I would be remiss to not recognize the irony in our readings on Moral Development Theory directly following the 2016 Presidential Election, in which a candidate was elected into office who could use a serious dose of this literature (my relatively sincere apologies for the candid bias).
As I sat at my desk on November 9th, heavy with heartbreak, I began rehearsing different ways to approach conversations surrounding the election with my students. Not wanting to avoid the reality of Donald Trump’s rising Presidency and the already surmounting backlash from it, I scrapped the plans for our Training Session that upcoming Friday and began sculpting an agenda for an open dialogue. At the time, I had no idea what I was doing. I was fearful not only that my students might not have anything to say, but that the things they could potentially say would only fuel the rising societal tensions. And if that was the case, how would I respond? Could I keep my personal morals and values out of the conversation in order to maintain professionalism? What is professionalism anyway really? Would there be tears? Do we have tissues? What about stress balls to lay around the room? The list of questions and anxieties went on and on, but eventually I came up with a forum design that I felt moderately comfortable facilitating. I’ve listed the link to it below.
It wasn’t until after I met with my students that I looked to our readings this week, and had some serious time to reflect. It was in these readings that Mayhew and Engberg reassured me that “moral and democratic education are integral to the development of tolerance, good citizenship, and social responsibility among college students” (Mayhew & Engberg, 2010, p. 459). That, even further, it is our responsibility as a higher education professionals to provide educational environments that foster social and civic responsibility, develop character, a commitment to social justice, ethical and moral reasoning, and understandings of multiple group identities. Even if those environments are difficult to plan, uncomfortable to step into, and unpredictable to foresee the outcomes of (Mayhew & Engberg, 2010). Digging deeper into how this lesson needed to be translated into a curriculum format for my job, King and Shuford forced me to think about how I might have used the Reflective Judgement model efficiently and in some cases inefficiently (King & Shuford, 1996). Their work largely values multiculturalism dialogue, recognizing that students have deep roots in sensitive and politically controversial topics and can reflect upon them in these unique stages.
Finally, one of the most valuable lessons I was reminded of throughout the entire post-election experience is that I too am continuing to grow in my moral development. That as life progresses, the world changes, and in adapting we must renegotiate the things that we value most and that motivate us to persevere.
King, P. M., & Shuford, B. C. (1996). A multicultural view is a more cognitively complex view: Cognitive development and multicultural education. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 153-164.
Mayhew, M. J., & Engberg, M. E. (2010). Diversity and moral reasoning: How negative diverse peer interactions affect the development of moral reasoning in undergraduate students.
Gabbing with Gabby 