2024(3): Food for Thought: Intercultural Conflict in a Space Where Intercultural Awareness and Respect Are Taught

Katharina Teixeira, Butte College  

Tina Garcia, Community College of Denver  

Marysia Lopez, University of Colorado Boulder  

Bonnie Fruland, Colorado State University Pueblo 

Austin Jackson, St. Pius X - St. Matthias Academy

Abstract

This case involves a conflict between staff and students in the Ethnic Studies Department at Flagship University. A graduate student, Amar, was heating his food in the department’s shared microwave when staff members made comments about the scent coming from the food. Despite efforts to resolve the issue, the situation escalated. The Ethnic Studies Department acknowledged the incident and made efforts to address concerns. Amar was dissatisfied with the department's response and shared his story on social media, highlighting systemic racism in the academic environment. This case was never officially reported to the Title IX/Office of Civil Rights department.

Keywords: campus climate, campus conduct, cultural sensitivity, ethnic discrimination, implicit bias, mental health, microaggressions, Predominantly White Institution (PWI)

Setting

Flagship University is a large public research university located in the Western United States. It is a Predominantly White Institution (PWI) with a total population of 30,000 undergraduate students and 10,000 graduate students. The population is made up of 57% women and 43% men. The racial/ethnic breakdown of the student population is as follows: 70% White, 12% Hispanic or Latino, 6% Asian, 5% two or more races, 5% Black or African American, and 2% other races. The majority of faculty are White. The university’s mission, vision, and values focus on shaping tomorrow’s leaders and being a top university for innovation while acting with honor, integrity, accountability, respecting others’ rights, and accepting individual differences. Flagship University has a large Ethnic Studies Department and offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in ethnic studies. The department is in the main academic building with faculty offices, study areas, and a community kitchen.

Situation

Amar Chopra, a current Ethnic Studies Ph.D. student and teaching assistant, who had previously worked as a successful filmmaker and journalist, was heating up his Kashmiri Chaman Kaliya, an Indian dish made with paneer cheese and milk, infused with saffron and gravy, in the microwave at the department’s kitchen space as two staff members walked in. One of the staff member’s faces indicated her feelings as she stated, “Ooof, that’s pungent!” The other staff member did not utter words but echoed the same sentiment. Usually, staff, students, and department faculty eat in the shared kitchen space. However, the two staff members asked Amar “to please eat his ethnic food somewhere else because it has a rather strong smell.”

Rudi, a White staff member of the Ethnic Studies Department who made the comment in the kitchen, went back to her desk not thinking much of the interaction with Amar. She was surprised when Amar approached her office about thirty minutes later, asking to speak with her. Amar did his best to calmly explain why Rudi’s comments were offensive and even racist. Rudi was taken aback by Amar’s interpretation of the situation. She explained she would have reacted similarly to any kind of “pungent” food, regardless of where it came from. When Amar asked her what she considered “pungent” food, Rudi replied, “foods like curry.” Amar pointed out the beef chili he had seen being heated up on the stove weeks prior, which also had a pungent smell, that no one said anything about. He then tried explaining the interaction within the context of colonialism and their historical context. He tells Rudi that when a dish from a dominant culture, like this beef chili, is accepted without comment it often reflects power imbalances. Historically, colonial powers imposed their preferences and often disregarded local traditions. The lack of comment on the chili’s smell could be seen as a subtle continuation of this disregard, showing how colonial attitudes persist in shaping our responses to different cultural practices.

At this point, Rudi was starting to feel attacked by Amar. She knew, working at the Ethnic Studies Department, she was not racist and was offended by Amar’s attempt to teach her about colonialism. She calmly told Amar they would have to agree to disagree, at which point Amar left her office. Rudi instantly emailed the department chair, Dr. Chelsea Green. She told Dr. Green that Amar had blown the situation out of proportion, and she had felt threatened by the confrontation with Amar.

As the incident occurred, Dr. Green had only been serving as chair for the department for one semester, but she knew how integral the staff was in ensuring smooth daily operations. Shortly before she became chair, the department had lost two of its four staff members, and she recalled the challenging times for everyone in the department. Dr. Green was determined to avoid similar situations under her leadership.

Dr. Green reached out to Amar, asking him to visit her office. When Amar walked in, he was surprised to see that Dr. Green was joined by two other professors in the department. Dr. Green explained that Amar had mishandled the situation, and how he had spoken with Rudi had left her feeling so threatened she was refusing to come into the office. Amar attempted to explain why he had found Rudi’s comments racist and hurtful. In response, the professors explained to Amar that they wanted to see him succeed as a graduate student, which includes learning how to handle situations like this more smoothly. Amar tried to explain his situation, but the three professors kept speaking over him. The director of graduate studies attempted to calm Amar by assuring him that this situation had nothing to do with food. The professors left the meeting thinking they had helped Amar understand the situation better and grow as a student. Amar left the meeting feeling unheard, irritated, diminished, and sad. He felt undervalued and overlooked by a department that is supposed to value cultural differences.

At the same time, the Office of Student Conduct received a misconduct report in which Amar was reported as threatening Rudi. Based on the report, without further investigation, the Office of Student Conduct found that Amar violated the student code of conduct. He was given an interim measure of a no-contact order until successful completion of training in nonviolent communication strategies. As soon as he completed the training successfully, he would be allowed back on campus to pursue his Ph.D. and research and resume his role as a TA. Amar lost online access to his classes and faced uncertainty and financial instability. He was offered an online course about effective communication strategies for situations with diverse groups.

Amar refused to take the course because he had not received an apology or acknowledgment by the department for the racism he had experienced. As a former journalist and filmmaker, he turned to social media to recount his story publicly. Amar received widespread support, including a letter signed by 29 graduate students who felt obliged to voice their apprehensions regarding the department's detrimental reaction to the circumstances. The letter was sent to the entire department. In the letter, it was clearly expressed that the department’s conduct goes against its own mission to support an inclusive environment. The letter expressed concerns for the Ethnic Studies Department, as diversity in all its forms should not merely be accepted but celebrated. Furthermore, experiences of systemic racism should be acknowledged and addressed with utmost seriousness.

The open letter and the media responses grew over the few days Amar had not received an apology. The comments and social media posts gained national awareness. At this point, the university decided to act due to the growing media pressure. They apologized to Amar and offered him his Ph.D., research, and TA position. Amar returned but still wished he could move somewhere different. However, this was impossible due to the financial commitment accompanying a move. Therefore, he decided to stay and be an advocate for change.

Key Players

Amar, the student: Amar Chopra, is a 32-year-old South Asian from India. He is a former journalist and documentary filmmaker. After traveling and working in different countries, he dedicated the next few years to earning his Ph.D. Amar saved up money for years, working overtime, to afford to move to the United States from India to pursue his Ph.D. While he had several offers, he found a deep sense of satisfaction when he picked Flagship University. While earning his Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies, he is also a teaching assistant in the same department. He earned straight As and was being awarded grants to conduct research.

Department Chair, Dr. Chelsea Green: Dr. Green is a cultural ethnographer, historian, and full professor at Flagship University. She serves as Amar’s co-advisor. She received her B.A. in Ethnic Studies and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies and History from the University of California Los Angeles. Her research focuses on issues of sexuality, race, power and politics, U.S. Imperialism, and sense of belonging. Since becoming personally affected by a study abroad trip to Nepal, she has conducted research in refugee communities across the globe and works diligently to share their stories. This is her first semester as department chair, but she has been with Flagship University since 2005.

Administrative Staff Member, Rudi Wilson: Rudi, a White cisgender woman, has worked with the Ethnic Studies Department since 2016. She began as a program assistant working her way up to office manager. She is dedicated to her profession and recently received an Employee of the Year award from the division of social sciences. Flagship University’s Ethnic Studies Department is housed within the College of Arts & Sciences, which is notoriously understaffed. The years 2020 through 2022 saw unprecedented turnover rates among staff, meaning Rudi was overworked and underpaid.

Office of Student Conduct: John Smith, was a recent graduate of the university and a previous student employee of the conduct office. John excelled as a student leader and learned a lot from the conduct officer who recently vacated their role. John, while new to his professional role, is excited to land his first professional full-time job in student affairs. John’s office upholds the university’s code of conduct or student behavior policies. It is responsible for investigating reported incidents and imposing sanctions when necessary. The protocol is to notify the involved parties, alerting them that a report has been made, detailing the next steps and interim measures, and sharing resources with other offices or departments. When the situation calls for it, the interim measure of a no-contact order is implemented. A no-contact order can include the student being banned from campus and/or shifted to an online learning environment. Interim measures allow the parties space to not engage and other students in the class(es) the right to access their education, free from potential disruption due to the parties and their possible interactions with other students. If the student is found to have violated the student code of conduct, sanctions are administered. The student may or may not be allowed to resume in-person class attendance.

Teaching Notes

This case can serve as an educational tool for exploring perspectives on justice and equity in academic environments. It can be utilized for instructional facilitation among higher education professionals representing various departments within college or university settings, such as faculty, instructors, chairs, deans, administrative support, human resources staff, conduct officers, marketing and communications, victim advocacy departments, advising, international programs, registrar’s office, student life, mental health centers, and others. Relevant topics to explore using this case include, but are not limited to, the role of leadership relating to cultural sensitivity; fostering inclusive and supportive environments that are free from discrimination and bias; the impact of microaggressions on academics, employment, social wellbeing, and mental health; justice in institutional response; power dynamics and academic hierarchy; conflict resolution; communication; and students as partners in the academic setting.

Several factors contributed to the escalation of conflict in this case, impacting leadership styles and the demands placed on leaders. Facilitators of this case study can explore leadership styles or theories mitigating the situation by elevating or resolving the situation in a more just manner. Strategic social change leadership (SSCL) adopts a critical perspective that allows for examining the role institutions and structures play in shaping social inequities (Dugan, 2017). Readers can use the SSCL model to examine how the staff and faculty could have responded differently, intervened, and/or stopped direct harm.

The concepts of equity and leadership should also be explored, specifically from moving theory into practice. There has been extensive discussion about equity in higher education, with various perspectives and theories employed to conceptualize these concepts. Some of the frameworks for sensemaking include theories of change (Nygreen, 2016), postmodern, critical, or social constructivist paradigms (Mutekwe, 2017). McNair and colleagues (2020) argue that we cannot get stuck in theory but must move beyond theory and start practicing these sensemaking frameworks. McNair and colleagues (2020) discuss valuable perspectives on equity as a lens through which whiteness is usually seen as the norm that dominates structures, policies, and practices in higher education. This case study is an example of individuals being unable to move beyond the theory they have learned through training, research, or otherwise. Learners could engage in a discussion around the tools that can be used to move equity talk to equity walk.

Addressing the microaggressions, tensions, and racial inequities, Johnson and Johnson (2019) define microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights or insults toward people who are not classified with the ‘normative’ standard” (p. 1). For this case study, learners and practitioners could engage in discussions around lived experiences of microaggressions in the workplace and the impact of microaggressions in higher education.

Teaching Activity

Enhance Leadership Skills in Cultural Sensitivity and Conflict Resolution

This activity is designed for all individuals with some background and interest in how equity, leadership, cultural sensitivity, and conflict resolution intersect in higher education.

Facilitation Directions: Welcome everyone and refresh their memory on the case. Briefly explain why this case is relevant for higher education. Highlight the session’s focus on leadership challenges within the context of cultural sensitivity and conflict resolution. Divide participants into four groups. Each group will look at the case through the lens of a certain department on campus: 1. Office of Student Conduct; 2. Human Resources; 3. Graduate School; 4. Multidisciplinary Team: In this group, students can choose from the following roles: the Office of Student Conduct, the chair, the faculty member, the campus Police Department, the Office of Victim Advocacy, the Ethnic Studies Department, the Registrar, the Graduate School, Office of Title IX/Civil Rights (Coordinator), Human Resources Department. Instruct each group to put themselves in the position of the department, office, or role assigned to them and to consider the scenario through that lens. Ask each group to think of their power to influence the situation and provide them with the following questions:

What are the key issues in this case?
From your leadership position, how would you handle this situation?
What constraints are there on your role and ability to handle the situation?
What policies impact your behavior and responses? Refer to your institution’s policies.

After the small group discussions, ask each group to briefly share their answers to the questions above with the whole group, including their specific lens. Make sure to address any immediate questions or concerns raised by participants. Encourage participants to share their perspectives and experiences on effective leadership in navigating cultural sensitivity and conflict. Provide them with the following questions as a framework for sensemaking around leadership, equity, and cultural awareness:

How did putting yourself in the different roles make you feel?
Regardless of our roles, how do we lean into values of justice and equity?
Were there personal and/or professional value challenges you wrestled with as you held your voice at the table?
In your small groups, did anyone bring up the issue of student exclusion? If yes, what points did you discuss? If not, how would this issue relate to your previous discussion?

Following the discussion, provide the group context based on the intentionality around groups being siloed and the student removed from the conversation to give insight into real-world practices:

Siloed Groups: The exercise was designed to illustrate how different departments and roles often operate in silos within higher education institutions. Each group focused on their specific perspective, which can highlight the compartmentalization that occurs in real-world scenarios. In practice, these silos can lead to fragmented responses to complex issues, as each department may prioritize its own policies and concerns over a more integrated approach. For example, the Office of Student Conduct might address a conflict primarily from a disciplinary perspective, while Human Resources might focus on employment policies and compliance. This separation can result in a lack of cohesive strategy and communication, which may hinder effective resolution and support for students.
Exclusion of the Student’s Voice: Another critical aspect of the exercise was the removal of the student from the conversation. This mirrors how, in many institutional settings, the perspectives of those directly affected by the issue may be sidelined. When students or other stakeholders are not included in discussions that impact them, it can lead to decisions that are less informed and less responsive to their needs. For instance, if a student’s perspective on a conflict is not considered, the resulting actions and policies may not fully address their concerns or experiences. This exclusion can perpetuate power imbalances and undermine trust in institutional processes.
Real-World Implications: Understanding these dynamics helps us recognize the importance of breaking down silos and actively involving all relevant voices in decision-making processes. Effective leadership in higher education involves fostering collaboration across departments and ensuring that the perspectives of all stakeholders, especially those directly affected, are included in discussions and resolutions.

In summary, this exercise provides insight into how institutional structures and practices can impact conflict resolution and cultural sensitivity. It highlights the significance of these skills and their effects on individuals in their roles and suggests ways to bridge these gaps and advocate for more inclusive and integrated approaches in higher education.

References

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Johnson, N. N., & Johnson, T. L. (2019). Microaggressions: An introduction. In Thomas, U. (Ed.), Navigating micro-aggressions toward women in higher education (pp. 1-22). IGI Global. https://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5942-9.ch001

McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Mutekwe, E. (2017). Advancing the learning equity agenda through a social constructivist epistemology to teaching and learning in the curriculum. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(1-3), 197-204. doi: 10.1080/09751122.2017.1305736

Nygreen, K. (2016). Competing paradigms of educational justice: Parent organizing for educational equity in a neoliberal reform context. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(2), 202-214. doi: 10.1080/10665684.2016.1144832

About the Author

Katharina Teixeira is a part-time instructor in the Department of Communication Studies at Butte College and California State University, Chico. She holds an undergraduate degree in English and American Studies with a minor in Anthropology from Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen and a graduate degree in Communication Studies from CSU, Chico. Katharina’s interests focus on exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence, diversity, equity, and inclusion in impacting student success in higher education. She is a doctoral student at the University of Colorado Denver in the Leadership for Educational Equity in Higher Education program.