her background. As a result of some group assignments, she
is building a network of friends, mostly with traditional-aged, middle-class
students. When her groups meet off-campus, often at local restaurants, she
makes sure to order something small in order to “fit in.”
Alejandra is a first-year cisgender woman from a multiracial working-
class family background attending a private, liberal arts college. Although
she is performing well academically, Alejandra is worried that she will not
be able to return for her second year as a result of decreases in her financial
aid award. In conversations with her advisor, Alejandra indicates she might
transfer to a college that would offer a “more practical degree” since “there
is not much one can do with a liberal arts education.”
The examples above illustrate the complexity of code-switching as used
by students negotiating social class status in higher education. Jonathan
and Aesha shift verbal and nonverbal speech patterns depending on the
context of the interaction. Jamie adopts different patterns of dress and top-
ics of discussion while also spending money to appear to fit in. Alejandra
and Devan, on the other hand, use coded language to mask the class-
oriented reasons for their decisions. This complexity appears daily on our
campuses.

Implications for Student Affairs

For student affairs professionals, the implications of students using code-
switching to navigate social class are multi-faceted and complex. It should
be noted that dimensions of identity are multiple (Abes et al., 2007) and stu-
dents’ identities intersect, making it impossible to consider only one iden-
tity (e.g., class) without considering how it intersects with their other iden-
tities (e.g., race, gender, age, etc.). Professional competencies require us to
recognize the intersectionality of oppressions and approach these implica-
tions with a social justice lens, one that calls us both to develop and nurture
environments in which all groups can fully and equitably participate as well
as to identify and address privilege and oppression (ACPA College Student
Educators International & NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher
Education, 2015). Social justice is recognized as both a goal and a process
(Bell, 2007). Student affairs professionals must work to render social class
visible on campus by becoming aware of code-switching, challenging social
class bias in our institutions, and emphasizing code-switching as individual
agency.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

 CODE-SWITCHING TO NAVIGATE SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 43

Step 1: Anchor in Awareness. As with other areas of social justice

work, awareness provides the anchor and, thus serves as the initial step in
making social class on campus visible. First, as student affairs professionals,
we must examine our experiences with, and assumptions about, social class
(Liu, 2011; Liu et al., 2007). In addition to the questions recommended by
Loh Garrison and Liu in Chapter 2, we should ask ourselves:

• What is my social class identity relative to that portrayed by my institu-

tion?
• Where do I personally engage in code-switching?
• Where am I contributing to the shaming or silencing of students from
working-class, working-poor, lower-class, or upper-class identities?
• How are our services and programs endorsing and/or promoting middle-
class cultural assumptions? More pointedly, how do they endorse or pro-
mote White middle-class cultural assumptions (Liu et al., 2007)?
• How is my institution (division/office) contributing to the need for stu-
dents to engage in code-switching?

Second, based on critical examination of our responses to these ques-

tions, we must uncover the ways in which social class privilege and
bias show up in our institutions. For instance, the advisor working with
Alejandra in the example above might better be prepared to assist her if they
recognize the possibility that her stated reason for transferring is coded to
hide the economic factors influencing her decision.
Step 2: Challenge Social Class Bias. Simply noticing the presence
of social class privilege, bias, and code-switching, while necessary, is in-
sufficient. Uncovering instances of code-switching can help us, as student
affairs professionals, identify practices, services, and interactions steeped in
social class bias. We must unveil the power and privilege inherent within
the system of higher education as well as our individual contexts. We must
challenge the assumption, for example, that upward mobility (a) is desir-
able and (b) necessitates leaving behind one’s social class of origin. The
border living (Rendón, 1992) and code-switching illustrated by Jonathan
in the example above exposes the expectation that, to be successful, stu-
dents ultimately must speak in the academic and social language of their
institutions. In Jonathan’s case, we must combat institutional and individual
beliefs that the “dominant” language is the “superior” language (Pavlenko
& Blackledge, 2004) and that all other forms of language represent a lack
of education.
Contesting bias need not always be directed at a systems level. Rather,
we also can work with individual students to ensure they have the tools
necessary to navigate the landscape of class in higher education. Socially
just education, as a goal, envisions equitable distribution of, and access to,
resources (Bell, 2007). In Aesha’s situation, for instance, we might learn by
talking with her that, although she understands parliamentary procedure,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

44 SOCIAL CLASS IDENTITY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS

she has limited confidence in her ability to use it and tends to be quiet in
Senate meetings. Devan’s advisor, similarly, might recognize their reticence
to talk with faculty as a need for the law school to help all students develop
networking skills. In both cases, we can challenge class bias in our insti-
tutions while helping students develop the skills and abilities necessary to
gain confidence and equitable access to the opportunities readily available
to students from middle- and upper-class identities. All three scenarios—
Jonathan’s, Aesha’s, and Devan’s—provide occasion for student affairs pro-
fessionals to critically analyze the pressure students face to choose between
multiple worlds (London, 1992) and to encourage students, faculty, and
staff to interrogate higher education’s reinforcement of dominant social class
identities.
Step 3: Emphasize Code-Switching as Agency. It is imperative that
student affairs professionals acknowledge the individual agency imparted
by acts of code-switching. To engage in code-switching, college students
like Jamie, in the example above, make decisions about when to use specific
speech patterns and how to convey meaning through personal stories and
such symbols as dress, material possessions, skills and abilities, or partici-
pation in specific groups. We must challenge the idea that code-switching
exists to move students from a deficit identity (e.g., lower or working class)
to a more normalized identity (e.g., middle class). Instead, we should recog-
nize and reinforce the individual power conveyed by students’ active choices
to use a linguistic and symbolic communication strategy to resist class-
based systems of oppression and achieve their educational goals (Heller,
1992; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004).

Conclusion
Code-switching exists as a strategy students use to navigate social class. Al-
though it once was a term used solely by linguists, today it offers student
affairs professionals a way of understanding how students move between
their social class identities and those identities purported by higher educa-
tion. The implications of this practice are multiple and complex. To address
them, student affairs professionals must work to make social class visible on
campus by expanding awareness of code-switching, contesting social class
bias in higher education, and affirming code-switching as individual agency.

References
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of mul-
tiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction
of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22.
ACPA-College Educators International & NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in
Higher Education. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators.
Washington, DC: Authors.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

 CODE-SWITCHING TO NAVIGATE SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 45

Alvarez Cáccamo, C. (2002, October). Introduction: Class and ideology in code-switching

research. Paper presented at 2nd University of Vigo International Symposium on
Bilingualism, Vigo, Spain.
Barker, G. C. (1947). Social functions of language in a Mexican-American community.
Acta Americana, 5, 185–202.
Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams,
L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.,
pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
Benson, E. J. (2001). The neglected early history of codeswitching research in the United
States. Language & Communication, 21, 23–36.
Borrego, S. (2007). Class matters: Beyond access to inclusion. Washington, DC: National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Borrego, S. (2008). Class on campus: Breaking the silence surrounding socioeconomics.
Diversity & Democracy, 11(3), 1–3.
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Meritocracy. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.
org/us/dictionary/english/meritocracy
Deggans, E. (2013, April). Learning how to code-switch: Humbling, but necessary.
Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/10/176234171/
learning-how-to-code-switch-humbling-but-necessary
Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Meritocracy. Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/
browse/meritocracy?s=t
Fano, R. M. (1950). The information theory point of view in speech communication.
Journal of the Accoustical Society of America, 22, 691–696.
Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 345–
367.
Gilbert, R. (2008). Raising awareness of class privilege among students. Diversity &
Democracy, 11(3), 7–9.
Goodman, D. (2011). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privi-
leged groups (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hatley, L., Winston-Proctor, C. E., Paige, G. M., & Clark, K. (2017). Culture and com-
putational thinking: A pilot study of operationalizing culturally responsive teaching
(CRT) in computer science education. In A. D. Benson & R. Joseph (Eds.), Culture,
learning, and technology: Research and practice (pp. 109–126). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Heller, M. (1992). The politics of codeswitching and language choice. Journal of Multi-
lingual and Multicultural Development, 13(1/2), 123–142.
Hurst, A. (2010). The burden of academic success: Loyalists, renegades and double agents.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Jacobsen, R. (1998). Codeswitching worldwide. Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and aca-
demic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0038040715614913
Kuhn, A. (2002). Family secrets: Acts of memory and imagination (2nd ed.). London:
Verso.
Labov, W. (2010). Principles of linguistic change: Cognitive and cultural factors (Vol. 3).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. (2008). Class and the transition to adulthood. In A. Lareau
& D. Conley (Eds.), Social class: How does it work? (pp. 118–151). New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Liu, W. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher
education. Higher Education, 62, 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-
9394-7

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

46 SOCIAL CLASS IDENTITY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS

Liu, W., Pickett, T., Jr., & Ivey, A. (2007). White middle-class privilege: Social class
bias and implications for training and practice. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 35, 194–206.
London, H. B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural challenges faced by first-generation
students. In L. S. Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.), First-generation students: Con-
fronting the cultural issues: New Directions for Community Colleges (Vol. 80, pp. 5–11).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, G. L. (2015). “Always in my face”: An exploration of social class conscious-
ness, salience, and values. Journal of College Student Development, 56(5), 471–487.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0048
Mather, M., & Jarosz, B. (2014). The demography of inequality in the United States.
Population Bulletin, 69(2), 2–15.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1998). Structural uniformities vs. community differences in
codeswitching. In R. Jacobsen (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide (pp. 91–108).
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications
for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389. https://
doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0028
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to
the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko & A.
Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1–33). Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 45. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Pew Research Center. (2008). Inside the middle class: Bad times hit the good life.
Washington, DC: Author.
Reay, D. (2005). Beyond consciousness? The psychic landscape of social class. Sociology,
39(5), 911–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505058372
Reay, D., David, M. E., & Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of choice: Social class, race and gender
in higher education. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
Rendón, L. I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican
American “scholarship girl.” In L. S. Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.), First-
generation students: Confronting the cultural issues (pp. 55–64). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Rendón, L. I. (1996). Life on the border. About Campus, 1(5), 14–20.
Sanders, M., & Mahalingam, R. (2012). Under the radar: The role of invisible discourse
in understanding class-based privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 112–127.
Schwartz, J. L., Donovan, J., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (2009). Stories of social class: Self-
identified Mexican male college students crack the silence. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(1), 50–66.
Steinmetz, C. (2008). Negotiating class boundaries: A phenomenological study of the
effects of poverty on the identity development of college students (Doctoral disser-
tation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No.
3312115)
Sweetland, J., & Wheeler, R. S. (2014). Addressing dialect variation in US K-12 schools.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Thomas, V., & Azmitia, M. (2014). Does class matter? The centrality and meaning of
social class identity in emerging adulthood. Identity, 14(3), 195–213.
Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R. (2004). Codeswitching: Tools of language and cul-
ture transform the dialectically diverse classroom. Language Arts, 81(6), 470–
480.
White, J. W., & Ali-Khan, C. (2013). The role of academic discourse in minority stu-
dents’ academic assimilation. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 24–42.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

 CODE-SWITCHING TO NAVIGATE SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 47

Woolard, K. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Towards and inte-
gration of sociolinguistic and social theory. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 66, 85–98.

BECKI ELKINS is assistant professor in the Department of Student Affairs Admin-

istration at the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse.

ERAN HANKE is assistant professor in residence in the Department of Leadership

in Education, Nonprofits and Counseling at Bradley University.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss