HIGHER ED. LEAD.

INTERVIEW 1

Higher Education Leader Interview

Ernesto Verduzco

Kremen School of Education and Human Development, California State University, Fresno
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 2

Higher Education Leader Interview

Introduction

For purposes of the assignment, I decided to interview Mrs. Jessica Carter, who serves as

the Pay-It Forward Scholarship and Mentoring program (PIF) Director at California State

University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB). Since the proliferation of the program in 2008, PIF strives

to serve and support first-generation underrepresented minoritized students within the Monterey

County to graduate from CSUMB, by providing mentorship and financial assistance [$20,000 via

four-year scholarship] and keep students within the traditional four-year graduation track and

ensure a GPA of 2.5 or higher (Future Citizens Foundation, n.d.). In 2013, the program began its

current affiliation with the Monterey County chapter of the Future Citizens Foundation (FCF),

which provides PIF scholars the opportunity to mentor the local youth and impact the local

community, as well as its partnership with CSUMB’s auxiliary organization, University

Corporation, to handle the private funds/donations (Future Citizens Foundation, n.d.). The work

that Mrs. Carter does solemnly reflect the values of the CSUMB campus, as well as values

introduced from the Future Citizens Foundation. It is through these multiple ethical influences

that Mrs. Carter bases her decision-making strategies when confronted with ethical issues.

Ethical Issue Commonly Faced

Throughout the interview, Mrs. Carter reflected upon many of the ethical dilemmas she

encounters within her role and responsibilities as the program director. She touched upon the

issues presented by the relationship between predominantly White mentors and the programs’

Students of Color population to the difficulty in practicing anonymity and autonomy between

students and the students’ parents/legal guardians and campus services. However, the forms of

systemic gender oppression and the inequitable distribution of power between the program’s
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 3

Board members and herself is what is commonly faced in her role. When asked about obstacles

Board members place upon herself, Mrs. Carter stated,

“…we have a Board member that is, you know, very much involved, and he has had

some very clear ideas. He thinks that as a Board member, his ideas are the best ideas, and

sometimes, you know, it's like, no, we're going to do this. I would be like, actually, I'm

the Director of the program. So, I'm going to fully hear your input, I'm going to

appreciate your perspective, I'm going to take into consideration your thoughts, but

ultimately, I'm going to make the decision. And if it's different than what you think we

should be doing, you're going to have to get behind what my decision is. You cannot not

tell me what to do” (J. Carter, personal communication, November 13, 2021).

When confronted with such obstacles, Mrs. Carter’s integrity is at stake, as donors of the

program write $20,000 checks, with promises that the donation will support the student to

graduate. At the forefront of Mrs. Carter’s beliefs, is to be student centered, which means that the

program assesses the students and makes data driven decisions to provide the resources needed

to graduate the student. This has been a new practice implemented in the program, as it helps

guide the conversation to how to serve and support first-generation low-income (FGLI) students

effectively and allows Board members to start realizing that Mrs. Carter must have support from

her colleagues to implement necessary resources/practices in the program. Mrs. Carter stated,

“…it's not just, oh, here's a million dollars, help these kids. It’s, here's a million dollars,

help these kids, send us the data, and meet these measures. I don't know, you know, so

there's a lot to it…[and] that's the mean that started with what was one of the first things I

actually asked I was like, so you know, do you survey the students and see it? And they

were listening to me like, ‘What?’. Do you ever ask them? Anything? They said, ‘Nope,
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 4

we just do what we do, and, you know, follow the day” (J. Carter, personal

communication, November 13, 2021).

The issue at hand encompasses how inequitable power structures, rooted by systems of

patriarchy and whiteness, sometimes limit Mrs. Carter’s ability to perform her duties and ensure

student success within the CSUMB student population. More so, this constant barrier towards

change and performative action hinders retention and graduation rates amongst historically and

contemporarily marginalized students and Student of Color, as their voices are not being fully

considered throughout.

Ethical Analysis

As the PIF program revolves around multiple entities, Mrs. Carter stated that the most

influential professional and ethical standard in her work comes from the Nine Core Values listed

on CSUMB’s website. Reflected upon CSUMB’s vision, their Nine Core Values provide focus

for academic programming, enrollment efforts, budgeting, fundraising, and general operations,

which include (1) student-centeredness, (2) intellectual curiosity, (3) creativity and innovation,

(4) integrity, accountability, and mutual respect, (5) diversity, equity, and inclusion, (6) service

and civic engagement, (7) sustainability, (8) global orientation, and (9) health and wellness

(California State University, Monterey Bay, 2021) [See Appendix A]. CSUMB’s promise of

becoming a holistic student-centered institution upon these Nine Core Values, alongside the

hindrance presented by administration and the Board, proves that there are areas of contention

that interfere with program implementation for student success.

As Mrs. Carter faces pushback from the Board when it comes to programmatic decision

making, her personal ethical perspective of being student-centered holds key to the institutions’

promise of student-centeredness and integrity, accountability, and mutual respect. In an ethical

HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 5

perspective, professionals should behave in a trustworthy manner, which is congruent with

professional values and ethics, as well as seek to promote the highest quality of life for both the

client [student] and their environments (Raines & Dibble, 2011; as cited in Franklin et al., 2013).

Mrs. Carter’s actions reflect the values of integrity and quality of life, as she strives to advocate

for the program participants’ academic success and promote holistic student development

through data driven decisions. As the Board ostracizes the student voice in decisions, Mrs. Carter

addresses the students’ needs the best that she can at the table and negotiates to ensure students

receive the support higher education ensures.

Similarly, the Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s (NASPA) Standards

of Professional Practice reemphasizes the significance Mrs. Carter’s actions have in promoting

student success within the PIF program (See Appendix B). As NASPA (n.d.) states,

“Members of NASPA fulfill the responsibilities of their position by supporting the

educational interests, rights, and welfare of students…promote a sense of community

among all areas of the campus by working cooperatively with students, faculty, staff and

others outside the institution…[and] regularly and systematically assess organizational

structures, programs, and services to determine whether the developmental goals and

needs of students are being met” (p. 1-3).

As NASPA reiterates the importance of professional services, campus community, and

assessment in higher education student affairs work, it is worth noting that the Board is in

negligence of these ethical standards, causing the impediment of programming Mrs. Carter

experiences. Mrs. Carter’s transparency in Board meetings proves that her, and many other

campus community members at CSUMB, understand that the student must be viewed as priority

and that decisions must be made with sound and disaggregated data. Board members and other
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 6

administrators of the campus community must collaborate effectively with one another, in

respect to the campus shared vision and mission statement, in order for the institution to be fully

student-centered and avoid conflict of interest.

HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 7

References

California State University, Monterey Bay. (2021). About CSUMB; Mission and strategic plan.

https://csumb.edu/about/mission-strategic-plan/

Future Citizens Foundation. (n.d.). Pay-it Forward Scholarship & Mentoring Program; Our

history. https://www.fcf-ca.org/history

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. (n.d.). Standards of professional practice.

https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Standards_of_Professional_Practice.pdf

Raines, J. C., & Dibble, N. T. (2013). Ethical decision making in school mental health. In C.

Franklin, M. B. Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A

guide for school-based professionals (2nd ed., pp. 37-49). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 8

Appendix A

CSUMB Nine Core Values

HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 9

Appendix B

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s (NASPA) Standards of Professional

Practice
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 10

Appendix B (cont.)

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s (NASPA) Standards of Professional

Practice
HIGHER ED. LEAD. INTERVIEW 11

Appendix B (cont.)

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s (NASPA) Standards of Professional

Practice