Acting White Among Black College Students: A Phenomenological Study of Social Constructions of Race

This study was a qualitative examination of Black college students' experiences with the Acting White label. In conducting this study, two gaps in literature were addressed: (1) the lack of literature on Black college students and the acting white label, and (2) lack of attention to a US racial history and current structures which allow a label such as "acting white" to exist. Thus, the purpose of this study was to call attention to the experiences of Black college students as it relates to the acting white label. Additionally, the study calls attention to social constructions that allow the acting white label to exist and to be sustained. Data was collected from 14 Black college students at a predominantly white, private, liberal arts university in the west. Based on responses from students in the study, Black college students do hear that they are acting white. Yet, their reaction to hearing the label does not cause them to underachieve academically, but does have an impact on their social actions. The ways in which Black college students in the study were labeled as acting white was based on academic pursuits, speech patterns, dress, and hobbies. Student reactions to the label ranged from ignoring the label to challenging the accuser. In regards to how the acting white label is sustained, students in the study expressed that they learned what it meant to act white or black from family interactions, social interactions and observations from family and friends, and from media sources. It was concluded that Black college students, despite reactions, do hear the label and that the label seems to be used as a means to attack Black students and their identity.

The Affective Dimensions of Social Controversy

Social controversy is a sustained, mediated debate between at least two oppositional parties which is more than just a difference of opinion; rather it is a persistent conflict over the political and cultural implications that dominant forms of communicative reasoning, practices, and norms have for a public. Simply put, during social controversies the norms guiding public life can be negotiated, reaffirmed, negated, and/or transformed. This can lead to progressive political, cultural, and/or social change in some instances, while establishing or reifying conservative and even oppressive norms, practices, and laws in others. Building upon Olson and Goodnight's (1994) theoretical and methodological framework of social controversy, this dissertation argues that scholars should analyze the role affect plays in this type of conflict as a means to address the regulation of public conduct as well as public discourse. The rhetorical and argumentative significance of the affective dimensions of social controversy have been conceptualized and analyzed via an examination of emotion-based claims and affective states that have become salient, discernable and/or apprehendable during specific public disagreements. Such a conceptualization demonstrates that critical insights regarding the norms that guide public conduct, the role risk and vulnerability play in the regulation of individuals' public behavior, and the relationship between affect and citizenship can be gained by focusing on a controversy's affective dimensions. To highlight the importance of the study of affect in social controversy as well as better understand the larger critical significance affect theory has for rhetorical and argumentation studies, this dissertation has analyzed the affective dimensions of three conflicts. They are: the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse social controversy, the International Freedom Center social controversy, and the controversy over the 2004 French ban on conspicuous religious attire in public schools. The findings from this dissertation that have specific and general implications for future work in the field of controversy as well as rhetoric and argumentation, respectively.

A Physical and Social Study of Mountain Bike Use on Five Segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in Colorado

This capstone reviews uses of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Policies governing use of the trail appear to be ambiguous, especially regarding mountain bicycles. Mountain biking has grown since the trail was created, but is not fully addressed in existing or proposed policy. 382 people on five segments of the trail in Colorado were interviewed for this capstone. Mountain bikes, hiking, and motorized recreation were observed uses. User conflict, overcrowding, degraded recreation experiences, or user displacement was not reported. User satisfaction was high and most would return. Interviewees requested increased public involvement and recognition of user needs in setting policy. Trail degradation occurs, but is unassociated with any particular use. Recommendations for trail improvement and maintenance are presented.