Foreword

Cathy N. Davidson

What is leadership? That is a key question in much educational research. Who are the great leaders? What prepared them for their role? How do we reproduce the conditions for leadership in an educational setting? How do we prepare the next generation to be future leaders?

Those are good questions but, too often, they assume a narrowly defined leadership model designed to preserve the status quo. Too often, our educational systems and practices reward a narrow vision of leadership that reproduces and reinforces that status quo.

In this vitally important book, Lauren Melendez (Director of the Undergraduate Leadership Program of the Futures Initiative at the City University of New York), reframes the question of leadership: What is leadership in the context of inclusion, equity, and social justice?  

That context changes everything. If the goal is to create leaders who champion a more just, equitable, and inclusive society, then the educational system has to embrace those same goals. It has to create equitable, peer-based models that create the conditions for a new kind of leadership.  

In her case study of the Undergraduate Leadership Program, Ms. Melendez analyzes those equitable conditions and proposes the best ways to foster them. What emerges in this study is a new definition of leadership. Leadership is not about being the most powerful person in one’s community.  It is about making one’s community more powerful.

To that end, the Undergraduate Leadership Program stresses peer mentoring and skill-sharing, collaboration, and collective engagement. It proposes a model of leadership that is restless in the face of the status quo and confident in its own ability to change the status quo.

The brilliant Georgia lawyer, politician, and voting rights activist Stacey Abrams often repeats one adage in her interviews and speeches: “Invest in people who don’t look like the success you’re used to.”  That advice is at the heart of the Undergraduate Leadership Program. It is at the heart of CUNY’s mission as the nation’s largest public, urban university.

Ms. Melendez has written a bold analysis of a bold program designed to embolden students who come from diverse and often under-served communities. In this study, Ms. Melendez offers us a model that we can learn from and be inspired by. She exemplifies the community-based, equitable model of leadership she commends.  

Cathy N. Davidson

Graduate Center, City University of New York

November 25, 2020

Abstract

The United States is becoming more diverse, and the higher education setting is no exception. Approximately 40 percent of college and university students self-identify as Black, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and mixed-race. Despite the overall U.S. and student populations, less than 25 percent of faculty members are people of color. This disconnect disproportionately affects students of color, resulting in “a dearth of faculty role models and lack of faculty familiar with the psychosocial challenges students of color encounter” (Primm. B. Annelle 2018). Due to interpersonal relationships and individuals being exposed to or not exposed to certain privileges and educational training early in life, unequal resource distribution creates an uneven playing field well before students reach college. With the lack of faculty of color in higher education and a large majority of students not having the necessary resources or tools needed to navigate college in a manner that is beneficial to them, faculty cannot continue to emphasize the acquisition of knowledge only in the traditional disciplinary fields. Our institutions need to find new and better ways to prepare students for the daily complexities they face. One way is by implementing leadership programs designed to prepare our students for the obstacles they face. This book looks at the role of leadership programs, and specifically at one program within the City University of New York (CUNY), The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program, with the goal of assessing how and what such a program can contribute to the goals of student success and inclusion. With a school counseling framework, I discuss how these programs and those like them can benefit from recognizing and accommodating for the obstacles their students face on a daily basis and making an effort to incorporate holistic pedagogical practices into teaching and learning practices.

Project Introduction

             In 1869, Charles William Eliot, an American academic and education reformer,  wrote “The New Education,” an essay critiquing existing forms of education. The Trustees at Harvard were so impressed by Eliot’s essay that they appointed him President of Harvard, a position he held for forty years and from which he indelibly shaped the future of higher education, at Harvard and everywhere in the United States. Along with his colleagues, Eliot implemented many of the structures and practices of modern American higher education. (Davidson N.C, 2017 p.7).

Eliot’s “new education” remains tremendously influential across college and university education systems throughout the country, to the detriment of students living in today’s realities. His ideas were designed to address the needs of new corporations and industries for specialized, credentialed professionals and managers during the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. It remains the model of higher education that we have in place today (Davidson N.C, 2017 p.43-44).

          This model of higher education is in need of extensive changes in order to be better suited to students who are our nation’s present and future leaders. To address the needs of today’s student populations, new direction, curricula, and leadership from more inclusive faculty and diverse staff need to be incorporated into the structures of higher educational institutions. The basic purpose of leadership development within the American higher education system is “to enable and encourage faculty, students, administrators, and other staff to change and transform institutions so that they can more effectively enhance student learning and development and serve the community to empower students to become agents of positive social change in the larger society” (Astin, Alexander W.; Astin, Helen S.P.9). These goals could be particularly apt in New York City’s public higher education system.

        The City University of New York (CUNY) was founded in 1847 by Townsend Harris, and has grown to become the largest public urban university system in the United States. An essential part of its original and continuing mission is that “it must provide a quality, accessible education, regardless of background or means and must remain responsive to the needs of its urban setting and maintain its close articulation between senior and community college units.” Although CUNY is configured as an institution with many different colleges under one umbrella, its goal is to operate as one complex, interconnected entity since there is only one City University of New York. With CUNY reaching over 500,000 students across 25 campuses throughout the five boroughs — of which there are 11 senior colleges, 7 community colleges, 7 graduate, honor and professional schools — it has not upheld its commitment of maintaining collaboration between senior and community colleges.

Rationale  

In order to prepare and train students to navigate college and prepare them for the workforce and the world beyond college, CUNY will need to recommit to its goal of collaboration and increasing diversity and equity across its campuses. Many programs exist on and across CUNY to address this need, but for the most part remain disconnected from each other.

To examine the potential of the transformations that can occur in higher education when cross-campus collaboration takes place and has an emphasis on student-centered learning and equitable practices, I will focus on one of these programs, the Futures Initiative. This effort is a small program based at the CUNY Graduate Center, and has offerings that extend throughout the CUNY system. In particular, I will look at two programs within the Futures Initiative: the team-taught courses and the Undergraduate Leadership Program. These two are of particular relevance, because both extend across different CUNY campuses and seek to structurally address the joint issues of equity and of preparing students for their future.

           The Graduate Center (GC) is specifically dedicated to graduate education. According to the school’s, institutional profile, “The Graduate Center is home to a core faculty of approximately 140 teachers and mentors, as the only consortium of its kind in the nation, it has more than 1,700 faculty from across the CUNY colleges, as well as from cultural, academic and scientific institutions throughout New York City and beyond.” The mission is CUNY’s historic goal of “working to provide access to doctoral education for diverse groups of highly talented students, including those who have been underrepresented in higher education.”

        The Graduate School and University Center’s Faculty Diversity Strategic Plan documented for Spring 2017 states that the 2013-2018 faculty Diversity Strategic Plan commits the Graduate Center to a comprehensive strategy for promoting faculty diversity that takes into account the unique role of the Graduate Center as a center of intellectual activity within the wider CUNY system. “The Graduate Center plays a unique and important role in maintaining an intellectual and professional environment conducive to fostering faculty diversity in the CUNY system as a whole,” the report says. “This comprehensive strategy includes: Recruiting a Diverse Graduate Center Faculty and Cultivating an Environment of Diversity, which in turn involves: Promoting a Diverse Intellectual Climate and Maintaining a Work Environment that Welcomes Diversity.”

The  report’s findings provide an initial assessment of the Graduate Center’s progress in meeting these goals, and also show where improvement needs to take place based on the metrics proposed in the Fall 2015 Strategic Plan.

The Graduate center’s Fall 2016 Affirmative Action Plan reveals underutilization of total minorities, women, and Italian Americans. Progress towards increasing faculty diversity during 2016-2017 resulted in 32 hires of which 22 are women (69%), three Italian American (9%), four Asians (13%), four African Americans (13%) and one of Two or More Races (3%). As compared to last year’s results, overall total Minority and Women representation increased from 36 %  to 41% and 44 % to 69 % respectively. Courses at the Graduate Center are taught by faculty based at other CUNY colleges as well as by faculty appointed directly to the Graduate Center. The diversity of both groups of faculty is relevant for diversity assessment.

The last thirteen years have seen marked improvement in the diversity of the CUNY-wide doctoral faculty as a whole, but a significant amount of improvement is still needed. In 2004, the doctoral faculty was 80.3 %, non-hispanic white and 71.1% male. As of June 2017, the corresponding figures were 73.7% and 62.2%. The absolute number of faculty of color also increased during this period; the number of African American (non-Hispanic) doctoral faculty increased from 58 to 83, Hispanic faculty from 70 to 138, and Asian faculty from 153 to 257.

2011-2017  

Table 1 — Faulty Ethnic Diversity

Based on The 2013-2018 Faculty Diversity Strategic Plan

2011-2017

Table 2 — Student Ethnic Diversity

Based on The Graduate Center, Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

2011-2017  

Table 3 — Student Gender Diversity (Nonbinary Students Not Represented)

Based on The Graduate Center, Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

The doctoral faculty based at other CUNY colleges is generally more diverse than the Graduate Center. However, the percentage of African American faculty is slightly higher among those based at the GC. The doctoral faculty based at CUNY colleges other than the Graduate Center is 72.7% White, 14.5% Asian, 4.3% African American, 7.7% Hispanic, 0.4% Alaskan or Hawaiian, and 0.2% not specified (Table 1, above). The faculty based at the Graduate Center is 85.8% White, 4.5% Asian, 6.0 African American, and 3.7% Hispanic.

The Graduate Center’s student population pursuing Master’s and Doctorate degrees closely mirrors the same lack of diversity that is taking place with the faculty at the GC. According to the Graduate Center’s Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, White student enrollment still strongly dominates the other races/ethnicities groups from 2011 to 2017 (Table 2, above). As of 2017, the student enrollment at the Graduate Center is 1,549 White, 213 Black or African American, 377 Hispanic, 3 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifics, 221 Asian, 2 American Indian or Alaskan, 68 Two or More Races, 1,039 Non-Resident Alien, 513 Missing totaling 3,985 students.

The gender diversity at the Graduate Center has been within a 13-17.4 %  difference with there being consistently a slightly larger metric of women enrolled compared to men with 43.2 % and women 56.8 % in Spring of 2017 (Table 3, above). As the metrics above have outlined the Graduate Center’s current comprehensive strategy for promoting faculty and student diversity have made great efforts however, still have an extreme deficit of faculty and students of color. With the Futures Initiative’s mission striving for diversity and equity across the university, this reinforces how crucial the Futures Initiative program is being housed within the  CUNY Graduate Center and specifically working toward improving their goal of promoting diversity and equity that takes into account the unique role of the Graduate Center as a center of intellectual activity within the wider CUNY system.

From my perspective through a school counseling framework, there are pedagogically powerful ways to address the structural inequities whose symptoms (and causes) are described above. For example, to provide practical assistance to first generation students in college classrooms, it would be helpful to train students on proactive communication strategies that they can use in college e.g. practicing damage control. For instance, professors, peers, and student-centered learning programs could be helping students learn to write a strategic email to a professor explaining that one’s supervisor or child care provider has required participation or needs them to pick up their child the day of an exam and asking if an alternative time might be arranged can make the difference between success and failure. It also would be extremely useful for faculty to be trained in how to recognize and accommodate for the obstacles their students face on a daily basis and to make an effort to incorporate holistic pedagogical practices into their teaching practices, to make every effort to accommodate and help their students achieve student success through their coursework. Additional financial resources including grants, scholarships, and counseling services should be made available to this student population due to the additional hardships and challenges they encounter and navigate daily.

To begin thinking about how these kinds of informal but vital forms of education can emerge structurally in higher education settings, I will explore two programs housed at the CUNY Graduate Center within The Futures Initiative program: the team-taught courses offered by FI and the Undergraduate Leadership program. These programs attempt to put issues of student equity, access, and student-centered learning and leadership first and foremost, potentially providing a model for structurally integrating the kinds of peer leadership that can help increase equity for first-generation students and other structurally disadvantaged students.

Literature Review

Exploring the Hardships First Generation Students Encounter vs. Non First Generation Students, Leadership and Mentorship Outcomes with College Students and

the Effects of Peer to Peer Learning in Higher Education  

           According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center survey of students entering a college or university in fall 2010 (which includes students at two and four year colleges, students who studied part and full time, as well as those who graduated after transferring institutions altogether), “54.8 percent of those students completed a degree or certificate within six years of entering a postsecondary institution. This resulted in White and Asian students completing their programs at similar rates 62 percent and 63.2 percent, while Hispanic and black students graduated at rates of 45.8 percent and 38 percent” (Tate, Emily 2017). One of the major problems facing the educational system in the United States is the lack in academic achievement and opportunity for first-generation students vs. non first-generation students across different races and socioeconomic populations.

                 Following is a review of the literature on a range of topics relevant to leadership, mentoring, and the importance of peer-to-peer learning to college success as well as the barriers faced by first-generation college students from underserved communities. These include such life factors as age, income level, racial background, disability status, immigration status, students whose first language is not English, who are single parents, or who are financially independent from their parents. Leadership and mentoring outcomes and the effects of peer to peer learning on college students in higher education will also be reviewed.

Obstacles For First-Generation Students

           First-generation students and students from underrepresented communities encounter challenges navigating and excelling in college that non-first generation students do not encounter. First-generation students and students from underserved communities are in need of additional resources to strengthen their ability to navigate college through mentorship and leadership training. This student population would also benefit from student-centered learning environments, in order to bridge the achievement gap and provide a more equitable experience for all students.

In 2013, Michael Stebleton and Krista Soria explored the academic obstacles that first-generation students encounter in higher education settings. “Using the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey completed by approximately 58,000 students from six research universities, the researchers used nonparametric bootstrapping to analyze differences between first-generation and non-first-generation students obstacles to academic success” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013). The authors also explore strategies that professors, faculty, staff and other learning practitioners can use to assist these students with achieving academic success.  

              This study describes first-generation students as students who may have additional life circumstances that are a disadvantage to them while in pursuit of academic achievement in comparison to non-first generation students. The obstacles that serve as a disadvantage to first-generation students are:  “students are more likely to be older, come from  minority backgrounds, possibly have disabilities (Bui, 2002; Hertel, 1992), non-native English speakers, immigrants (i.e born outside the U.S.), could be single parents, and financially independent from their parents (Bui, 2002; Hertel, 1992) and tend to have lower level of academic preparation and often need to be employed (often full-time) to help pay for educational and cost of -living expenses” (Jehangir, 2010), (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013). The outlined hardships that first-generation students face often lead to a feeling of not belonging, and isolation that can lead to feelings of depression and loneliness (Lippincott & German, 2007).

              All of the outlined issues that first-generation students encounter were analyzed in this study with the following research question: “What are the differences between first-generation and non-generation students in terms of their self-perceived barriers to academic success?” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013). The Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey was based at the Center for Studies of Higher Education (CSHE) and is administered by the Office of Student Research and Campus Surveys at the University of California-Berkeley (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013). The SERU survey sampling plan is a census scan of the undergraduate experience. All undergraduates enrolled during spring 2009 who also were enrolled at the end of the prior term are included in this web-based questionnaire, with the majority of communication occurring by email.

              The SERU survey contained approximately 600 items depending on the assigned module and each institution’s specific questions. Each student answered a set of core questions and was randomly assigned one of four modules containing items focused specifically on a research theme. The core questions focus on: “time use, evaluation of a student’s major, campus climate and satisfaction. The four thematic research areas on the SERU include the following: academic engagement, community and civic engagement, global knowledge and skills, and student life and development” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013).

The variables in this study were drawn from demographic items and items from one of the survey modules related to student’s self-perceived obstacles to academic success. Students were randomly assigned to answer questions in the module, with 20% of students randomly assigned to answer some of the following questions from the module: “During this academic year, how often have each of the following been obstacles to your school work or academic success?” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013). The possibilities were:  “competing job responsibilities (e.g, paid employment), competing family responsibilities, other competing responsibilities (e.g., athletics, clubs, internship), weak English skills, weak math skills, inadequate study skills (e.g., knowing how to start, knowing how to get help, organizing material), poor study behaviors (e.g., wait until last minute, easily distracted, too much social time, too much web surfing), bad study environment (e.g., noisy roommate, poor Internet access, inadequate computer or software), feeling depressed, stressed, or upset, physical illness or condition.” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013)

           The survey was administered in the spring of 2009 to 145,150 students across six large, public universities classified by the Carnegie Foundation as having very high research activity. “Between 12,097 and 12,161 students completed the module that included the items above. Approximately 58.2% of the participants were female, 60.1% White, 17.9% Asian, 7.7% Chicano-Latino, 5.8% African American, 5.1% other race/unknown, and 2.9% International.  Additionally, 26.4% of the module respondents were first-generation students” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013).

            According to the authors of the study (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013), differences between first-generation and non-first-generation students were statistically significant on several factors. First-generation students reported statistically significant (p < .05) higher instances of the following factors as obstacles to their academic success: competing job responsibilities; family responsibilities; less preparation for college-level math skills; less preparation for college-level English skills; inadequate study skills; and feeling depressed, stressed, or upset. The only measure on which first-generation students had statistically significant (p < .05) lower means than non-first-generation students was in the category of “Other” competing responsibilities. The size of the effects in most cases was relatively small, although competing job responsibilities (d = -.27) and competing family responsibilities (d = -.32), in addition to weak English skills (d = -.19) and weak math skills (d = -.18), and inadequate study skills (d = -.20) had modest effect sizes, suggesting those differences are larger and hold potentially greater impact for practitioners. Although not statistically significant, results showed that first-generation students had higher mean scores on all other items (save for other competing responsibilities), suggesting that, overall, first-generation students experience greater obstacles to their academic success than their non-first-generation peers. First-generation students who attend larger research institutions compared to smaller (e.g., liberal arts colleges) are said to be more likely to struggle and who enter these institutions with perceived barriers to their capability to excel (Jehangir, 2010).

        First-generation students may also have preconceived notions about their ability to perform on subjects such as math or English skills due to past negative experiences. “Additional programs, services, and structures are often needed to help students reduce the size of each step during the adjustment to the postsecondary education experience” (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013). Another key factor is that first-generation students may experience a constant feeling of alienation on campus as well as imposter syndrome, a dissociative state in which estranged first-generation students may never feel confident, grounded, or socially connected to their academic experiences on campus (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013).

Professors, faculty, staff and learning practitioners need to be aware of problems related to first-generation students' mental health concerns. Daddona (2011) noted that issues related to student’s mental health are an ongoing concern; the prevalence and severity of mental health concerns is well documented (Kadison & DiGeronimo, 2004; Kitzrow, 2009). It is imperative that several strategies for peer educators who interact with undergraduate students, including direct approaches on how to make effective referrals to students who may need psychological services, being well-versed on the campus counseling services available to students, and be mindful of multicultural issues related to counseling and that there may be push back or stigma about seeking out resources for mental or social-emotional concerns.

                One limitation of the results of Stebleton and Soria's work is the structure of the study, which only examined first-generation and non-first-generation students at a single institutional type (large, public research universities). A recommendation was made to include multiple institutional types. A follow-up study was suggested that includes self-reported data on large surveys that rely on student responses (Porter, 2009). Related to this limitation, it should be noted that the SERU was conducted during the spring semester; it was possible that some first-generation students may have dropped out after the first semester. The SERU was a census survey, so all student responses are combined (i.e., first-year to senior year). Limitations include that future studies may pursue an analysis of responses by year in college. It is encouraged by (Stebleton, .M; Soria, K. 2013) that scholars interested in this area to pursue qualitative studies that explore the lived experiences of first-generation students to learn more about their journeys towards higher education success.

Obstacles For Student Leadership Development

               In their work entitled, “Considering Context: Developing Student’s Leadership Capacity,” Laura Osteen and Mary B. Coburn examine the development of students’ leadership capacity through aligning program design with the layers of higher education, institutional mission, and administrative support within a collaborative environment. The authors argue that leadership learning is the primary purpose of higher education, describing college education as a “vital and fertile environment for leadership learning among young adults, and calls for higher education to assume responsibility for this student learning outcome” (Roberts 2007). There is not one correct way to model leadership programs; however, the form of leadership within an organization should stem from a deep understanding of their home institution. It should be based on reflection and action based on the university’s mission (Woodward, Love, and Komives, 2000). “At large research universities with a broad mission and specialized units that serve distinct purposes, a comprehensive center or department may be established to provide leadership learning to all students” (Osteen, L; Coburn B. M. 2012).

             Even when claimed in university mission statements as a priority, leadership programs battle with competing priorities for support on a college campus (Cress et. al., 2001). Advocates for change and program support start with the president and provost. The Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) study results clearly demonstrated “leadership, particularly at the executive level, makes a difference” (Manning et al., 2006, p.157). Key administrators’ decisions shape and dictate what will or will not change in universities; thus, leadership programs are more “effective and pervasive if they reflect the personal and professional mission of these institutional leaders” (Eckel et al., 2001; Manning et. al., 2006).

Other reasons to expand leadership education can be found in addressing students' preparation for life beyond college and their employability (Osteen, L; Coburn B. M. 2012). Institutions receive feedback from alumni and employers about students’ skills and most often it is skills such as “strong interpersonal, teamwork, the ability to problem solve, building self-awareness, having the ability to work collaboratively and facilitate relationships” that are the most useful skills acquired that new graduates have and can apply to the world of work (Osteen, L; Coburn B. M. 2012).

              The outcomes of  effective leadership programs differ across institutions  (Osteen, L; Coburn B. M. 2012). Student development educators have the capacity to build effective leadership programs within higher education through recognizing these diverse structures and creating collaborative partnerships between student development professionals and academic colleagues to create successful leadership programs (Haber, 2011; Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt, 1999). “Leadership programs may begin where they can and develop with the roots they can place; however, relevance to our campus and students will grow programs from modest beginnings to campus-wide integration” (Roberts, 2007). College students’ growth and leadership capacity is in direct relation to our leadership capacity as educators to understand higher education’s responsibility to this work. Educators must accept their role they have in shaping students' futures which in turn calls for educators to “align with their institution's mission, gain institutional support and actively collaborate with internal and external partners” (Osteen, L; Coburn B. M. 2012).    

              To be effective, student leadership programs must align with several contextual factors, including institutional mission, administrative support, and collaborative environments (Osteen, L; Coburn B. M. 2012). In an unpublished program evaluation conducted in 2017, researcher Michael J. Dorsch explores these contextual factors in direct connection with the form of leadership and mentorship practiced in the Futures Initiative at the Graduate Center, CUNY. “Liberal Arts for the New Majority/Peer Mentorship Program” evaluates and analyzes the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program, focusing on the second cohort in the Program’s five-year existence. The 2016-2017 Futures Initiative Peer Mentoring Program was funded by the Teagle Foundation and The Futures Initiative was honored to be able to propose additional iterations of the program. The Futures Initiative’s Liberal Arts for the New Majority/Peer Mentorship Program was created as a “multi-layered peer learning program that connected liberal arts teaching and learning with the mission of public higher education and the needs of what has been called the “new majority” of undergraduate college students (Davidson, C. N.; Rogers, K. L. 2017).

           The program consisted of 25 undergraduate students from 12 of the 24 colleges in the CUNY system. It was a year-long program designed to help students develop their mentoring and leadership skills and learn transferable mentoring skills that they can in turn use to mentor their fellow peers at their home campuses. The students in the program were referred to as Futures Initiative Peer Mentors, and they were expected to attend the FI Summer Peer Mentoring Workshop. This was a day-long workshop that started the program and provided the framework to learn about mentoring, leadership and engage in student-centered activities and trainings that prepare them for their role as a peer mentor in the program.

The FI Peer Mentors were also required to fulfill the following requirements during their enrollment: Write and publish monthly blog posts as assigned by program staff on the FI Mentor’s blog; attend up to four meet-ups at the Graduate Center during the 2016-2017 academic year to discuss ways they can support their peers; engage in activities that foster mentorship and leadership skills; talk with one another about their own studies and work-life balance; and participate in one or more events in the University Worth Fighting For lecture and workshop series at the Graduate Center. These events were designed to tie student-centered, engaged pedagogical practices to institutional change and social justice.

              The Futures Initiative also offered four students who successfully completed the program in the 2015-2016 cohort the opportunity to serve as FI Peer Mentors & Liaisons. In this role, liaisons were expected to successfully complete the outlined tasks all mentors are responsible for, in addition to assuming peer leadership responsibilities such as project management. These responsibilities included sending out reminders via Slack and email in regards to announcements and updates, answering questions and inquiries that came from their fellow peers on Slack, and assisting with planning monthly meetings at The Graduate Center.  This also included creating activities, skill shares, creating agendas used for the monthly meet-ups, helping to keep track of social media, and helping build connections between the Peer Mentoring program and the larger Futures Initiative. These students were given additional funding as an incentive for their additional responsibilities. The Futures Initiative also provided modest funding to selected peer mentors who participated in events and/or conferences affiliated with FI.

              Dorsch’s program evaluation involved a mixed-methods approach to assessment, including development of a comprehensive survey instrument that was distributed online to all participants in the 2016-2017 peer mentoring cohort and a semi-structured interview with volunteers from the cohort. All participants in the program were invited to provide their feedback in both the survey and the follow-up interview. In total, 17 of the 24 peer mentors in the 2016-2017 cohort responded to the survey yielding a response rate of 70%  (Dorsch, M., 2017). Four of the participants also responded to the invitation for follow up interviews. These interviews were conducted via an online video chat and lasted 30-45 minutes, and the video chats were then transcribed (Dorsch . M, 2017).

             A majority of the respondents in the peer mentoring program listed Baruch College as their primary campus with 6 students, Hunter College with three students, Brooklyn College with two students, and New York City of Technology, John Jay College, Kingsborough College, LaGuardia Community College, Queens College, and the City College of New York each with one student respondent. A majority of respondents were at more advanced student levels. No freshmen participated, and two of the respondents had recently graduated. A majority of respondents were full-time students; 12 full time and five part-time, with most taking at least four courses that semester. Most respondents hoped to complete graduate education and just over half of respondents were first-generation students. A majority of respondents identified as women (88%) and identified as straight or heterosexual (88%). Most were between the ages of 18 and 24, and the racial/ethnic identification of respondents was diverse. Nearly all respondents were involved in at least one extracurricular organization or activity on their campus and a majority of respondents were involved in two or more extra activities (Dorsch  M, 2017).

             Eighty-two percent of respondents found the Future’s Initiative’s Summer 2016 Peer Mentoring Workshop to be “Helpful” or “Very helpful” in preparing them for their role as a peer mentor. More than half (53%) of respondents found the Future’s Initiative’s Commons in a Box (CBOX) site to be “Helpful” or “Very helpful” in their role as peer mentors. Respondents were asked to list the top five skills, strategies, or techniques that they learned from the Summer 2016 Peer Mentoring Workshop; communication skills were the most frequently mentioned, followed by leadership, and listening. Respondents were also asked to list five skills, strategies, or techniques that the Futures Initiative could include in future Peer Mentoring Workshops which frequently mentioned topics included time management, public speaking and presentation skills, networking, and a need for additional meetings (Dorsch  M, 2017).

             One of the most frequent respondent suggestions for how the Futures Initiative’s Commons in a Box (CBOX) site for the Peer Mentoring Program could be improved for future years was that the platform needed to be advertised and communicated more to students outside of the peer mentoring program to foster greater interaction and knowledge of the program’s benefits. Respondents also reported that it needed more flexible capacities for multimedia (videos, podcasts, etc.) to make it more interactive and give students another communication option if they didn’t want to write a blog. Additional suggestions included: Encourage students to comment on posts; circulate website over campuses to influence outside students to interact; include more interaction with non-mentors; offer more promotion of the program in four-year schools; and increase awareness of the program to more students on campus.

              Dorsch also found that thanks to their participation in the program,students became more aware of different services available on individual campuses. Respondents indicated a greater awareness of tutoring services, mentoring services, financial aid services, co-curricular activities, academic advising services, and health and wellness services after their participation in the program. Knowledge of career counseling services remained relatively similar before and after participation in the program (Dorsch  M, 2017). A majority of respondents (65%) strongly agreed that participation in the program exposed them to a diversity of people that they might not otherwise have been exposed to and a majority of respondents. Fifty-nine percent strongly agreed that their experience with the Future’s Initiative’s Peer Mentoring Program also exposed them to a diversity of ideas cutting across disciplines. A majority of respondents (59%) agreed that their experience with the Futures Initiative’s Peer Mentoring Program has given them a better understanding of student-centered learning and student empowerment, while 47% of respondents “strongly agreed” and 29% of respondents “agreed” that, overall, their experience as a Futures Initiative Peer Mentor helped them in their education pathways.

             Most respondents strongly agreed (53%) or agreed (35%) that gathering at formally agreed-upon, regular meetings was a valuable way to support peers  (Dorsch, M., 2017). A majority of respondents strongly agreed (41%) or agreed (41%) that social media and other networking tools are valuable ways to support peers with less formal, more spontaneous meetings. A majority of respondents agreed (53%) or strongly agreed (29%) that following a less formal program for mentorship with materials and resources chosen to fit current needs is a valuable way to support peers. A majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that a valuable way to support peers is to treat regular conversations and interactions as opportunities to listen and share advice.

Of the 17 survey respondents, three (17.6% of all respondents) were Peer Mentor Liaisons for the program. The respondents anonymously described their experience as Liaisons for the program as follows:

• “It was an honor to be one of the Peer Mentor Liaisons, because I felt like the work I was given and asked to do was more fulfilling.”
• “I felt like I could directly impact what the other peers can get out of the program in this position.”
• “The Liaison experience was amazing.”
• “I was more aware of the things all the mentors needed to complete as well as the goals of the programs.”
• “It helped in the sense of becoming more complete for future job opportunities and my career path.”
• “It was a nice experience that helped me know more about the Futures Initiative and also how to help others.”

Liaisons also listed the following skills and opportunities that they felt they gained by being a Liaison with the program: Communication, teamwork, support and uplift their peers. Other opportunities and skills gained included:

• “The opportunity to be on a panel and construct it.”
• “Being a Liaison gave me more experience with the responsibility the people in the program have to deal with more insight on how to work with other students and faculty as well as mentors.”
• “More organizational skills.”

             The peer mentors who participated also offered the following suggestions and feedback on how the Futures Initiative Peer Mentor program can increase or better support leadership experience for future cohorts: “Many students are not familiar with the FI Peer Mentor Program, therefore additional advertising about the program was suggested to let CUNY faculty/staff know about the program.” Mentors also mentioned a need to schedule workshops/meet-ups more frequently and with more additional times possible for it to be scheduled on additional dates/times.

Respondents highlighted that the program opened their eyes to the broader CUNY system and to the opportunities for graduate education that are available at the Graduate Center and elsewhere. Those interviewed stressed that the interactions and communications between the peer mentors and the program leadership at the Graduate Center was very good. They felt supported intellectually by the leadership, and felt like they could communicate with them regarding any issues that they had during the year. All of those that were interviewed emphasized how learning enhanced communication skills were a major outcome of their participation in the program. Several mentors said that it helped to raise their awareness of the broader CUNY network and opportunities that might be available at institutions other than the college they were currently attending. Moreover, some respondents said that participation in the program helped them improve their grades, better manage their time, and feel like they had a support network to help them if they had difficulties.

              Interview respondents highlighted that their participation in the program impacted other areas of their life, including the way they were thinking about their future career pathways. One respondent stated that the program helped them get into a GRE prep program that was helping to prepare them for a Ph.D. pathway. Other respondents emphasized how the program helped them become more serious, goal-oriented, and creative about their future. Learning interpersonal skills and how to interact with many different kinds of people about different topics was highlighted universally as a strength of the program. One respondent noted that the skills they learned for interacting with other people as part of a group would be a strong skill that could be carried to any facet of their life.

However, the program seemed to have limited reach. Many respondents highlighted that the program was fantastic, but that they wished there had been more general knowledge about it so that it could grow to include even more people. Another point that came up frequently was that attendance and participation declined as the semester went on, and that there might be opportunities to creatively engage people either with resources such as Slack or with additional meeting time slots and opportunities for engagement.

Respondents also suggested having different opportunities for academic enrichment events to further engage students when they might not be able to make scheduled meeting time. They also referenced Slack as a powerful tool for keeping lines of communication open with the other peer mentors, even when some could not attend the scheduled meetings. One of the interview respondents thought that Slack might offer an opportunity to engage mentees at the campuses that might need help but find it hard to meet face-to-face with a mentor. Some respondents said that the program seemed like it would involve more mentoring of other students outside of the program rather than the peers involved in the program. Opportunities may exist to better frame the nature of the peer-mentoring in the program description for future cohort years.

Obstacles For Peer Learning In Higher Education

              In a 2013 book, David Boud, Ruth Cohen and Jane Sampson explore peer learning in higher education. The benefits of  “peer learning” is defined as learning with and from each other. “The role peer learning plays varies widely and the forms it takes are very diverse, but without it students gain an impoverished education” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). The use of peer learning in informal courses will be examined as well as the following questions: “What is peer learning and what is it good for ?” “How can it best be fostered ?”, and “What issues need to be considered by teachers and students?”(Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). The book also draws on the experience of the authors in using peer learning in their own courses and in studying its effects. Their focus is on higher education, but many of the ideas are applicable more widely.

                Boud, Cohen, and Sampson describe peer learning not as a single, undifferentiated educational strategy, but as encompassing a broad compilation of activities. For example, researchers from the University of Ulster identified 10 different models of peer learning (Griffiths, Houston and Lazenbatt, 1995). These ranged from the traditional proctor model — in which senior students tutor junior students — to the more innovative learning cells — in which students in the same year form partnerships to assist each other with both course content and personal concerns (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Other models involved discussion seminars, private study groups, parrainage (a buddy system) or counselling, peer-assessment schemes, collaborative project or laboratory work, projects in different sized (cascading) groups, workplace mentoring, and community activities.

              In this context, peer learning becomes a “two-way, reciprocal learning activity.” It should be mutually beneficial, involve the sharing of knowledge, ideas and experience between the participants, and can be described as a way of moving beyond independent to interdependent or mutual learning (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Students learn by explaining their ideas to others and by participating in activities in which they can learn from their peers. They develop skills in organizing, working collaboratively with others, and evaluating their own learning.

Peer learning is becoming an increasingly important part of many courses. It is being used in many different contexts and disciplines in many countries, and its potential is starting to be realized. But examination of the ways in which it is used in existing courses suggests that practices are often introduced without consideration of their implications (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). “Often peer learning occurs informally without staff involvement, and students who are already effective learners tend to benefit disproportionately when it is left to chance” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013).

           Currently, university resources are stretched and demands upon staff are increasing.  Formalizing peer learning can not only help students learn, but it also offers students the chance to learn from each other. According to Boud, Cohen, and Sampson, this gives students a great deal more practice than traditional teaching and learning methods in taking responsibility for their own learning, and more generally, learning how to learn. “This is not a substitute for teaching and activities designed and conducted by staff members, but an important addition to the repertoire of teaching and learning activities that can enhance the quality of education” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). They also note the importance of who the “peers” are in peer learning. “[Peers] share the status as fellow learners,  are accepted as such, and they do not have power over each other by virtue of their position or responsibilities” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013).    

           Peer teaching is a well-established practice in many universities, whereas reciprocal peer learning is often considered to be incidental, a component of other more familiar strategies, such as the discussion group (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). As a result, until recently, “reciprocal peer learning has not been identified as a phenomenon in its own right that might be used to students advantage” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Reciprocal peer learning emphasizes students’ learning and contributions to other students’ learning. This interaction is based on mutual experience, and so they are better able to make equal contributions. Here, peer learning involves students learning from and with each other in both formal and informal ways. “The emphasis is on the learning process, including the emotional support that learners offer each other as much as the learning task itself, and in peer teaching the roles of teachers and learner are fixed, whereas in peer learning they are either undefined or may shift during the course of the learning experience” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Faculty or staff may be actively involved as group facilitators, or they may frame student directed activities such as workshops, or student centered activities.

According to Topping’s review of literature, surprisingly limited research has been done on dyadic reciprocal peer tutoring or same-year group tutoring (Topping, 1996). “He identified only 10 studies, all with a very narrow empirical focus” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). This suggests that the teaching model opposed to the learning model is still the most common way of understanding how students assist each other. The teaching model may well have great value, but we must consider the learning process itself to make best use of peers as resources for learning and to recognize that peer learning is not a single practice, but rather covers a wide range of different activities that can be used in a multitude of ways.

Boud, Cohen, and Sampson explain that in many countries, there is considerable pressure on university funding, which has led to requiring staff to teach more students without a reduction in the quality of the student learning. “This has prompted a search for teaching and learning strategies that might help staff to cope with larger student numbers without increasing their overall workload” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Peer learning is helpful because it appears to maintain or increase student learning with less input from staff. “Other factors include concurrent with this financial pressure has been a reassessment of the goals of university courses and new emphasis has been placed on generic learning outcomes; employers now want graduates who possess a broader range of skills and abilities to communicate effectively beyond their specialization and so courses are now expected to develop in students what are variously termed transferable skills” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). These skills and strategies are designed to foster lifelong learning in the student. Candy, Crebert and O’Leary (1994) cited peer-assisted and self-directed learning as the first of five teaching methods in undergraduate courses that encourage graduates to become lifelong learners, as well as helping them to develop “reflective practice and critical self-awareness.” Web-based activities appear to be most effective when there is direct interaction between staff and students and amongst themselves.

A common misconception is that peer learning is simply about using group work in courses. Group work does not necessarily involve peers learning from each other (Jacques, 2000), but much peer learning occurs on a one-to-one basis — therefore, peer learning need not be primarily about learning to work in groups (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Similar practices to peer learning include cooperative learning (Jacob, 1999) and collaborative learning (Johnson and Johnson 1997).

“Cooperative learning grew out of developmental psychology, cognitive, social, developmental psychology,” say Boud, Cohen, and Sampson (2013). The highlight was on the processes group interaction, individual skill development, social learning and management of the educational environment. These activities took place within an established body of knowledge/discipline and authority for knowledge was vested in the teacher. “The emphasis was on the process used by teachers to achieve specified educational outcomes” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Teacher intervention and management is expected to set goals, determine activities, measure and evaluate educational achievement.  

              The practice of collaborative learning may be used more in higher education in the U.S. “The emphasis is on the setting of open-ended but focused tasks to students who work together, to solve them, encouraging interdependent learning” (Bruffee, 1999). When collaborative learning groups engage in exploration of ideas and knowledge and learning to learn, professors and or faculty may set up structured activities — but their specific means of achievement are left to the group. “The teacher is more a facilitator, negotiating the learning and evaluation with learners and turning over more control” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Benefits of collaborative learning are noted as: learning is the key concept not education, critical thinking, problem solving, sense-making, personal transformation, the social construction of knowledge, exploration, discussion, debate and discussion (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Bruffee (1999) names “constructive conversation” an educational experience in which students learn by constructing knowledge as they talk together and reach consensus or dissent. “Questioning each other’s views within a group is a necessary part of learning” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013).

         The skills involved in working with others include teamwork, and being a member of a learning community. “Peer learning can prompt a sense of responsibility for one’s own and other’s learning and development of increased confidence and self-esteem through engaging in a community of learning and learners” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). A great deal of learning takes place from sharing others experiences, existing knowledge and skills, students learn to acknowledge the backgrounds and contributions of their fellow peers. “Peer learning involves students working together to develop collaborative skills, and it gives them practice in planning, how to be a team participant and makes them part of a learning community in which they have a stake in” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013).

Critical enquiry and reflection are crucial in peer learning. “Challenges to existing ways of thinking arise from more detailed interchanges between students in which points of view are argued and positions justified” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). There is evidence to suggest that fostering critical reflection and reassessment of views more readily comes from interchange between peers (Smith and Hatton, 1993) than even from well-planned discussion sessions with teachers. Peer learning can provide opportunities for deep engagement in the learning process as students are learning together through their relationship with their peers and not just trying to “beat the system” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). Students are often better able to reflect on and explore ideas when the presence and authority of a professor, faculty or staff member (Boud and Walker, 1998) do not influence them.  

Communication and articulation of knowledge, understanding, and skills is critical in peer learning. Concept development often happens through testing of ideas on others and the rehearsing of positions that enable learners to express their understanding of ideas and concepts (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). “Often only when they are expressed and challenged that students appreciate whether they have a good grasp of what they are studying” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). There are not many opportunities for this without peer learning activities. Managing learning and how to learn with peer learning activities requires students to develop self management skills and the ability of working with others. “This demands different kinds of self-responsibility as it involves obligations to others and maintaining one’s position in a peer group” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). A great deal of peer-learning activities require students to cooperate on tasks which students have to work out how to tackle for themselves with little specific direction. “Peer learning involves a group of students taking collective responsibility for identifying their own learning needs, planning how these might be addressed and it is a vital skill in learning how to learn” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013).    

Self- and peer-assessment occurs in settings that provide opportunities for additional self and peer assessment of a formative kind. “It provides opportunities for giving and receiving feedback on one’s work and a context for comparing oneself to others” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). This mimics the kinds of informal assessment activities that take place daily in the world of work: “self-assessment and peer judgments are more common and can often have a more powerful influence in professional work than formal appraisals” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). “Practice in identifying criteria to assess one’s own learning and applying this in a variety of circumstances is a key element of sustainable assessment needed for lifelong learning” (Boud, 2000).

            Lastly, according to Boud, Cohen, and Sampson, when peer learning is organized largely by students themselves, it has become a key feature of student life. Still, these informal arrangements are often less valued and not understood by learning institutions. Some factors that contribute to why less informal arrangements may fall through the cracks in students’ lives include the fact that for many students, opportunities to meet outside the class may be very limited due to work, family and other commitments. Informal meetings outside classes also favor friendship groupings and some students do not have the time or social skills necessary to develop successful relationships. These students may include those who are already disadvantaged structurally (in terms of economic status, etc.), who may become excluded from much of the traditional peer learning experience. Students having to work part time has always had an influence on student life, but there is also a fading of campus life as more students engage in more paid work. The time allotted for students to spend time at their college campuses talking with peers and engaging with their fellow peers is on the decline, with a large majority of students having to work to pay tuition and living expenses.

Another reason informal peer learning may be less common is that “student populations are becoming more fragmented as students are given more choices about how they study a course” (Boud D; Cohen R; Sampson J. 2013). With more subject choices, students are able to design their own progression of subjects and as a result may be less likely to be studying their course with a consistent class or cohort or part of a certain home group of peers. This loss of rapport with peers can impact a student’s informal learning.

 Conclusion

            Numerous scholars have shown the connection between the barriers first-generation college students from underserved communities encounter, leadership and mentoring outcomes, and the effects of peer-to-peer learning on college students. Key scholars have enumerated the ways that first-generation students encounter specific obstacles that make achieving academic success difficult as compared to non-first generation students that can cause even greater challenges to reaching their goals. Programs that emphasize student leadership and peer learning have the potential to increase access to many students. In that way, student development educators have the capacity to build effective leadership programs within higher education through recognizing these diverse structures and creating collaborative partnerships between student development professionals and academic colleagues to create successful leadership programs. Underserved student population can benefit greatly from these student-centered learning environments, in order to bridge the achievement gap and provide a more equitable experience for all students.

Procedure

           In researching existing, practical efforts to put student leadership and peer learning at the front and center of university education, I decided to examine two programs offered within the Futures Initiative. These programs are the FI’s team-taught courses and the Undergraduate Leadership program. More about the structure of the team-taught courses can be found in the case study introduction to the Futures Initiative, as well as through the course descriptions in Appendix A.

Here, I will describe the current structure of the Undergraduate Leadership Program, which implements not only aspects of the Futures Initiative’s mission of empowering the next generation of intellectual leaders. More about the specific proceedings and pedagogies of the Undergraduate Leadership Program can be found in Appendix B.

Crucial to my analysis will be the American School Counselor Association National’s (ASCA, 2014) ethical standards and a school counseling framework that strives toward equity and success for all students by guiding them in reaching academic achievement, navigating personal and social development, and planning for successful careers after graduation.

The Futures Initiative Team-Teaching:  An Introductory Case Study

          Although the Graduate Center continues to strive to improve the diversity of its faculty and has made some progress working to foster a diverse environment, these metrics indicate that the reality falls short of the goals. In order to address this shortcoming, the Graduate Center has invested in a number of programs with the overt goal of addressing diversity. On a faculty level, these include research programs, interdisciplinary seminars focusing on issues of equity and inclusion, as well as centers that offer semester- or year -long fellowship programs for faculty and graduate students from the Graduate Center, the larger CUNY faculty community, and other institutions. In addition, the Graduate Center offers programs such as The CUNY Pipeline Program, dedicated to supporting greater student diversity.

Within this constellation of offerings, a relatively new program, the Futures Initiative, was created as an integrative system that focuses systematically and simultaneously on inclusion, equity, and social justice in research and teaching, across Graduate Center faculty, professors at CUNY’s four- and two-year campuses, graduate students, and undergraduates. This multifaceted program, which includes support for team-taught courses as well as for an undergraduate peer leadership program, aims to increase diversity within the Graduate Center in the present and aims to contribute in coming years to increasing recruitment and improving retention of diverse faculty at the Graduate Center and throughout the City University of New York.

       The Futures Initiative (FI) is a program housed at the Graduate Center, founded by Professor Cathy N. Davidson in 2014 as an effort from CUNY Central administration. The mission of the Futures Initiative is to “empower the next generation of intellectual leaders with bold, public, and engaged teaching and learning.” With FI’s emphasis on student-centered practices, this program “redefines graduate preparation to include translation of  specialized research into the best undergraduate teaching, including for those from underserved communities.” 

Early planning of the program was begun under Chancellor Matthew Goldstein and Graduate Center President William Kelly, and brought to fruition by a leadership team of Interim Chancellor Kelly, Graduate Center President Chase Robinson, and Graduate Center Interim Provost Louise Lennihan. The Futures Initiative reaches throughout the 25 CUNY campuses, and is a model that can be used to promote equity, inclusion, and foster institutional change throughout all of CUNY.

Image used in the Summary Report: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Course "Mapping Futures of Higher Education" at CUNY in Spring of 2015

The vision of Futures Initiative’s team-taught structure, which is CUNY Graduate Center-based senior faculty team-teaching with junior faculty across the two-and four year CUNY institutions, to Graduate students who are enrolled in these courses, who in turn teach at the two and four year CUNY campuses to undergraduate students, who are then referred to the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program.   

         Since 2015, the Futures Initiative’s team-taught structure has been evolving. It has been reinvoking CUNY’s mission of connecting its senior and community colleges and also to collaborate and make distinct connections between the Graduate Center and the CUNY campuses. The team-taught courses are designed to reach as many as 90 graduate students and 1,800 undergraduates across CUNY every year.

        The structure of these courses now includes a Central Line Graduate Center faculty member team-teaching with a CUNY-based faculty member, either from a community college or a four-year college. The courses are supposed to have pair professors with different levels of seniority, and course subject matters are supposed to feature inclusion, equity, and social justice (no matter what the specific discipline or topic). Since the majority of Graduate Center students are also teaching, the Futures Initiative courses are designed to expose graduate students to pedagogical methods that they can bring to their undergraduates. Often, the teaching pairings are a senior faculty member and a more junior across disciplines. Faculty members are offered research funds for their additional work in the courses, and for their participation in an annual Futures Initiative symposium.

Graduate students across CUNY and from all disciplinary backgrounds are welcome to register for Futures Initiative team-taught courses. Undergraduates are also invited to apply for e-permits following the guidelines at their home campuses. On-degree students are instructed to follow the registration guidelines set forth by the registrar at the Graduate Center.  Students from consortial institutions (NYU, Columbia, Cornell) may also take these courses.

A primary goal of the Futures Initiative’s team-taught courses is increasing faculty diversity at the GC, where it is an ongoing challenge, and to establish a more profound mentorship and fellowship among faculty members across the CUNY system. These team-taught classes focus on innovative, student-centered pedagogy, and interdisciplinarity as a form of their theoretical practice. These courses work to create new curricula throughout CUNY and a larger goal of public engagement. According to the FI’s 2017-2018 Annual Report, “Futures Initiative courses are structured to support the connections between the three pillars of higher education: research, teaching, and service to society.”

        In 2019-2020, an additional element was added to the FI course offerings. All of the courses are in some way foundational to a Graduate Center program. The purpose of this was to use the innovative courses to help shape core elements of key programs and have a greater impact on the Graduate Center’s initiatives. See Appendix A for descriptions of the team-taught courses that were offered by the Futures Initiative in Fall 2019 through Spring 2021 and a course that will be available sometime in 2022.  

It is imperative that CUNY as an institution promotes collaborations across campuses in order to promote new and innovative curriculum. This is necessary to offer students more diversity of faculty, curriculum, and disciplinary choices. From the standpoint of mentorship, it also offers a diverse student population the notable benefits of working with junior faculty members, especially faculty of color.  In turn, it benefits junior faculty to work with and have the support of senior faculty even as senior faculty can stay current in their fields by working with junior faculty.

As long as a suitable and equitable reward system is built in for the junior campus-based faculty, this is a graduated, integrated mentoring and teaching structure that supports all.  The overarching goal is to incorporate ways to revamp the current structures in place within higher education and to strive for student success and an equitable academic experience for all students.

The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program: An Introductory Case Study

2016-2017 Peer Mentors Cohort

The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program (FIULP) supports CUNY undergraduate students who are learning to be leaders within their colleges and within their communities. The program, directed by Lauren Melendez (author), Director of the Undergraduate Leadership Program and Administrative Specialist of the Futures Initiative, and Co-Director Kashema Hutchinson, Phd candidate in Urban Education, believes great mentorship and leadership means representing and responding to one’s peers in a way that supports everyone’s success. Through innovative pedagogical skill shares, student-centered learning, and activities, the FIULP combines in person meetings with activities and skill shares where students decide on topics and “prompts” and then blog on the program’s website which helps create an inclusive experience across CUNY's 25 campuses. This program structurally addresses the joint issues of equity, increasing diversity, and preparing students for their present and future endeavors.

          With a focus on preparing students for success in college, career, community and life, The FIULP promotes learning by actively doing and stepping into leadership positions. Through peer-to-peer learning and student-centered pedagogical practices, we prepare our “Undergraduate Leaders” for today and tomorrow’s complexities of the world.

           The FIULP values who our students are and believe in their right to explore and express their identities. We respect the customs, beliefs, and lived experiences that students bring to our community. We prepare our students to challenge stigmas and to excel consistently with confidence and respect for their fellow peers.  

For the 2019-2020 cohort, the FIULP partnered with the Promise and Perils of Democracy Project supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. In addition to the focus on leadership and peer mentoring, questions of democracy and informed public engagement were themes added to the program. The FIULP welcomed 30 undergraduate leadership fellows across 12 different CUNY campuses to learn leadership and mentoring skills and to participate in Futures Initiative programs, such as the University Worth Fighting For series. There are also opportunities for the leadership fellows to connect and learn with their fellow peers during collaborative events with other CUNY affiliated programs, as well. Participants build meaningful relationships with graduate students and faculty members at the Graduate Center, and participate in high-level programming on key issues in higher education. Many of these students were nominated by their instructors who are themselves students at the Graduate Center.

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program Mission

             The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program supports CUNY undergraduate students who are learning to be leaders within their colleges and within their communities. The program promotes leadership through an emphasis on student-centered practices, personal and professional skills in a supportive and responsive learning environment. It is the goal that upon completion of The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program, students graduate or continue on their academic and post-graduate paths with purpose, vision and knowledge that prepares them to take action on achieving lifelong success.

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program Structure

The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership program supports CUNY undergraduate students who are learning to be leaders within their colleges and within their communities. In 2019, the program welcomed thirty Leadership Fellows across various different CUNY campuses to learn leadership and mentoring skills and to participate in Futures Initiative programs, such as the University Worth Fighting For series and other CUNY affiliated programs.

Participants build meaningful relationships with graduate students and faculty members at the Graduate Center, and participate in high-level programming on key issues in higher education. Many of these students were nominated by their instructors who are themselves students at the Graduate Center.

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program Duration

The program begins with leaders attending a one-day Institute in August where students learn about important resources and acquire vital skills that will aid them in their service as FIULP fellows through the course of the year. The program takes place from August through May.

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leaders are able to connect with each other and across CUNY in the following ways:

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Summer Institute

The program begins with leadership fellows attending a one-day Institute where students learn about important resources and acquire vital skills that will aid them in their service as Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Fellows through the course of the year. All of the skill shares, activities, exercises and workshops for this program have been designed by CUNY graduate students, faculty and staff.

Informal Meet-Ups

The leadership fellows are required to attend up to four meet-ups at the Graduate Center during each academic semester to discuss ways you can learn leadership skills in addition to engaging in activities that foster student-centered learning, collaboration, mentorship and career and professional development. The meetings provide a space where students have community, support, and can talk with one another about their own studies and work-life balance as well.

Blog

The leadership fellows are given blog prompts monthly on topics such as student-centered pedagogy, peer mentoring, social justice issues, and other key topics and matters relevant in higher education in which they post to the mentors’ website. Fellows also comment, give feedback, and share resources on this site with their fellows peers.  

University Worth Fighting For Series, Collaboration With Other CUNY Affiliated Programs, Conferences & Enrichment Outings

The leadership fellows are required to attend one University Worth Fighting For event each semester they are enrolled in the program, but encouraged to join for as many as they would like. These events are designed to tie student-centered, engaged pedagogical practices to institutional change and social justice. FIULP fellows are also given the opportunity to participate in conferences and enrichment outings that are hosted by the Futures Initiative dependent on funding opportunities available. There are joint meetings that the leaders will have with other CUNY affiliated programs that promote student engagement and fellowship amongst their CUNY peers across other campuses (e.g. with CUNY Humanities Alliance and LaGuardia Student Success Mentors).

Communication

The leadership fellows are required to communicate via email, doodle polls, FI mentors’ blog, and FIULP slack channel.

Key Elements

The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program reconnects liberal arts teaching and learning with the mission of public higher education and the needs of what has been called the “new majority” of undergraduate college students. This program is offered by the Futures Initiative and was created from their mission, which advocates greater equity and innovation in higher education at every level of the university.

Housed at the Graduate Center and reaching throughout the CUNY community, the Futures Initiative empowers the next generation of intellectual leaders with bold, public, and engaged teaching and learning. With an emphasis on student-centered practices, the Futures Initiative redefines graduate preparation to include translation of specialized research into the best undergraduate teaching, including for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Futures Initiative also fosters greater understanding of the complexities of the higher education landscape by spearheading data-driven research in areas critical to institutional change. Through HASTAC@CUNY (a hub of the online network Humanities, Arts, Science and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory), the Futures Initiative extends its collaborative peer-to-peer practices across institutions, disciplines, national boundaries, and economic and social disparities, promoting reinvestment in higher education as a public good.

Core Values

• Leadership: Training undergraduate students to develop their leadership and mentoring skills to in turn explore limitless post graduate opportunities, career and professional pathways.
• Visionary: Encouraging students to see the potential in achieving their present and future goals and then taking steps to get there.
• Student-centered pedagogy: Non-hierarchical learning structures that emphasize peer learning, peer mentorship, student agency and collaboration.
• Technology: Using mentor’s blog and communication tools to build community and build rapport amongst the leaders and their peers across other CUNY campuses
•  Advocacy: Promoting institutional change, social justice, and the reinvestment in higher education as a public good.
• Social Justice/Community: The FIULP housed at the CUNY Graduate Center is intended to provide an environment that constitutes respect, support, and to structure conversations that relate to race, gender, class, and sexual identity in ways that empower students and foster community.
• Democracy: Through our partnership with The Promise and Perils of Democracy Project supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York we address questions of democracy and informed public engagement. Additional questions include: “What do you imagine democracy to look like ?” “Are democracy and liberation synonymous?” “Will democracy lead to liberation for all?”
• Cultural Responsiveness: The FIULP has strong relationships between the undergraduate leaders, and graduate students, staff and faculty which is at the core of our learning model. We embrace and respect the various cultural backgrounds our students come from, and require fellows to be culturally aware and respectful of their peers.
• Holistic/Integrative: The FIULP integrates social and emotional learning into our competency framework. We strive to make all learning experiences inclusive of these skills in order for students to excel in their courses at their home campuses, careers and community. Being able to manage your relationships and demonstrate leadership can be just as important to success in life as many academic and technical skills.   

Goals

Our hope is that their participation in these activities will be the first step toward a year-long effort to develop and strengthen their leadership and mentoring skills in order for them to seize new possibilities in their personal and professional lives. Other goals include:

By the end of the year, it is our hope that 70 percent of the 30 students enrolled have the following takeaways:  

• Students will have learned leadership and mentoring skills that they can use in their everyday lives and when working alongside their fellow peers at their home campus.
• Student’s self-esteem and confidence levels have strengthened over the course of the program and they are more equipped to navigate the remainder of their academic and personal paths efficiently.
• Students will have knowledge from skill shares completed during the program on how to produce a Resume/CV/Cover letter and all details surrounding interviewing and successfully obtaining a job/position/internship/fellowship etc.
• Students should have a completed writing portfolio with their public blog posts that can be cited on their Resume/CV.
• Students are more culturally aware and socially responsive to cultural biases and better equipped to learn and work in diverse spaces.
• Students are more aware of internships, fellowships, academic and career resources.
• Students should feel more empowered to speak in public and participate in their courses and other spaces.
• Students should have learned to step into leadership roles within the program and can apply this skill to their academic and personal lives.
• Students who participated in Futures Initiative events and or conferences should have acquired many skills that go into conference panel planning and presenting including logistics and other skills.

As outlined above, despite the Graduate Center’s efforts, the current faculty and student population based at the Graduate Center as of Spring 2017 based off the 2013-2018 Faculty Diversity Strategic Plan is severely lacking diversity and faculty of color representation. It is our hope that by the end of each year the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program will help bring diverse undergraduate students to the Graduate Center to engage in leadership, mentoring and FI programming, helping to bridge the gap and deficit that is currently taking place with faculty and students of color at the CUNY Graduate Center.

Implications of Counseling Ethics for Higher Education Pedagogies

As a school counselor, my role is to create a proactive and developmentally appropriate program to address students academic, leadership, and post-graduate career path goals, in addition to supporting their social, emotional, and psychological needs (ASCA 2012).

As a school counselor, director, and administrator, I would like to work with students who come from diverse, multi-cultural underrepresented communities whose transition or experience during high school and college, may or may not have been ideal and have possibly experienced obstacles. I would also like to work with students who are excelling academically and are looking to build their leadership and mentorship skills during their undergraduate college experience. For the students who have experienced hardships behaviorally or academically, I would like to implement restorative practices in order to decrease students from dropping out of school or being lost in the educational system and in life. Through restorative practices, I would like to establish and build community to minimize conflict and tensions by acknowledging trauma and harm students have experienced and working towards establishing healthier functioning and processing patterns for students.

As a school counselor, the use of assessments is an integral part of instruction. We use assessments to determine whether or not the goals of education are being met with students. Assessments affect decisions about grades, placement, advancement, instructional needs, curriculum, and funding. My focus as a school counselor would be to use assessments that will help students during their leadership experience, career and postgraduate pathway and with their social, emotional and psychological well being.

Leadership, mentorship, career readiness, social and emotional wealth, self-care and mental health awareness are key concepts I would like to focus on with students. As a school counselor, I would like to teach students the importance of learning communication skills, empathy, emotional intelligence, team-building skills, and the ability to think strategically. I would like to teach students how to navigate spaces in addition to having vulnerability and wisdom to lead but also follow and act as a team player. As students learn from successful more seasoned peers, family members, teachers, staff, faculty, and those in the workforce they develop confidence, autonomy, and critical thinking skills. The ultimate goal is to support students through collaborative consultation with faculty, staff, graduate and doctoral fellows and other CUNY members to enable all students to become successful, productive citizens and lifelong learners in a diverse and changing world.

Below I have listed the theories that I draw from and have continually involved in the process of striving for students to reach their academic and future career goals: Person-centered counseling, restorative practices, social justice, leadership and mentorship, career and college readiness, student-centered learning and striving toward obtaining equity in the classroom,within higher education and in life.

Theoretical Counseling Approaches to School Counseling:

A social justice perspective acknowledges the role that dominant cultural values have in shaping the educational success and failure of students, as evidenced by the achievement gap. Being aware of the cultural implications of traditional school counseling practice and theory encourages counselors to consider ways in which societal structure and the status quo either privileges them and their students or puts them at a disadvantage (McCoy-Holcomb.C, 2007).

A social justice approach to school counseling is centered on reducing the effects of oppression on students and improving equity and access to educational services. The following factors by McCoy-Holcomb.C (2007) outline social justice counseling approaches that are used in this program.

Theoretical Counseling Approaches to School Counseling:

Social Justice Approaches to School Counseling (McCoy-Holcomb.C, 2007):

• Major focus of counseling is on highlighting the strengths of students (empowerment-based counseling)
• Emphasis on sociocultural and environmental factors (e.g. poverty, discrimination) that influence students behavior and performance
• Major goal of school counseling program is to challenge oppression and oppressive practices in schools
• Emphasis on equality and equity
• School counseling activities/skill shares implemented during the semester and within Futures Initiative University Worth Fighting For Series events and other enrichment outings (e.g. advocating for policies, systemic change, etc.) in higher education, community and the world.
• Avoidance of labeling, Students are described by their strengths and positive characteristics
• Dependence on data and assessment to guide counseling services and to evaluate existing interventions
• Focus on changing existing policies and strategies so that all students are successful
• Focus on training students to step out of their comfort zones and into leadership positions that will help prepare them to navigate the complexities of this world

Person-Centered Counseling (Hazler Richard J., 2016)   

• People are trustworthy, resourceful, capable of self-understanding and self-direction, able to make constructive changes and live effective and productive lives.
• Counselors should strive for “accurate empathic understanding,” or an ability to grasp the subjective world of their students.

• Unconditional positive regard, which means counselors must be empathetic and non-judgmental to convey their feelings of understanding, trust, and confidence that encourage their clients to make their own decisions and choices
• Empathetic understanding, which means counselors completely understand and accept their clients’ thoughts and feelings
• Congruence, which means counselors carry no air of authority or professional superiority but, instead, present a true and accessible self that clients can see is honest and transparent.

Restorative Practices Counseling (Davis.E. F, 2014)

• Engagement-involving individuals in decisions that affect them by listening to their views and genuinely taking their opinions into account.
• Explanation-explaining the reasoning behind a decision to everyone who has been involved or who is affected by it;

• Expectation clarity-making sure that everyone clearly understands a decision and what is expected of them in the future.
• The informal practices include affective statements that communicate people’s feelings, as well as affective questions that cause people to reflect on how their behavior has affected others.
• Engage the school community students returning from an absence due to incarceration, suspension, or expulsion will participate in reentry circles. Many of these practices will involve parents.
• Train students to promote and facilitate circles. Empower them to create a safe and respectful space to talk through instead of fighting through differences.

Leadership and Mentorship

• Teaching students the importance of learning communication skills, empathy, emotional intelligence, team-building skills, the ability to think strategically.
• Teaching students how to navigate spaces in addition to having vulnerability and wisdom to lead but also follow and act as a team player.
• Students learn from successful more seasoned peers, family members, teachers, staff, faculty, and those in the workforce they develop confidence, autonomy, and critical thinking skills.

Career and College Readiness

• Acquiring rigorous knowledge and skills in core academic disciplines
• Obtaining the skills necessary to be successful on their postsecondary path.
• Self-Management
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Personal goal setting
• Problem-solving and critical thinking

By applying and incorporating the above counseling theories, educational practices, continuing to stay abreast of new updates in the ASCA National Model and changes in the field of school counseling, career readiness, social justice and striving for innovative practices in education as a whole, I will be able to provide the best direct counseling and postsecondary services that are effective for all students.

Counseling Practices Used In Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program

Restorative Circles (Bubenik C. 2017)                                                                   

Restorative circles are strategies used in classrooms to develop relationships, build communities, and respond to conflicts and problems that arise. With restorative circles, we give everyone an equal opportunity to speak, and be listened to.

• Only let your participants speak one at a time. Don’t allow interruptions while others are talking. By doing this, you encourage everyone to listen while giving each of them an equal chance to respond.
• Try not to pass judgement, but seek to understand problems. Your circle’s goal isn’t to pass judgement and define punishment. Instead, challenge those involved to understand why the conflict happened, and how it affected others

Sequential Restorative Circles:

In sequential restorative circles, one person speaks at a time. The chance to speak moves around your circle in one direction.

Structuring sequential restorative circles around topics or questions raised by the circle facilitator. This format gives quiet or reserved voices, who often get pressured by loud or assertive voices, a chance to speak freely. By using topics and questions, you also help guide your circle, and give your participants a more structured way of voicing their concerns.

When using a restorative circle, we will often rely on the help of a circle facilitator. Our job as a circle facilitator is to help guide the circle, but not lead it. You don’t determine who is right or wrong. Instead, you keep everyone on track, making sure they all have an equal chance to speak. You don’t need a leader to run a successful restorative circle though. Often you can simply trust your participants to go around, as many times as you need, keeping order yourselves.

Individual Counseling Services:

Individual counseling will be available for students to receive support and experience growth during challenging times in life. Individual counseling can help one deal with many personal topics in life such as anger, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, relationship challenges, parenting problems, school difficulties, career/job changes, etc.

Individual counseling is a process through which clients work one-on-one with a trained professional school counselor or mental health clinician in a safe, caring, and confidential environment. Counseling allows individuals to explore their feelings, beliefs, and behaviors, work through challenging or influential memories, identify aspects of their lives that they would like to change, better understand themselves and others, set personal goals, and work toward desired change.

Individual counseling is counseling focused on the individual's immediate or near future concerns. Individual counseling may encompass career counseling and planning, grief after a loved one dies or dealing with problems at a job before they become big. Individual counseling is a one-on-one discussion between the counselor and the client, who is the person seeking treatment. The two form an alliance, relationship or bond that enables trust and personal growth. For subsequent or follow-up sessions, up to 45 minutes, will be given to students which will be scheduled according to a mutually agreed upon plan. If students have counseling needs that go beyond my school counseling training and what I can provide, then we will work with the student to find a counselor that can accommodate the students needs at their home campus or with an outside organization.  

Recommendations For Future Research

              Student success, equity and inclusion for all students is still very much an ambitious dream that we as educators are working toward making a reality in the 21st century. With an outdated educational model that is still in place today and a severe lack of faculty of color in our college institutions, it is imperative that CUNY and other institutions within higher education promote collaborations across campuses in order to promote new and innovative curriculum. This is necessary to offer students more diversity of faculty, curriculum, and disciplinary choices.

However, it is extremely challenging to obtain funding in higher education institutions for leadership and mentorship programs. Even when they do exist, these programs require constant pitching to funders through philanthropic foundations, searching for funders that are internally and externally connected to the universities, and pursuing grants opportunities to secure funding for these programs. Studies that evaluate how much programmatic resources must be devoted to keeping existing programs alive — rather than being able to focus mostly or solely on day-to-day operations with students — could be useful in “proving” need for more sustainable funding sources.

There is also little research or studies of specifically first-generation students in programs like these, regarding structural and financial hardships such as: the impact on the number of hours a student works trying to balance school with working a job outside the home; the time many devote to childcare if they cannot afford childcare; and other material conditions that compound all the pressures leading to a slower time to complete their degree and contributing to lower completion rates. This includes everything from actual hours in a day to commuting time to decisions by an authority figure (one's supervisor), financial hardships, housing issues, mental and emotional fatigue from navigating issues that plague communities with students of color and underrepresented communities,  health conditions, or a situation (a sick child) that require a student to prioritize daily survival over academics. The majority of studies point to causes that lead to a slower degree, but rarely analyze the actual material (systemic racism which leads to discrimination and unequal opportunities for marginalized groups in education, health care, housing, employment, criminal justice etc.)  that would shed light on where school administrators and policy makers must focus their attention.

             It is important to recognize how to make a connection between higher education and real-world situations, and help students learn how to strategize their education accordingly. This is even more so crucial for students enrolled within CUNY, being that many are first generation students from underrepresented communities that face these exact factors that are a clear disadvantage to them obtaining their degree. Future academic examinations of existing programs like those hosted by FI could help serve as blueprints for student-centered program development.

Recommendations for Future Program Development

Existing research about programs like the Futures Initiative’s efforts to center student-led learning — including the research presented in this book — suggest that communication remains a principle barrier in program development. Accessing information about programs hosted at other campuses remains difficult: in the case of FI’s team-taught course structure, this manifests in it being difficult to coordinate between junior faculty from the two- and four-year campuses to pair and work with a senior faculty member within the CUNY graduate center. These courses require a great deal of coordinating on the level of the provost at both campuses, and with the director of programs within the Futures Initiative. These bureaucratic obstacles exemplify why there is a lack of collaboration that takes place within the various colleges within CUNY, and possibly on broader institutional levels as well.

Lack of effective, student-centered inter- and intra-campus communication is an issue that arises in The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program, as well. Strengths of the program were mentioned frequently in the synthesis report which included its focus on diversity, leadership, student empowerment and involvement, and the fostering of greater communication and time-management skills. However, limitations included respondents stating that they wished the program was even more broadly known throughout the CUNY system, and the need for greater advertising and communication about the program and engagement for the participants outside of the peer mentoring group.

In addition, in future years, it was suggested to focus less on the mentoring aspects of the program and more on fostering leadership and communication skills, personal and team development, and peer-support, all features that were highlighted as key program strengths by participants in the program that year. The feedback of focusing more on fostering leadership and focusing less on the mentoring aspect was implemented into future cohorts and proved to be successful for incoming leaders who entered the program.

Student attrition is also something that was mentioned could be improved that was noticed over the course of the program. Suggestions from leaders included hosting additional meetings at more flexible times that cater to the student’s schedules could possibly help keep students enrolled for the full duration of the program. This feedback has also been implemented into future cohorts and has been noted as extremely helpful in keeping students engaged and staying enrolled in the program for a longer period of time or through the entire duration.

              Other limitations include difficulties with issuing funds to undocumented and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students who are enrolled in the leadership program. There are many students who fall in this category and with our current political climate are not being funded at all or properly in many areas of their life due to their status. The financial strain, and emotional trauma these obstacles cause this population of students due to circumstances that are out of their control can be extremely debilitating, can lead to depression, drug use, and cause many exceptional and highly talented students to drop out of college.

Regarding these structural obstacles of effective, student-centered cross-campus communication, there also should be major education reform on policies that are implemented by the colleges that make it impossible to navigate the bureaucracy in these institutions in order to issue payments to students who are undocumented. These policies that make it impossible to issue financial grants, payments, and stipends to these students is a depleting vicious cycle that continues to plague higher education institutions and often the very students that many of these institutions obtain funding and grants to educate are the same students that are repeatedly exploited and treated with no regard in relation to these payment practices at many college institutions. As mentioned, peer learning practices that draw from counseling philosophies and student-centered pedagogies can go a long way toward addressing these structural and intra-classroom inequities.

References

About City University of New York. Retrieved from: https://www2.cuny.edu/about/

About The Futures Initiative. Retrieved from https://futuresinitiative.org/about/

American School Counselor Association (2012). The ASCA National Model: A framework for

School Counseling Programs, Third Edition. Alexandria, VA: Author. P. 29-30

Arday, J. (2018). Understanding race and educational leadership in higher education: Exploring  

the Black and ethnic minority (BME) experience. Management in Education p.192–200.          

https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618791002

Astin, Alexander W.; Astin, Helen S. (2000) Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging Higher Education in Social Change. INSTITUTION Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI.;

Contributing authors are Kathleen E. Allen, John C. Burkhardt, Christine M. Cress,

Robert A. Flores, Phillip Jones, Nance J. Lucas, Bonnie L. Pribush, William C.

Davidson N Cathy, (2014, Aug. 26).  Handwriting v. Laptops? Why People Ask the Wrong Question (and Why Think Pair Share Rules Yet Again)

https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2014/08/26/handwriting-v-laptops-why-people-ask-wrong-question-and-why-think

Bubenik Cole (2017, June 19) 3 Types of Restorative Circles You can Use in Classrooms

Retrieved from: http://www5.esc13.net/thescoop/behavior/2017/06/19/restorative-circles/

Boud David; Cohen Ruth; Sampson Jane. (2013)Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning  From & Within Each Other.

CBS. Picchi, A.(2018, February 8). 9 American cities with the worst income inequality. Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/media/9-american-cities-with-the-worst-income-inequality/

Channel Islands. Individual Counseling Services Retrieved from:

https://www.csuci.edu/caps/individual-counseling.htm

CUNY Humanities Alliance. Retrieved from: http://cunyhumanitiesalliance.org/

CUNY Pipeline Program. Retrieved here: http://www.diversiphd.com/

Davidson. N. C.(2017). By Basic Books.The New Education. How to Revolutionize the  

University to Prepare Students for a World in Flux. p.7, 9, 43-44

Davidson N. Cathy; Rogers L. Katina. (2017 January) Teagle Renewal - 2016 - Liberal Arts for  

the New Majority. Proposal for the Teagle Foundation (Confidential)

Davis.E. Fania (2014, September 26) 8 Tips for Schools Interested in Restorative Justice

Restorative justice promotes a positive, orderly school environment. Students and all

members of the school community can learn and practice self-discipline, empathy, and    

accountability.

Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/blog/restorative-justice-tips-for-schools-fania-dav

Dorsch Michael. (2017 June) The Futures Initiative’s Liberal Arts for the New Majority / Peer Mentorship Program Evaluation Synthesis Report. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dk4SKRciMHTU38utH-7gYonGiSu1t2S-3E3xMJnteDk/edit#heading=h.ogcexc3pvunk

Dorsch Michael (2017 June) The Futures Initiative Liberal Arts for the New Majority Program - Undergraduate Student Mentors Survey. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wXlAaZ-o1mJxJI-yRl4eDEH0jP2PLredx596iUn5PP0/edit

Dorsch Michael. (2017 June) The Futures Initiative Visionary Leadership Program Interview Questions. Retrieved here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dk4SKRciMHTU38utH-7gYonGiSu1t2S-3E3xMJnteDk/edit#heading=h.d6bf5rs3ohpj

Futures Initiative, City University of New York. Annual Report of the Futures Initiative(2017-2018)

Futures Initiative Mentor Blog. Retrieved from: https://futuresinitiative.org/mentors/

Graduate Center Institutional Profile. (2019) Retrieved from:    

https://www.gc.cuny.edu/About-the-GC/Institutional-Profile

Graduate Center and Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness-Profile. Retrieved from:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/jennifer.kobrin#!/vizhome/GraduateCenterStudentDiversity/Diversity

Graduate School and University Center. Faculty Diversity Strategic Plan Spring 2017 Update. Retrieved from:

https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Compliance%20and%20Diver

Greenblatt D; Flanagan Oliphint Janey (2015) Summary Report: A Mixed Methods Study on the

Course: Mapping Futures of Higher Education at CUNY. Retrieved from:

https://futuresinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FINAL_REPORT_MFHE-2.pdf

HASTAC 2019 Conference. Retrieved from: http://hastac2019.org/

Hazler, Richard J. (2016) Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories and Interventions. Chapter 7:  

Person-Centered Theory. 6th Ed. American Counseling Association.

Herman Calvin (2018, December 20) What it takes to earn my respect. By Calvin Herman.  

Retrieved from:

https://futuresinitiative.org/mentors/2018/12/20/what-it-takes-to-earn-my-respect/

Holman Kaysi.(2019 January) Résumé Building. Retrieved from:  

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uxu6_8z31rOJ03ELCxTq21BNJ3EXMy7L7-bNzcZw_Os/edit

Lays, J.(2019, January 9).These Challenges Are Sure to Keep Lawmakers Busy as Legislatures Reconvene This Year. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/bookstore/state-legislatures-magazine/biggest-issues-to-watch-in-2019.aspx

Lavinsky Dave. (2013, April 26) Are You a Visionary Business Leader? Retrieved from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davelavinsky/2013/04/26/are-you-a-visionary-business-leader/#220752187bbf

Mapping the Futures of Higher Education - CUNY Flyover Tour of New York City

(2015, May 22).Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4EF_n6wucU

Maria Martinez Witte, Jane B. Teel, Leslie A. Cordie and James E. Witte, Building Capacity

through Student Leadership Development and Practices, Encyclopedia of Strategic  

Leadership and Management, 10.4018/978-1-5225-1049-9.ch003, (29-41), (2017).

McCoy-Holcomb.C (2007). By Corwin Press. School Counseling To Close The Achievement  

Gap. A Social Justice Framework For Success by: Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy. p.12,16, 18-19

Melendez Lauren. (2017) Sample Agenda Used at Monthly Meet-up. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZYDT3ijuqRB7WrX5556Bi1gsw_Re-hgM2LFkkuAIcms/edit

Melendez Lauren.(2018) The Futures Initiative Leadership Fellows-Blog Prompts. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18335E4sJ8AKj6Atp7rgTpN-0i9DjW_OTID_VVAZ7Xko/edit

Melendez Lauren. (2018) Sample Fall 2018- Spring 2019 Calendar/Schedule. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18fAGNW1IWd5cxhBcrfGopRCYDa2JCo8HOGVhyoSwL5Q/edit

Melendez L. (2018). Schedule For Leadership Fellows Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18fAGNW1IWd5cxhBcrfGopRCYDa2JCo8HOGVhyoSwL5Q/edit#heading=h.xy94ikv0zetb

Melendez, Lauren. (2019, April 12). HASTAC Conference May 16-18, 2019 (Lauren M.)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n0DVxZVJgE9Ff5woQsadMHC4BETVnVO95zKp4Ud-bRM/edit

Melendez Lauren. (2019 April) Undergraduate Student Survey - Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program + Mental Health & Student Factors Survey: Retrieved here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1yx9inYYIy_9xMgH13bZWd5s9thm9prTx2xK-JXQLg-4/edit

Melendez, Lauren; Hutchinson, Kashema. (2020, July 21) A Year In Review: The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program (2019-2020 Cohort) By: Lauren Melendez and Kashema Hutchinson

Retrieved from: https://futuresinitiative.org/mentors/2020/07/21/a-year-in-review-the-futures-initiative-undergraduate-leadership-program-2019-2020-cohort/

Mission and History, City University of New York. Retrieved from: http://www2.cuny.edu/about/history/

New CUNY Study Shows Mixed Progress on Equality in New York City. (2017, December 14)

CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance. Retrieved from: http://islg.cuny.edu/sites/2017/12/14/new-cuny-study-shows-mixed-progress-on-equality-in-new-york-city-2/ 

New York Post. O’Neill, N. (2018, September 10). 8 CUNY Schools Ranked In Country’s Top 50 in The North. Retrieved from 8 CUNY schools ranked in country’s top 50 in the north

Osteen Laura; Coburn B. Mary. (2012 December, 18) Considering Context: Developing        Students' Leadership Capacity.

Primm. B. Annelle (2018, April 2). By American Council on Education. College Students of

Color: Confronting the Complexities of Diversity, Culture, and Mental Health

Retrieved from:

https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/04/02/college-students-color-confronting-complexities-diversity-culture-mental-health/

Reckmeyer, Bettye Parker Smith, and Kathleen A. Zimmerman-Oster. Foreword by

William C. Richardson p.3, 9

Rogers L. K. The University Worth Fighting For Events. Retrieved from:

https://futuresinitiative.org/blog/2015/08/03/the-university-worth-fighting-for/

South Bronx Community Charter High School. Student & Family Handbook. (2016) Retrieved from: http://www.southbronxcommunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SBC-Handbook-9-16.pdf. P. 5,7

Stebleton, Michael; Soria, Krista. (2013, June 3) Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-generation students at research universities. (The Learning Assistance Review, 2013)

Retrieved from: breaking down barriers.pdf (258.3Kb application/pdf)

Stewart, A. J. & Valian, V. (2018). An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. P.13

Team-Taught Courses: Equity, Diversity, and Student-Centered Pedagogy. (2015, August 3)

Across the Disciplines. Retrieved from: https://futuresinitiative.org/courses/

Time to Change Student Mental Health poll. Retrieved from:  

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/studentpoll

Tran Frances (2017, Oct. 16). Making Time for Listening Dyads in the Classroom

https://www.hastac.org/blogs/francest/2017/10/16/making-time-listening-dyads-classroom

Wilcox Kim. (2017, May 9) Expert: Achievement Gap: A National Crisis. Retrieved from:  

https://diverseeducation.com/article/96296/

Appendix A

Futures Initiative Team-Taught Courses

Fall 2019

Voices of the City: accessibility, reciprocity, and self-representation in place-based community research

Tarry Hum (Queens College and The Graduate Center, Environmental Psychology)

Prithi Kanakamedala (Bronx Community College, History)

Fall 2019, Thursdays, 2-4pm

Course Number: IDS 81620

Course Description:

Scholars active in place-based or participatory action research are committed to documenting community narratives and neighborhoods. It is central to our work, rooted in social justice, that these communities are not just represented, but that they have equitable stake in the project. Yet practitioners across the city struggle with core issues of accessibility, reciprocity, self-representation, and equity within the communities they work with. Who do place-based researchers represent, and does our work empower communities to tell their own stories? What histories do we contest and perpetuate with this work? And, who gets to participate? This inter-disciplinary course combines best or effective practices in Public History, Oral History, and Urban Planning to consider a number of projects in New York City that seek to document communities and narratives about the city that are not traditionally represented.

Fall 2019

Climate Change and Discursive Frames: From Scientific Discourse to the Public Sphere

José del Valle (The Graduate Center, LAILAC)

David Lindo Atichati (College of Staten Island and The Graduate Center; Engineering and Earth and Environmental Sciences)

Fall 2019, Tuesdays, 11:45am-1:45pm

Course Number: IDS 81630

Course Description:

This course examines how scientific literature on climate change is discursively framed, how it becomes reframed as it travels to the social spaces where public opinion is negotiated, and how those linguistic and textual strategies shape and are shaped by the political economy of climate debates, that is, by the specific geopolitical and social positions of the different stakeholders. The climate literature produced by the specialized sciences is vast and not easy to transfer, on one hand, to the academic realm of the humanities and, on the other, to the complex public sphere where issues of political importance are selected and debated. The purpose of this course is, first, to explore the possibilities of a new interface between sociolinguistics and environmental science to raise awareness of the challenges faced when we position ourselves outside of our communities of scholarly practice. Secondly, the course aims at providing students with tools to perform a mediating role between specialized knowledge production and the public. We will offer a discussion-style class of key emerging issues related to climate change and atmospheric teleconnections using a critical discourse approach.

Fall 2019

Interdisciplinary Topics in Law: Mothers in Law (MALS 70400)

Julie Suk (The Graduate Center, Dean of Master’s Programs and Professor of Sociology, Political Science, and MALS)

Sara McDougall (John Jay College, Global History; The Graduate Center, French and History)

Fall 2019, Mondays, 11:45am-1:45pm

Course Number: IDS 81640; MALS 70400

Course Description:

This course will introduce students to central issues in the history and sociology of law through the study of motherhood. The lens of motherhood will open up broader themes in the study of law and society, including categories such as gender, constitutionalism, and criminal justice. Studying the socio-legal history of motherhood will enable students to learn the skills of legal reasoning, utilize methods of legal-historical research, and pursue experiential learning through field studies, panel discussions open to the public, and the authoring of publicly available teaching materials on select topics.

First, we will explore how ideas of women as mothers have been enshrined in law, from the legal definition of the mother in civil law, to the legal treatment of pregnancy.

Second, this course will study women as lawmakers, as “founding mothers” of twentieth-century constitutions, and laws more generally. We will explore biographies of women lawyers and lawmakers.

Third, we will consider mothers as law-breakers, by engaging the history of mothers in prison, and the current legal issues arising from incarceration of mothers. This component of the course may include field trips to engage the criminal justice system.

Fall 2019

Transformations of Modernity, 1914-present

Karen Miller (The Graduate Center and LaGuardia Community College, MALS and History)

Andrea Morrell (Guttman Community College)

Fall 2019, Thursdays, 4:15-6:15 pm

Course Number: IDS 81650; MALS 70800

Course Description:

This class will put colonial relations of power at the center of our study, exploring how claims about modernity have been used to both amplify and challenge inequalities on both intimate and global scales. It will interrogate the widely held assumption that “modernity” is linked to liberty, freedom, and state-protected equality. Instead, it will examine the multiple, contested, and conflicting meanings that people have used to understand the concept of modernity from the early 20th century into the present. How, we will ask, have various people used the moniker “modern” and to what end? How have modernity’s opposites – primitivity / backwardness / tradition – also been used to characterize spaces, people, institutions, states, “cultures,” geographies, technologies, etc.? In other words, we will explore the incredibly mixed set of foundations and legacies that shape the notion of modernity, as well as a range of responses from a range of different positions to its contradictory sensibilities. This class is interdisciplinary and will examine these questions through a range of texts, disciplines, and methodologies.

Fall 2019

Mind the Gap: Technologies, trends, and policies that will shape the future of work

Ann Kirschner (University Professor, CUNY)

Fall 2019, Tuesdays, 4:15-6:15 pm

Course Number: IDS 81660

Course Description:

Coming soon to your neighborhood…Driverless cars. Stores without cashiers. Supermarkets stocked with food that was harvested by robots and delivered by drones. Restaurant with automated burger flippers. Classrooms stocked with virtual reality headsets and no teachers. Nursing homes with comfort care e-surrogates. Hospitals with virtual doctors. Brain-computer interfaces that cure blindness and fix spinal cord injuries.

Sometimes called the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the Second Machine Age, we are on the cusp of an era in which artificial intelligence, automation, genetics, robotics, nanotechnology, 3D printing, to name just a few, are transforming how we live, learn, and earn. In previous eras, major shifts in technology created as many new jobs as they destroyed. Are we doomed to a period of massive unemployment and social unrest? Or is this the new utopia?

Mind the Gap will address this question: As we think about the range of possibilities — from the utopian to the dystopian — what are the policies, technologies, and social systems that should be anticipated today to ensure positive outcomes for the future? The course will examine the historical role of work, the outcomes of previous technological shifts, and the ethical dimensions that should inform our planning for the future. The focus will not only be on technology but on drivers for change, the context in which they are taking place, from changing demographics to globalization to climate change.

The course assumes that technology is not created in a vacuum, that the future is a page not yet written, and that we have a window of time in which business, government, and the individual can proactively adapt and shape a better future.

Spring 2020

Introduction to Engaged Teaching for Transformative Learning in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Cathy N. Davidson (The Graduate Center, English and the Futures Initiative)

Eduardo Vianna (LaGuardia Community College, Social Sciences, and The Graduate Center, Psychology)

Day/Time: TBD

Course Number: IDS 81670

Course Description:

What does it mean to “introduce” a student to a field? This course is intended for any graduate student in the humanities or social sciences who is thinking seriously about the deepest “why” and “how” questions about their discipline and how those apply to their own research and teaching. We will begin with theoretical questions about disciplines, fields, foundations, pedagogy, research, aesthetics, and institutional structures alongside issues of equity, diversity, inclusion, social justice, engagement, and transformation. In each class and in final projects, we will encourage students to transform critique into engaged practice.

Students will work collaboratively on analyzing and then designing: (1) a standard anthology or textbook in their field; (2) key articles or critical texts in their field; (3) standard syllabi of introductory or “core” courses in their field; (4) keywords in their field. Students will leave the course with a deeper understanding of the assumptions of their field and new methods for transformative learning that support diversity, inclusion, and a more equitable form of higher education. Our aim is to work toward “research with a transformative activist agenda” and teaching and mentoring as a “collaborative learning community project” that, in the end, contributes to education as a public good and a more just and equitable society.

Readings will be chosen from: Lev Vygotsky, Paulo Freire, bell hooks, Frantz Fanon, Audre Lorde, Anna Stetsenko, Michelle Fine, Ira Shor, Stuart Hall, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, José Munoz, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Judith Butler, Peter Galison, Sara Ahmed, Alfie Kohn, Christopher Newfield, John Warner, Kandice Chuh, Roderick Ferguson, Kurt Lewin, Lisa Lowe, Tressie McMillan Cottom, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Michael Fabricant, Stephen Brier, Cathy Davidson, Eduardo Vianna, as well as authors included in the crowdsourced “Progressive Pedagogy” bibliography being developed on hastac.org: (https://www.hastac.org/blogs/ckatopodis/2019/01/11/progressive-pedagogy-public-working-bibliography)

Spring 2020

Psychological Dis-ease Swelling in Contentious Times: Contributors, sustainers, and resistors

Michelle Fine (The Graduate Center, Psychology and Urban Education, MALS, and Women’s and Gender Studies)

Desiree Byrd (Queens College, Psychology)

Spring 2020, Mondays, 11:45am

Course Number: IDS 81680

Course Description:

The lived experience of mental health in the US, and in NYC in particular, reveals systemic inequities that result in disparate levels of navigational burden for cultural minorities and other marginalized citizens living with mental illness.  This introductory graduate course shifts the framework of pathological analysis from age old psychological theories to applied socio political realities that will critically interrogate literatures on anxiety, paranoia, immigration, trauma, crime, violence and mental health and deconstructs how psychopathology varies by race/ethnicity, immigration status, income level, religion, sexuality and gender. As this course traverses through mood, anxiety and thought disorders, students will read, critique and create interdisciplinary “documents” and performances at the intersection of research, law, policy and analysis to connect individual level “mental health” concerns with the sociopolitical realities of modern day NYC. Working in interdisciplinary groups, students will select an “angle” for critical analysis, blending scholarly reviews, popular media and participant observation/interviews with respect to a range of issues, including the racialized criminalization of mental health and  police violence against women of color suffering from mental illness. This course will also involve lectures from/visits with activists as well as organizers involved with interpersonal violence, mass incarceration, addiction communities, immigration justice groups, and community leaders who  have cultivated unique interventions at the grass roots level to counter the impact of mental health disparities within varied neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs.

Spring 2021

Constructing History: Architecture and Alternative Histories of New York

Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis (M.A. Program in Liberal Studies, The Graduate Center)

Jason Montgomery (Architectural Technology, New York City College of Technology)

Spring 2021, Wednesdays, 4:15pm

Course Number: IDS 81630 / ASCP 82000

Course Description:

Architecture and the built environment are products of their social, political, and economic circumstances. New York City, a perpetually evolving metropolis, has been shaped by successive waves of immigration, shifting economic priorities (from agriculture and manufacturing to finance and technology), and politics. Today, the impact of gentrification, the lack of affordable housing, and climate change is evident in New York City’s built environment. This is not a new story, but one that has been intrinsic to New York City since its founding. Therefore, rather than relying on the written record as the main evidence for exploring New York’s history, this course will introduce students to the built environment and use the urban fabric of New York–its buildings, streets, and places, along with primary source materials about these edifices from libraries and archives–to construct alternative histories of the city. Erected, used, and inhabited by people of all colors, creeds, socio-economic backgrounds and cultures, architecture and the built environment allows us different insights into the development of New York’s history, inviting us to develop alternative stories about the city’s past. The study of architecture and the built environment is inherently interdisciplinary. Students will be introduced to diverse research methods and will be tasked with conducting place-based research on New York City’s built environment during site visits and visits to archives and libraries. The students in the course will have an opportunity to generate new knowledge about New York City, its built environment, and people.

Spring 2021

Science & Diplomacy: What Scientists Can do on a Global Stage

Mandë Holford (Biology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry, Hunter College and the Graduate Center)

Shirley Raps (Biology, Hunter College and The Graduate Center)

Spring 2021, Wednesdays, 10:10am

Course Number: IDS 81670

Course Description:

The challenges that scientists today encounter are more complex and far-reaching than ever before. This introductory course invites the early career scientific community to consider the role and responsibility of science in diplomacy and peace building. This role can manifest at multiple levels: individual scientists should adhere to a set of responsible/ethical research practices, and the international communities of scientists and diplomats must come together to negotiate agreements to place restrictions on scientists engaging in research that could be considered ‘dual-use’, while promoting research for peaceful purposes. Essential to success for scientists are skills for problem solving, seeking alternative creative approaches, finding win/win opportunities, building trust and consensus, and communicating in thoughtful and persuasive ways. But these skills have not been conceived in the context of the worlds of diplomacy and international security, nor are they usually part of the learning pathway for most scientists. There is therefore a need to “hack” the application of these skills for diplomacy and international security. If we want to help young scientists engage in solving global challenges that threaten society, such as the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we must give them the tools they need to do so with sensitivity and dexterity. This course will expose its participants to critical science leadership skills, and provide them with a tool kit to augment their impact as scientists and science diplomats. The course uses role playing and experiential field visits to reinforce the participants bond as a network of young scientists, inspire them to interact and add value to their communities and importantly, to be prepared to extend the mission of the Future Initiative by fostering deeper conversations and connections about the future of higher education and educational innovation.

The shorthand term Science Diplomacy (SD) spans wide-ranging activities connecting science and technology with international affairs. The goals of the course are to help early career scientists: (a) think more systematically about the global potential of their work, including ethical, political, and economic implications; and (b) become acquainted with the people, networks, and resources available for scientific cooperation, including those nations with whom cooperation may be especially difficult.

Spring 2021

Cities and Disaster: Past, Present, and Future

Cary Karacas (Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Graduate Center | Political Science and Global Affairs, College of Staten Island)

Robin Kietlinski (History, LaGuardia Community College)

Spring 2021, Wednesdays, 11:45am

Course Number: IDS 81640

Course Description:

This team-taught, interdisciplinary course will focus on disasters faced by major urban centers across a broad span of time and place. Taught by a geographer and a historian who both specialize in the intersection of cities and crisis, the course will offer a unique perspective on critical issues that arise when cities and citizens are forced to endure a catastrophic event. The course will be divided into three thematic and chronological units: 1) PAST: The focus of this unit will be on the historic destruction and subsequent remaking of important urban centers such as Lisbon, Chicago, Chongqing, Dresden, and Tokyo as a result of earthquakes, fires, and wartime bombing; 2) PRESENT: Cities that have recently experienced destruction and reconstruction as a result of worsening climate conditions, with a sustained focus on New York City during and after Hurricane Sandy; and 3) FUTURE: An examination of cities in the Global South that are being and will continue to be impacted by environmental degradation, climate change, and diminishing resources such as water. We will interrogate differences between the concepts of “natural” versus “man-made” disasters, looking at specific case studies as we discuss how and why the line is not always a clear one.

Working in conjunction with the Graduate Center’s Teaching & Learning Center, we will have each of our students develop a single lecture that connects general concepts learned in the course to a specific example of a city impacted by disaster that they will research throughout the semester. Ideally, by the end of the semester, each student will have delivered their lecture to an undergraduate class (either an Urban Geography or Introduction to Geography course offered at the College of Staten Island, or a World History survey course at LaGuardia).

This course will contribute to diversity at the Graduate Center in a number of ways. Across our team-teaching partnership we will balance our work evenly, and anticipate a good working relationship as we both have prior experience in team teaching. Both instructors have worked in a team-teaching capacity in Japan, and Dr. Kietlinski has team-taught four semesters of World History at LaGCC with a PhD student from Columbia University’s South Asia Institute (in an innovative partnership that she established between LaGCC and Columbia in 2014). Structurally, our class at the Graduate Center will use pedagogical methods that ensure inclusion and equity such as open educational resources (discussed in the below section on pedagogical innovation). We will utilize an online platform to upload course materials in an effort to both offer greater access and to reduce ecological impact. Finally, the course content included in our syllabus will be diverse in terms of challenging a traditional Western canon. The third unit on future challenges to the Global South will be noteworthy in its inclusion of voices of scholars from India and other countries facing the most acute threats.

Equity, Elitism, and Public Higher Education

Matt Brim (Queer Studies and English, College of Staten Island)

Katina Rogers (Futures Initiative, Digital Humanities, and M.A. Program in Liberal Studies, The Graduate Center)

Spring 2021, Tuesdays, 6:30pm

Course Number: IDS 81660

Course Description:

Higher education can be a powerful engine of equity and social mobility. Yet many of the structures of colleges and universities—including admissions offices, faculty hiring committees, disciplinary formations, institutional rankings, and even classroom pedagogies and practices of collegiality—rely on tacit values of meritocracy and an economy of prestige. For public universities like CUNY this tension can be especially problematic, as structurally-embedded inequities undermine the institution’s democratizing mission and values. It is no surprise that normative institutional structures correspond with normative formulations of sexuality, class, race, and gender such that sociocultural biases are built in to the academy. This correspondence governs what counts as valuable intellectual work, and in doing so, it also overdetermines where and how and to whom resources accrue in the university. In other words, many academic structures actually undermine the values that we associate with possibilities for the most challenging and productive and diverse academic life.

In this course, we examine the purposes and principles of universities, especially public universities; consider whether various structures advance or undermine those goals; and imagine new possibilities for educational systems that weave equity into the fabric of all they do. We frame the tension between progressive academic values and conservative institutional structures in a number of ways: equity vs. elitism, public vs. private education, innovation vs. normative instruction, prestige vs. the public good. Our privileged methodology for considering the inequities and opportunities of university life will be queer of color and feminist materialist analyses, an interdisciplinary set of methods and methodologies that lend themselves to identifying, historicizing, and resisting institutional norms that produce queer-class-race-gender stratification in the university. Crucially, because these intellectual tools are themselves housed within institutional formations, they will be objects of our investigation as well as methods of analysis. We also draw on the relatively new field of Critical University Studies to frame the work of the course.

Our chief test-object, as well as our worksite, will be the public City University of New York system. CUNY is an ideal site for the production of place-based knowledge and pedagogical innovation using the methods just described, including a queer of color case study approach, for CUNY is a singular site of queer/race/class density within all of higher education. It is also an institution that provides models for structuring academic work according to the values of equity and democratic knowledge production. As final projects for the course, students may choose to use these models as a guide in designing undergraduate courses and innovative academic structures. Alternately, students may choose to write a final research paper. Students can also expect to blog on futuresinitiative.org throughout the semester, co-create part of the class syllabus, and make connections with CUNY colleagues and resources as part of their course work. Several course sessions will be open to the CUNY community and the broader public. We will use open educational resources to the extent possible.

The following course was originally slated for 2020-2021 and has been postponed to 2021-2022:

Black Diasporic Visions: (De)Constructing Modes of Power

Javiela Evangelista (African American Studies, New York City College of Technology)

Carla Shedd (Urban Education, The Graduate Center)

2021-2022 (TBA)

Course Number: IDS 81680

Course Description:

Black Diasporic Visions turns us toward a myriad of pathways for liberation formed by African people and people of African descent inside and outside of oppressive structures of power, as well as the development of alternative visions and spaces. More specifically, in this course, we consider these constructions which are often despite, within and at the intersections of institutions and systems that impact education, the prison industrial complex, food justice, public planning, preservation, legal personhood and climate change. It is our hope that the knowledge that grows out of Black Diasporic Visions may inform and continue to be informed by urgent interventions and creations today.

African people and people of African descent have always, envisioned, created. It is in part for the capture of innovation for profit, that early African civilizations were enslaved and African developments redirected. Let us read African and African descendant innovations and demands for being, with as much rigor as we read exploitation and oppression. In Black Diasporic Visions we consider how the tools of literary archaeology and magical realism inform how freedom dreams and provide possibilities for just existences and being seen. We examine what may be gleaned from the use of the ringshout by artist Common to honor the life of Freddie Grey, the Free Breakfast Programs organized by the Black Panther Party for educational reform, large statutes of African descendants by artists such as Simone Leigh and Kehinde Wiley that reclaim and redefine public space, community incorporation of solar panels and farming into educational programming in post hurricane Puerto Rico, embodied avatars as a means of survival as defined by Uri McMillan, and the call and response of #sayhername?

New technologies of expulsion and racial capital call for us to consider what it means to be in the wake, doing wake work, as described by Christina Sharpe. The range of constructions and visions reviewed in this course serve as correctives and prescriptives to the problems of omission and misrepresentation in academia, archives and society at large. Ultimately, Black Diasporic Visions, centralizes historically and globally informed liberatory possibilities, imperative to our lives today, that challenge divides between theory and practice.

Appendix B

The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program: Sample Content

Sample Agenda Used at Monthly Meet-up Reference: (Melendez J. L, Oct. 16, 2017):

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program

October Meeting Sample Agenda

6:00-6:10          

Brief Welcome back from F.I. Staff (Lauren, Kashema)

• Invite Leadership Fellows To Upcoming Futures Initiative Events:

•  On Thursday, Oct. 19: From Dissertation to First Book. Featuring Ken Wissoker (Editorial Director of Duke University Press) in conversation with Kalle Westerling (Futures Initiative Fellow) The talk will be from 12:00 - 2:00 pm, It will be at the Graduate Center, room 9207.

• Description of Talk: Discussion about best practices for doctoral students who intend to turn their dissertations into books. Drawing on Ken’s long-standing expertise in academic publishing, having produced more than nine hundred books that have garnered over one hundred prizes, the conversation will touch on a variety of topics: At what point in the process should I contact an academic press? How should I prepare for different types of interactions with an editor (in-person, email, phone call)? What are some strategies for working effectively with an editor? What does an experienced editor look for in a book proposal? What does a book proposal and/or book contract look like? When does an experienced editor know when they see “good writing”? What goes into an editor’s decision in selecting a book for publication? This event is open to the public. Especially students who are finalizing their dissertations are encouraged to attend.

• The University Worth Fighting For Event: Director and Founder of The Futures Initiative Cathy N. Davidson is promoting her new book The New Education which will take place on Monday Nov. 6 in the Elebash Recital Hall (1st floor) from 6:30pm-7:45pm.

• Description of Talk: In her latest book, The New Education: How to Revolutionize the University to Prepare Students for a World in Flux (Basic Books, Fall 2017), Cathy N. Davidson argues that the American university is stuck in the past--and shows how we can revolutionize it to prepare students for our age of constant change. From the Ivy League to community colleges, Davidson introduces us to innovators who are remaking college by emphasizing student-centered learning that values creativity, dexterity, innovation, and social change. In this talk, Davidson shows how we can revolutionize our universities to help students be leaders of change, not simply subject to it. The talk will be followed by a conversation with NPR’s Anya Kamanetz.

6:10 - 6:40          

Wellness Check-In (Lauren)

• Ask the group what college they attend, what their major is and a fun fact about themselves. Also any challenges or things they want to share about how the semester is going for them so far.

6:40 - 7:00         

Leadership Listening and Talk Time Activity (Kashema)

During this time, I will pitch the idea of the Leadership Listening and Talk Time to get feedback from the Leaders about it. What are the benefits, how do they think it should be scheduled (drop-in or appointment?) What are topics they would like to discuss? What forms of technology will be used (Skype, phone, email, chat, Slack). Generally getting their thoughts and concerns to make it an effective initiative.

7:00 - 7:45

Listening Dyad Activity Based off of Kalief Browder Story (Lauren)

Video: Kalief Browder's Life Behind Bars and Who He Might Have Been

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv6gSl4JcFA

Listening Prompt:

Kalief Browder, a Bronx, New York, man who committed suicide after spending years in solitary confinement at just 16, will have a street named in his honor.

According to a press release, Council Member Ritchie Torres unveiled the new street sign on what would’ve been Browder’s 24th birthday, which is “Kalief Browder Way” off Prospect Ave, and 181st. street in the Bronx, NYC.

“Renaming a street that will bear his name is not merely an honor for him. It will stand as a moral inspiration to the rest of us,” Torres said Thursday. “The virtue of one’s life is measured by the impact that one has on others. Those of you who knew Kalief are better people for having known him. And those of us who knew of Kalief are better for having been awakened and inspired by his struggle for justice.”

• Listening Dyad Activity (Exercise from: Frances Tran adapted from pedagogical practice she encountered as an undergraduate in Professor Roger Sedarat's "Postcolonial Literature" course at Queens College, CUNY.)
• Everyone speaks and everyone listens for a specified duration of time. (A minimum of 2 minutes each)
• Listeners cannot interrupt speakers at any moment during the dyad, even if it seems like they have run out of things to say. Nonverbal responses such as smiling, nodding, and raising your eyebrows are permissible).
• Whatever is discussed in the dyad remains confidential to ensure openness and build trust.
• During the group reflection after the dyad (usually 5 minutes), people can share what they discussed or invite their partners to share. There is no pressure to opt-in or -out of the group reflection.

• Outline general guidelines
• What is your main take-away from learning about the struggles Kalief endured over the course of his trial and what ultimately resulted in his untimely death?

• Feedback From Leaders and Main Takeaways

7:45 - 8:00        

Exit Ticket: Think-Pair-Share on October blog post prompt (Kashema)

Think-Pair-Share Method (Exercise from: Cathy N. Davidson)

Using index cards, write three things. Take 90 seconds to do this. Then have participants turn to another person, compare their listed items, and together decide on the one best answer they want to present ("share") with the group as a whole where, of course, there will be other answers also arrived at through a similar dialogic process. When they share their answer with the larger group, they hear it in a new way, in a context of other answers.

• Leaders will work individually and brainstorm on a blog post prompt (and why) they will like to reflect on for the November blog post

• Blog due date will be on November 17th at 5pm.

Blog Prompt:

It’s about education. What type of education do we have? What kind of education ought we have?

Sample Blog Prompt and Writing Sample

Blog Prompt November (Melendez J. L, 2017)

Describe what it takes for a person to earn your respect. We all admire different people we have come across for their leadership skills whether we realize it or not. This person could be a teacher, friend or family member. Pick one person whom you admire for their leadership skills and write about the traits that make them special and how they have influenced you in some way. (300-500 words+)

Sample Writing Sample (Herman C. 2018)

What it takes to earn my respect. By Calvin Herman on December 20, 2018                

            We live in a world where everyone has a universal role to play in making it a better place. At the same time, everyone develops a unique story, in which they experienced hardships. These realities altogether make us humans. However, I am more interested in what people do with

these realities. Those who have overcome or are overcoming their obstacles and have used their lives for the greater good earn my respect. I always admire those who recognize their adversity and turn it into their strength, instead of allowing it to be their weakness.

             There are countless individuals who have earned my respect. Generally, these are people from whom I draw inspirations and learn personal and leadership qualities. Nonetheless, one individual always stands out to me, and that is Michelle Obama. The former First Lady of the United States has caught my attention ever since I was a high school senior. Before then, I didn’t know much about Michelle aside from her being the First Lady and her living in the White House. However, after hearing her life story, I immediately felt inspired, and after learning more about the works she has done, I could not help but feel more hopeful about the next generation and the world at large.

             Michelle clearly has a passion for ensuring access to education. One of her initiatives, the Reach Higher Initiative, is designed to inspire students across the country to pursue post-secondary education. By attaining higher education, students make themselves more competitive in the job market and give themselves the power to make the country’s economy more robust. The Initiative serves to raise awareness regarding various resources that students need to know about college, such as FAFSA and UpNext. Furthermore, the Initiative aims to boost the capacity of school counselors. The idea behind this is that students who meet with a counselor is more likely to attend college, and given the dire counselor-to-student ratio—a mere 1:490—the Reach Higher Initiative works to give college counselors, college access professionals, and researchers many opportunities to exchange approaches that can help counselors increase their students’ success. This work inspires me, since one of the issues that I care deeply about is access to higher education, specifically in the realm of educational inequality. Let’s face it: the idea of access to higher education is different for different students, depending on a myriad of factors, such as wealth, race, etc. Because of this unfortunate reality, I commend the goal of the Reach Higher Initiative to inspire “every student” in America. To realize this goal, we, on the community level, must also act. Our role as a collective is to recognize the inequality that exists and impact the local communities by helping disadvantaged students. (Feel free to check out my piece on educational inequality here.)

          Clearly, Michelle Obama has earned my respect. Not only has she been a powerful force of positive changes in the world, but she has also surmounted numerous obstacles along the way. Let’s not forget where Michelle came from. She grew up on the South Side of Chicago and was born to a working-class family. She climbed the social ladder by attaining her degrees and eventually became a lawyer. She received countless criticisms during her time as the First Lady. But besides earning my respect, she has influenced my life in a more profound way. One of her messages that has resonated with me the most is her message of hope. She always emphasizes the importance of being optimistic and hopeful, even during tumultuous times. She challenged my perspective by asking “what is the alternative?” This question was an eye-opener for me because that’s when I realized that there is no alternative to hope—no good ones at least. I can’t resort to fear. Or anger. Or intimidation. At a time such as this, life can be very difficult, and I am sure that many resonate with this sentiment. However, Michelle’s constant reminder of the importance of hope has lifted up some of my burden and has given me so much to look forward to in my generation, the next, and beyond.

Sample Re-Cap Of Meet-up: Mass Incarceration on Communities of Color (Melendez L. 2019)

Another topic and core component to the FIULP that is covered each year is social justice. Social Justice is based on the belief that all people in the world are equally valuable and have human rights worth recognizing and respecting and deserve to live in a just and democratic society of equal opportunities. With the current manner in which the world is run and has been running since the beginning of time, we know this sentiment and statement is far from the truth and as a result advocate in the FIULP to shed light on issues that affect those who are not privileged and are at a disadvantage by no fault of their own but suffer injustices due to the way the world is structured.

A highlight from the Fall 2019 semester was a meet-up session that featured alum Leadership fellow Steven Pacheco who is an undergraduate student in his senior year at John Jay College, City University of New York. Mr. Pacheco is majoring in Social Justice for Cultural Change via the CUNY BA program. His work is focused on the cross-sections and intersections of culture, justice, and empowerment. He is dedicated to using his platform and voice to diversify the workforce and markets by re-enfranchising formerly incarcerated people and communities most vulnerable to the by-products of mass incarceration.         

He led a session on the effects of mass incarceration on communities of color which included policy touch points as it related to higher education, voting, housing, and employment.  During his captivating session, Mr. Pacheco spoke about a historic event he attended the night before which was The New York City Council voting on a historic plan to permanently close Rikers Island and replace it with a borough-based jail system. The proposed plan allegedly will create a modern, more humane and safe justice system that includes substantial investments in our communities. To learn more about this initiative please see Council Votes on Historic Legislation to Close Rikers Island.

He then went on to share his background, interests, struggles and what ultimately led him to be arrested, and convicted of a felony. Mr. Pacheco has since completed his jail time, probation and parole, and spoke about how after being incarcerated, he enrolled at John Jay College, was elected as Vice President of Student Council and then President, and many opportunities started to become available to him. Mr. Pacheco then went on to examine

Disenfranchisement to Re-enfranchisement via Policy issues which included the following:  

• Housing: formerly incarcerated people are nearly 10 times more likely to be homeless.

• Higher Education: People who have been to prison are more likely to have GEDs than traditional high school diplomas; 75% of which are earned in prison; Formerly incarcerated people are 8 times less likely to complete college than the general public
• Voting: about 6.1 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction; Florida alone accounts for more than 25% of the disenfranchised population nationally; 1 in 13 Black people of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more than 4 times greater than that of non-Black people
• Employment: Formerly incarcerated people are unemployed at a rate of over 27% - higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate during any historical period, including the Great Depression.

Other resources from this session that were circulated to leadership fellows in reference to mass incarceration included: Location of Justice Series and a New York Times op-ed piece: “The Criminal Justice System Stalks Black People Like Meek Mill,” by Jay-Z

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program College Credit

There is no college credit given to students who participate in the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program. This program can be viewed as an extra curricular program and or a paid academic fellowship.

University Worth Fighting For Events, Conferences, and Enrichment Opportunities

The Futures Initiative partners with HASTAC (Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory) to offer events, webinars, and Twitter chats designed to tie student-centered, engaged pedagogical practices to institutional change and social justice. We pay special attention to race, gender, diversity, equity, and inequality—and to rethinking the higher education we so urgently need now. These events connect to the team-taught courses that are offered from the Futures Initiative at the Graduate Center each year. (Rogers K, 2019).

Fall 2020 Futures Initiative Events: https://futuresinitiative.org/events/

Sept 16: Putting the Humanities PhD to Work: A conversation with Katina Rogers

Sept: 30 Change Series: Making Education More Equitable. Featuring Tressie McMillian Cottom, Carla Shedd and Cathy N. Davidson

Oct. 1: Adjuncts Reimagining Digital Pedagogy (12:00pm-2:30pm)

Oct 7: Putting The Humanities PhD to Work at Scholar’s Lab UVa (12:00pm-2:30pm)

Oct 21: Transformative Learning in the Humanities: Introducing a New CUNY-Wide Program in Participatory Pedagogy

HASTAC 2019 Conference

"Decolonizing Technologies, Reprogramming Education"

Unceded Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm) Territory

UBC Vancouver

On 16-18 May 2019, the Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory (HASTAC), in partnership with the Institute for Critical Indigenous Studies at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the Department of English at the University of Victoria (UVic), will be guests on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓-speaking Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm) people, facilitating a conference about decolonizing technologies and reprogramming education.

Decolonizing Leadership: A Session on New Models of Agency for the “New Majority” of Students

Proposal and Abstract Written and Submitted By: Lauren Melendez

Co-Panelist who presented at the conference: Kashema Hutchinson,Co-Director, Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program and Doctoral Candidate, Urban Ed. CUNY Graduate Center

Steven Pacheco, Kia Thomas and Yadira Vargas -Undergraduate Leadership Fellows in the 2018-2019 cohort

Abstract:

When we think about the term “decolonizing leadership”, we think of breaking down traditional, hierarchical models and practices of leadership in western education. This engaged, interactive session will focus both on theories of critical leadership and how to apply it in working with diverse undergraduate students. We will discuss traditional and alternative models of pedagogy before focusing on a program that identifies leadership as collective, community-based, and social justice-oriented. Rather than perpetuating a leadership model that centralizes power, decolonized leadership works to ensure that everyone participates in virtual and physical spaces where they grow, think and learn as a community with goals that strive toward social change.

 Decolonizing leadership shifts academic conversations surrounding indigenous people and the necessity of social change to recognize a decolonized framework (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). With all the focus on tests and core curriculum, it is easy to forget that the concept of literacy in higher education should also include knowledge of social justice, equity, culture and an understanding of diverse people and backgrounds. After laying out our framework for decolonizing leadership, we will focus on one program that exemplifies these principles and deploys them in practice: The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program.

Enrichment Activity

Sample Enrichment Outing to The Bronx Museum of Arts Recap:  

Bronx Museum Visit: Pictured left to right, Christina Valeros, Evalaurene Jean Charles, Jennifer Bortolami, Yoonhwan Cho, Henry Chalfant, Samuel Win, Lauren Melendez, Kashema Hutchinson, Kevin Torres

Our Fall 2019 semester concluded with an enrichment outing to The Bronx Museum of Arts where our leadership fellows were able to visit the Henry Chalfant: Art vs. Transit, 1977-1987 exhibit. We had the coincidental pleasure of meeting Henry Chalfant in the flesh while visiting his exhibit, who is best known for being a sculptor in New York in the 1970s, who turned to photography and film to do an in-depth study of hip-hop culture and graffiti art. This exhibit chronicles the start of the graffiti era and features works by legendary subway artists, including Dondi, Futura, Lady Pink, Lee Quiñones, Zephyr, and including Bronx legends Blade, Crash, DAZE, Dez, Kel, Mare, SEEN, Skeme, and T-Kid. Henry Chalfant: Art vs. Transit, 1977-1987 was originally produced for the Centro de Arte Tomás y Valiente in Madrid, Spain, and curated by SUSO33. Following this tour we were able to create our very own works of graffiti art on how we would envision and would produce them on the subways, just as the artists did that we learned about and whose work was captured in the exhibit.

We also had the pleasure of visiting The Life and Times of Alvin Baltrop exhibit. This exhibit features photographs of Alvin Baltrop, who was a Bronx native, that captured photographs of a then deteriorating Hudson River piers, gay men as well as a chaotic and financially crippled New York City during the 1970’s to mid 1980’s. The exhibition features over 200 photographs and documents a significant moment in the LGBTQ community in its struggle for inclusion and civil rights prior to the AIDS crisis. Some of the reflections from this enrichment outing were written by Micaela Arena (Macaulay Honors College at Hunter College, CUNY) entitled: Volcanoes and Red Velvet, and by Evalaurene Jean-Charles (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY) entitled: The Power of Art.

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program Evaluation: Sample Evaluation Methodology

This program evaluation would involve a mixed-methods approach to assessment including development of a comprehensive survey instrument that would be distributed via an online survey to all participants in the FI Undergraduate Leadership Program cohort. All participants in the program will be invited to provide their feedback in the survey and a semi-structured interview with volunteers from the cohort.

The survey structure was modeled from The Futures Initiative’s Liberal Arts for the New Majority / Peer Mentorship Program Evaluation Synthesis Report (Dorsch M, 2017)

Undergraduate Student Survey - Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program + Mental Health & Student Factors Survey:

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program

Interview Questions

Question 1: Please describe your impressions of your overall experience with the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership program.

Question 2: Please describe your impressions of your experience in the summer Futures Initiative Undergraduate Institute.

Question 3: How do you feel that your participation in the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership program has impacted your broader educational experience at CUNY this year?

Question 3b. Has your participation impacted any other areas of your life, such as your post graduate or career goals? If so, how?

Question 4: Are there aspects of the Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership program that you think could be improved in future years? If so, do you have suggestions on how we might improve?

Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program Staff

The Futures initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program is offered by The Futures Initiative program and was created from their mission which advocates greater equity and innovation in higher education at every level of the university. Housed at the CUNY Graduate Center, the staff includes the following:

The Futures Initiative Staff:

Dr. Cathy N. Davidson- Distinguished Professor and Founder, The Futures Initiative

Dr. Katina Rogers- Co-Director and Director of Programs and Administration, The Futures Initiative

Lauren Melendez- Undergraduate Leadership Fellow Director & Administrative Specialist, The Futures Initiative

Celi Lebron- College Assistant/Budget Analysis, The Futures Initiative

The Futures Initiative Undergraduate Leadership Program Staff:

Lauren Melendez- Undergraduate Leadership Fellow Director & Administrative Specialist, The Futures Initiative

Kashema Hutchinson- Co-Director of the Undergraduate Leadership Program and Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Futures Initiative Graduate and Postdoctoral Fellows

Kashema Hutchinson- Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Dr. Sujung Kim- Postdoctoral Research Associate/ The Futures Initiative & Humanities Alliance

Shaun Lin - Graduate Student, at the CUNY Graduate Center

Christina Katopodis- Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Gustavo Jiménez- Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Christina Katopodis- Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Jessie Freudlund - Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Coline Chevrin - Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Adashima Oyo- Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Cihan Tekay- Doctoral Fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center

Tatiana Ades- Graduate Student, at the CUNY Graduate Center

2019-2020 Undergraduate Leadership Fellows

2018-2019 Undergraduate Leadership Fellows

2017-2018 Undergraduate Leadership Fellows

2016-2017 Peer Mentors

2015-2016 Peer Mentors