We Are Marquette.

Are We Milwaukee?An Ethnographic Examination of the Potential Relationship Between

Marquette University and Milwaukee

Brittany White Final Research Paper and Portfolio

ENGL 3210Dr. Beth Godbee

White 2

Before coming to Marquette, I doubted I would ever experience any serious, difficult, or

even significant interactions with the impoverished in the community. I struggled to see any

purpose in “wasting my time” to learn about Milwaukee and the homeless people in it. Sure, I

knew they would be around campus; but, would it really be that difficult to avoid helping

someone I don’t know or trust? Thankfully, as I began to immerse myself in the Milwaukee

community, new perspectives and experiences quickly replaced my ignorant attitudes and

preconceived notions. And, as a long-term volunteer, I have shared in many meaningful

conversations with fellow students and community residents. These conversations, though,

brought serious, significant questions to my mind. I became increasingly intrigued, wondering

about the Milwaukee community’s perceptions of Marquette and of student perceptions of our

Milwaukee neighbors. I began to question certain Marquette ideals – is it a reality to “be the

difference?” Can we actually define ourselves with the phrase “We are Marquette, We are

Milwaukee?

The Need for Research and Structuring this Analysis

According its Mission Statement, Marquette University intends to provide students with

the “search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge, the fostering of personal and

professional excellence, the promotion of a life of faith, and the development of leadership

expressed in service to others” as a direct means of pursuing the “greater glory of God and the

common benefit of the human community” (Marquette University). This was the ideal I

expected when I chose to attend Marquette - a Jesuit institution encouraging students to abide by

the pillars of faith, excellence, leadership and service. When I arrived at Marquette as a first-

year student in 2011, I experienced a different reality – the reality that the “human community”

to which our university aims to contribute fails to include the neighboring Milwaukee

White 3

community. That is, in spite of our identity as a Catholic, Jesuit institution, we fail to recognize

the incredible discrepancies between university actions and university rhetoric and, more

importantly, the implications of these discrepancies for the city of Milwaukee – one of the most

impoverished and racially segregated cities in the nation and the city of which we are a part.

I had no understanding of the “Marquette Bubble” prior to arriving on campus; until this

research endeavor began, I also had no recognition of its effectiveness in deterring incoming

students from developing an interest in the circumstances affecting the city of Milwaukee.

Though the campus environment and its “Bubble” may mask this reality given the white student

population of 82.2% and the ability of only 20% of its students to qualify for federal loans

(Princeton Review; College Prowler), “Milwaukee’s poverty rate was 29.5% [in 2010], up from

27% in 2009. In all, 171, 521 people – including nearly half the city’s children – lived below the

poverty line in 2012 as Milwaukee remained among America’s 10 most impoverished big cities”

(Herzog, et. al.). Marquette’s student population demographics clearly contrast the structure and

demographics of the city surrounding it; Milwaukee faces the well-established precedent of

racial segregation and continues to suffer from the effects of systemic racism. And the

“Marquette Bubble” only contributes further to this dynamic. Because of the juxtaposition of

these identities, nevertheless the preconceived notions and isolationist attitudes supported by the

“Marquette Bubble,” therefore, there is need to understand and identify what factors inhibit the

development of a quality relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee. That is, there is need

to identify the ways in which this relationship can be addressed and improved. And I have come

to realize that that pursuing the answers to these difficult questions and improving the

partnership between Marquette and Milwaukee is no longer a choice – it is one of my

fundamental responsibilities as a member of these communities and thus, it is the foundation

White 4

from which this research and analysis stemmed. The following discourse highlights my initial

research efforts through field observations and interviews. Though this data is preliminary and

will be expanded greatly, it has already provided significant data to examine and analyze.

The detrimental nature of the relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee transcends

contemporary circumstances and student populations. The factors contributing to this dynamic

have been explored and analyzed by numerous individuals, many of which examine these

circumstances based on their correlation to the racial segregation and impoverishment

characterizing the greater Milwaukee area, particularly the areas surrounding the Marquette

University campus (Glauber and Poston; Ashmore; Wangler; Bauer; Kiltz; Edwards; Daykin).

As these authors’ and journalists’ works indicate, there is a significant discrepancy between

university ideals and university actions. We call ourselves Marquette. We identify ourselves,

even equate ourselves, with its Jesuit values and ideals. Yet, we also call ourselves Milwaukee

and claim to identify with the Milwaukee community. Why then do we estrange ourselves from

our neighbors and community partners? How can we expect our students to identify with

Milwaukee, or even be willing to understand it, if we as an institution recognize neither the

possibility for partnership that we have with the greater Milwaukee community nor the manner

in which we inhibit this relationship from developing effectively?

Methods

Research design

Because of the extensive nature of these research questions, I conducted a mixed-method

qualitative study drawing on interviews, observation field notes, surveys, and archival research

both to develop preliminary answers to these questions and to discover additional directives for

White 5

research. I focused my initial methodology on self-reports of personal experiences on

Marquette’s campus and at service organizations in the greater Milwaukee community. Based

on these personal observations and inquiries, I shifted the focus of my research methodology to

informal and formal interviews of Marquette students, Marquette faculty members, and

Milwaukee community members, as these provided me with the greatest insight into the multiple

perspectives which contribute to and impact the effectiveness of the relationship between

Marquette and Milwaukee.

Data collection and data analysis

Throughout my research endeavors, I have continued to make, record, and analyze

personal observations of my experiences on and around Marquette University’s campus,

including my volunteer experiences at community organizations. These observations were

recorded using jottings, diagrams, photographs, and maps as well as formal and informal field

notes describing the local and temporal settings; the behaviors of Marquette and Milwaukee

community members; and summaries of the activities and discussions occurring. Further,

intermittently between the sections of objective data recording, they consisted of personal

reflections on and coding of personal experiences not voiced during the process of observation

and of informal conversations and discussions with the Marquette and Milwaukee community

members present at the time during which the field notes were obtained. The coding categories

included a range of perspectives, details, and structures, including an examination of the

physical, rhetorical qualities of both Marquette and Milwaukee; the ideals and realities of

Marquette and Milwaukee; the motivations for involvement in Marquette and Milwaukee; and

the factors promoting or inhibiting the Marquette-Milwaukee partnership (See Appendix A).

These coding categories were also used in my efforts to decompress and organize the data

White 6

collected from interview and survey participants. The coding was completed electronically, as

interviews will be transcribed in full using the audio recordings obtained during the interviews.

The coding structure did require minor adjustments after I began the interview process because

of the range of perspectives, experiences, and topics I addressed. The following is a list of some

of the questions that I used in the process of interviewing Milwaukee community members and

Marquette students, faculty, and administrators. However, interviews did not rely on a specific

script or questionnaire as follow-up questions to conversation were necessary as the dialogue

continued. (See Appendix B). Thus, the following questions represent the range of questions on

which I relied during the interviews:

What did you know about the city of Milwaukee prior to arriving at Marquette?

What comes to mind when you hear the phrase “Marquette Bubble?” What do

you feel motivates students to commit to understanding the Milwaukee

community and the impoverishment within it? How would you describe the

importance of the Marquette pillars? Which of the four do you feel has the most

impact on Marquette’s campus? What barriers, if any, are created by the concept

of the “Marquette Bubble?” What experiences have you had in the Milwaukee

community that have transformed you or changed your perspective on

homelessness, poverty, community service, and Marquette? How would you

describe the Marquette standard of working to “be the difference?” In what ways

do you feel that this concept applies in your own experiences on Marquette’s

campus? What perceptions about the city of Milwaukee did you have prior to

attending Marquette? Did any of these perceptions change? What do you

understand Marquette’s responsibility to be in the Milwaukee community? How

White 7

does this responsibility relate to Marquette’s identity as a Jesuit institution and

Milwaukee’s 2010 reality as the fourth poorest city in the nation (Glauber and

Poston)?

Prior to selecting interview participants, I arranged these questions from broadest and

least demanding to most specific, detail-oriented in order to ensure the effective, dialogue-

producing, and productive nature of my selection of and interviewing participants. My intent in

organizing these questions was never manipulative, stemming from a desire to obtain specific

results or opinions. One of the primary goals of this research endeavor was to investigate the

range of perspectives on the relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee; thus, as I selected

interview participants, I continued to evaluate these questions frequently and eliminate any that I

deem to be leading to a specific answer, opinion, or response.

To ensure that I could analyze and report my data in a timely, accessible manner, I relied

on an identical coding category structure for my interviews and my observation field notes. And

while I continued to evaluate these categories as I collected, analyzed, and reported data, I

maintained the aforementioned categories as a foundation. These categories enabled me to avoid

oversaturation of data available for analysis and exploration and provided specific directives for

subsequent analysis and future data collection. That is, collecting the data and coding it in this

manner allowed my research to progress from the broadest analysis to the most specific

inquiries, facilitating increased ease of data reporting and increased reader accessibility.

In addition to coding, I employed a variety of other methodologies and data analysis

techniques to discern and highlight the connections that exist between university rhetoric, student

perceptions and efforts to act, and the effectiveness of the Milwaukee-Marquette relationship.

Of primary importance was my rhetorical analysis of data obtained. This analysis extended

White 8

beyond examinations of language used in the conversations recorded in the field and from

interviews to include rhetorical and structural analysis of Marquette University’s online and print

resources for campus outreach efforts, including the pamphlets, websites, and newsletters

advocating student participation in service to the greater Milwaukee community. This rhetorical

analysis involved extensive exploration into the type of language used to describe the

relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee, including the use of problem language to

characterize interactions between community members, and descriptive evaluations of the

manner in which research participants addressed the factors preventing an effective partnership.

First Impressions of the Relationship between Marquette University and Milwaukee

In order to give context to and facilitate a deeper understanding of my numerous data

findings, I decided to examine how the general public might define and understand the

“Marquette Bubble” The first link was listed in Google’s collection of results for my search on

the “Marquette Bubble” was to a Trip Advisor review. This review, entitled “The Marquette

Bubble,” consists of these remarks about a campus visit experience during August 2011:

Everyone seems to be reviewing either the education or the basketball team -

neither of which have anything to do with visiting the campus. While there are

some nice aspects to the MU campus (Joan of Arc chapel) there is really no

reason to just stop by for a visit. All of the interesting attractions and local

watering holes have been turned into Marquette things - bookstores and practice

spaces for the fencing team. And if you venture 2-3 blocks in any direction from

the union, you are leaving the "Bubble" and you're pretty much guaranteed to be

in a shady area. Marquette students have done a great job of making themselves

White 9

easy prey for gangs and hobos- ignorant white kids with daddy's money. If you're

going to visit Milwaukee, there are a bunch of great museums, parks, restaurants,

and more to visit. Why anyone would come to see MU unless they were on a

school visit is beyond me (Trip Advisor, LilRedDress).

Because this review is anonymous, this individual says what many members of the

Marquette community refuse to say or even acknowledge – the relationship between Marquette

and the city of Milwaukee is inhibited by a variety of factors and thus, is laden with problems,

conflicts, and discrepancies between university rhetoric and action. The dynamics of this

relationship and the ways in which it breaks down form the central foundation of this research

project. That is, my ultimate goal in this research is to determine the nature of the relationship

between Marquette and Milwaukee? Yet, this particular research direction contains an incredible

subset of potential research questions. Thus, while I plan to examine each of these facets in

greater depth, my primary focus of this initial phase of research is problem discovery; my

primary research questions are as follows: In what ways is the relationship between Marquette

and Milwaukee inhibited? In what ways does this relationship collapse? Where does the

relationship break down and how could it be restored, strengthened, or made more meaningful?

Defining the “Marquette Bubble” at the Milwaukee County Transit System Bus Stops

My initial research inquiries into this topic produced intriguing results and presented

numerous findings demanding further analysis. The data collected from the first interview, with

a white, male sophomore from Indianapolis provides an in-depth, student perspective on the

relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee. During the interview, the interviewee, Ben

Ryan (identified with a pseudonym) highlighted the inherent contrast between the ideals and

White 10

realities of Marquette, Milwaukee, and the relationship between them. In doing so, he identified

some of the inherent problems inhibiting this relationship and conveyed the manner in which

students’ preconceived notions, university rhetoric, and the concept of the “Marquette Bubble”

perpetuate the barriers preventing a partnership between Marquette and Milwaukee. While

responding to the interview questions, Ben frequently noted and voiced his inability to discuss

and “describe” certain situations in the Milwaukee community. This inability to communicate

seemed to be an element of his response to every question I posed about socially and culturally-

taboo subjects such as the racial dynamics of Milwaukee; the homelessness and impoverishment

epidemic; and even the notion of the “Marquette Bubble.” For example, in response to my

question, “what comes to mind [when you think of the “Marquette Bubble”]? Is there a specific

experience,” he noted:

I try to think that I’m not as affected by the “Bubble.” […S]ome people have, I

don’t know, some people have bad experiences riding the bus and are scared to do

that, but I love riding the bus, I love interacting with the people on the bus, I think

that’s really cool. Um, but then, of course, people always say don’t go past 22nd

or 23rd or whatever and don’t go too far North and so I mean, I don’t really go

there, but it’s not because, like, I’m avoiding it, it’s just because I don’t have

anything to do over there.”

And when I questioned his narrow emphasis on the directional aspect of the “Bubble,” he

immediately identified “socioeconomics” as a factor in defining this particular notion, saying

“Also, the socioeconomics. I mean, if you just look at campus, it’s pretty clear, like, Marquette’s

majority middle class, wealthy, white kids and the greater Milwaukee area obviously is not.” I

found this response to be particularly interesting because though he implies the existence of

White 11

socioeconomic discrepancies, he immediately incorporates an implication about the racial

dynamics of Milwaukee. Further, the implications he makes reflect the ignorance and

incomplete understanding that seems prevalent in student perceptions about the Milwaukee

community, correlating directly to the behavioral trends I observed at the Milwaukee County

Transit System stop at Wisconsin Ave. and 16th St.

I arrived at the bus stop for the Milwaukee County Transit system at 16th and Wisconsin

at 12:50 p.m. My intent was to observe student behavior near the bus stop and track the number

of students who chose to walk directly in front of the bus stop as well as those who chose another

path to avoid the bus stop. This behavior was difficult to monitor, though, because of my

uncertainty about students’ exact motivations for walking behind the bus stop. That is, for

students walking west to enter McCormick, walking in front of the bus stop would not be the

most direct path to the building, thus their avoiding the bus stop stems more from convenience

and efficiency rather than the “Marquette Bubble.” Thus, to delve deeper into the concept that

the bus stops are central to the “Marquette Bubble,” I also monitored the behavior of the students

and Marquette faculty (whom I was able to identify because of the nametags they wore) that

walked directly in front of the bus stop. I observed the bus stop and the surrounding pathways

from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. The following chart summarizes the quantitative portion of this

observation.

Summary of Student Behaviors at the MCTS Bus Stop at 16th St. and Wisconsin Avenue

Student Action # of Students who behaved in this mannerWalk directly in front of bus stop/waiting area on the corner of 16th St. and Wisconsin Avenue.

170

White 12

Chose other paths avoiding the northeast intersection of 16th St. and Wisconsin Avenue

246 (76 more students)

These tallies came from 45 minutes of observation during what can still be considered the

lunch hour. Given that this bus stop occupies space near the central part of the Marquette

University campus and is in front of the largest freshman dorm, I doubt that these numbers

remain constant from hour to hour of the day and further observation may prove necessary. One

common student behavioral response to entering the vicinity of the bus stop was to avoid eye-

contact with individuals waiting for the bus and ignore their existence. At 1:15 p.m., I began to

tally this behavior directly and in the last 15 minutes of my observations, I counted 46 students

(out of 50 who crossed directly in front of the waiting area from 1:15 – 1:30) who averted their

eyes, tilted their heads downward, or looked out at Wisconsin Avenue while crossing in front of

the bus stop. Their head positioning or vision focus changed immediately before walking in

front of the bus stop and did not revert to its original position until after passing the Marquette

University pillar to the left side of the bus stop for those walking east and until after reaching the

end of the sidewalk at 16th St. for those walking west. If students acknowledged the bus stop,

then they directed their attention at me. I was the only white individual near the bus stop, except

for one white male who arrived at 1:04 p.m. During my entire observation, only seven students

acknowledged my presence, four of which were during the last 15 minutes of my observation.

One of these students, a female, only acknowledged me and the other individuals waiting at the

bus stop after almost colliding with a woman waiting in line to board the approaching bus.

Although I cannot claim with exact certainty that these students also acknowledged the other

individuals at the bus stop because they made eye contact with me, I assume that they not only

acknowledged the existence of the bus stop and the individuals waiting, but also chose to look at

White 13

me because of my connection with them as a fellow Marquette student in this now seemingly

“off-campus” part of campus.

Systemic Racism as a Likely Factor Inhibiting the Marquette-Milwaukee Relationship

Another behavior I observed conveyed the fear that Ben emphasized in his response to

my inquiries about the specific, physical locations on campus in which the “Marquette Bubble”

is most obvious, saying “I don’t think so, I mean, I think, I mean, maybe the bus stops.” He went

on to describe many of the behaviors I observed and noted his understanding that they are not

limited to any particular bus stop that falls within Marquette’s campus: I don’t think any in

particular, but just like, if I’m walking to class or to something, I see people who go out of their

way to avoid the bus stops and like, because like there’s a big, tall, black guy at the bus stop.

And I see people go out of their way to avoid that guy at the bus stop.” This response is

incredibly problematic - not only for our relationship to the Milwaukee community, but also for

our relationship with our fellow Marquette community members. What are the implications of

these impressions, particularly for black, male students, faculty, and staff? In what ways do

other student actions and interactions on Marquette’s campus demonstrate their adherence to

these fearful, ignorant attitudes? Perhaps this response also articulates the motivations behind

and the reasoning for the behavioral changes I observed among students who walked in front of

the bus stop students carrying grocery bags or other presumably valuable possessions. Of the

seven students carrying goods in grocery/Walgreen’s plastic bags and crossed in front of the bus

stop, five were female and two were male. All were walking east on Wisconsin Avenue carrying

their possessions in their right hand prior to crossing 16th St; once they had crossed 16th St. and

began to walk in front of the bus stop, five of these students (4 female and 1 male), switched

White 14

their possessions from their right hand to their left hand. The other two individuals seemed to

exert more physical energy in carrying the bags and increase their walking speed while in front

of the waiting area. While I cannot judge these individuals for their actions, I find this behavior

to be absolutely absurd; while this behavior certainly constitutes acknowledging these

individuals, it also reveals the manner in which these students have preconceived notions and

judgments about individuals who choose to use the public transit system as their primary means

of transportation. That is, in choosing to clutch their possessions tighter or move their bags to

the opposite hand, these students reveal the generalizations they have made about these

individuals and, more importantly, their general lack of trust in and respect for these members of

the Milwaukee and Marquette communities.

Ben’s response similarly demonstrated the problematic, inhibitive influence of students’

preconceived notions to the relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee, especially in

relation to the “Marquette Bubble.” As he answered my questions about his personal

preconceived notions, though, he became somewhat defensive, eager to ensure that I knew he

adhered to few, if any, misinformed and misguided notions about Marquette and Milwaukee

prior to arriving here. Yet, in addition to this slightly defensive tone, Ben frequently responded

with a description of how other people feel about and behave in response to the “Marquette

Bubble.” The frequency with which this seemingly instinctive responsive pattern occurred

seems to imply a few potential answers to my inquiry into the reasons causing the deterioration

of, or even prevention of, the relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee. One factor

inhibiting this relationship is the inability of students to communicate effectively and openly

about the city of Milwaukee and their fears of, perceptions about, and experiences in it. Still,

Ben continuously noted the inherently problematic, barrier-inducing nature of the “Marquette

White 15

Bubble” and, perhaps more importantly, he identified the potential responsibility that Marquette,

as an institution, possess in addressing or contributing to the problems that arise because of these

barriers.

I don’t think [the university] encourage[s] the barriers to be there, but I think that

they are primarily the ones who put them there, just more out of a concern for

safety of the students because if you don’t tell someone not to go to like 30th and

State late at night by themselves, they’re going to get mugged. But, also with that

comes the connotation with Milwaukee, with the racial dynamics of Milwaukee, it

gives people the idea of crime and like, it’s proven that the media portrays crimes

as happening a lot more often than they do. We’re in a period of decline of crime

and yet when you turn on the TV, it’s usually a black person is committing a

crime. Yeah, and so, it’s the idea that people already have coming in and, for

middle-class white kids coming in to a primarily black city, that’s obviously what

they’re going to expect. So, when the university says watch out for yourself, like,

just telling students to have common sense, even out of genuine interest for the

students’ safety, I think that, combined with what the students already believe, or

however you want to phrase that, that that’s what creates the barrier.” He went

on: I don’t think I had any preconceived notions coming in, I mean, to me, a

person’s a person no matter what color their skin is or what their religion is or that

kind of thing and so, I think it’s been easier for me to, like me – as opposed to

other people I know, just not to try to see the “Bubble,” I guess. But, yeah, there

are people who are fairly open about, like, um, I don’t know how to say it, like

White 16

because it sounds like their openly racist – which isn’t the case, but the fact that

they, like, um, I don’t know what I’m saying.”

This response, again, not only conveys the difficulty, guilt, and perhaps fear that students

experience when discussing the issues facing the Milwaukee community but also indicates

another inhibiting factor to the formation of a Marquette-Milwaukee community partnership:

systemic racism. Of course, the racially diverse population of Milwaukee is much more

complicated than that which Ben describes; his insistence on limiting Milwaukee to a “primarily

black city” reflects the manner in which ignorance about the realities of the city of Milwaukee

compounds the impact of the systemic racial segregation of the city structure to form significant

barriers to a potential, rehabilitative partnership. Thus, though Ben does not explicitly state

ineffective communication, student fear and ignorance, and the system racism in Milwaukee as

inhibiting the relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee, my other observations seem to

reflect similar perspectives and conclusions.

Another trend I noticed in Ben’s responses is the reality that the “Marquette Bubble”

lacks an exact definition. That is, the notion is completely dependent on misguided perceptions,

preconceived notions and, as Ben highlighted, “negative experience[s] would definitely reinforce

the concept of the Bubble.” Throughout the interview, Ben describes at least three different, yet

vague references to intersections as defining the exit from the “Bubble” and thus, the entrance

into a presumably unsafe area. Yet, in identifying this variety of intersections, he seems to

suggest the unique paradox central to the identity of the “Marquette Bubble” – it exists not first

because of a concrete physical definition but because of students’ preconceived notions and

because these notions create the “Bubble,” they apply the “Bubble” to justify the physical

discrepancies that now exist between Marquette and the neighboring Milwaukee community.

White 17

Understanding University Rhetoric and Actions in the Milwaukee Community

Another problem that Ben’s responses indicate as a potential source for the deterioration

in the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship involves the manner in which student experiences at

Marquette and student interactions with Marquette, as an institution, allow the student to obtain a

deeper understanding of the city of Milwaukee. When I questioned the ways in which he knew

more about the city of Milwaukee after a year of attending Marquette, he first described how he

gained a “sense of direction around here” but went on, saying: “obviously, the directional aspect,

but also just getting to have, like, a sense of the life of Milwaukee, like all of the things that

happen in the city, like all of the festivals and what not, then just, I don’t really know how to

describe it, seeing all the people around and trying to imagine what each person’s doing

throughout their day and that kind of thing, I don’t know.

Again, he describes knowing Marquette more, not knowing the city of Milwaukee. In my

making this distinction, am I then acknowledging that they are two different things or then

arguing that they should be two different places? Perhaps he doesn’t know how to describe it,

but perhaps he is just uncomfortable with talking about it, or maybe he doesn’t really know that

much more about the city of Milwaukee? Of course, these questions are just afterthoughts. I can

honestly say that I don’t know much more about the city of Milwaukee, other than what I have

learned through my involvement in community service. I still have a significant amount to learn

directionally, in terms of which buses to take to Metro Mart, to the East side, etc. I wonder why,

in spite of my personal investment in the lives of the people of Milwaukee, I have not become

more willing to increase my knowledge of the physical aspect of the city. This year, I have

already begun to explore a bit more than I did as a freshman, but still I wonder what inhibits

White 18

students, even those who are extensively involved in certain aspects of Milwaukee, from

becoming more wholly involved as a community member.

Beyond this, though, he introduces the aforementioned problem of university inaction; as

he went on to discuss this question of whether or not the university should be responsible for

encouraging students to make a deeper commitment to the Milwaukee community, Ben

described the potentially detrimental aspect of this university-encouraged involvement:

I think it should be part of Marquette’s responsibilities to encourage it, like

encouraging students to grow as a part of the Milwaukee community and not just

part of Marquette, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to what the students

choose to do. The university can’t really force anyone to go into the city and do

service work or to get involved with different organizations around Milwaukee, so

that obviously presents a challenge.

I find it particularly interesting that he answered this question about involvement in and growing

the Milwaukee community by referring to the concept of service and volunteer work because of

encouragement from the university. Because of this repeated characteristic in his responses, I am

intrigued to delve deeper into the possible answers to these questions: Is service the only means

through which the university encourages involvement in Milwaukee? In what ways does this

emphasis on involvement through service relate to the ideals of being the difference, of

community partnership, and of the Jesuit foundation for this university? In what ways does this

service oriented involvement influence and shape the relationship between Marquette and

Milwaukee? Why are the service groups the “ones that are most involved with the community,”

as Ben describes later?

White 19

Community Service – Protective or Harmful to the Marquette-Milwaukee Partnership?

Interestingly, he again immediately connects the idea of involvement in the Milwaukee

community with the notion of community service. Why does the relationship from Marquette to

Milwaukee seem to be based on the idea that we at Marquette have something to hand out to the

Milwaukee community, while the Milwaukee community has nothing to give us in return? Is

this the ideal relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee? In what ways might this lack of

information connect to the student perception that getting involved in the community must rely

on use of force and “peer pressure”? In what ways does this supposed coercion actually exist?

How does this coercion inhibit the relationship or partnership from extending beyond community

service? I wonder how this relationship might change or become more effective if this were not

the understanding or if Marquette focused on and perpetuated the idea of community based-

learning instead of service learning. According to the Princeton University website’s description

of the Community Based Learning Initiative, community based learning:

connects students' academic work with their interest in and concern for the

communities around the University. Working with local nonprofits, students

develop research projects, collect and analyze data, and share their results and

conclusions, not just with their professors, but also with organizations and

agencies that can make use of the information. Working with CBLI, students can

do community-based research in courses, as a summer research internship, and as

part of their junior paper or senior thesis (http://www.princeton.edu/cbli/).

Yet, here at Marquette, the emphasis is on service learning. Though Ben has never had to

participate in service learning for any of his classes yet, the connection between service learning,

student perceptions, and the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship seems to rely in a few significant

White 20

ways on the concept of service learning and the manner in which students perceive the relative

effectiveness of the service learning program. According to Marquette’s Office of the Provost of

the Center for Teaching and Learning,

Service learning is an academic program which enables students to perform

meaningful community service related to their courses. Each semester, many

professors at Marquette University offer their students a service option as a means

to learn in practice what they are learning in theory in the classroom. […] Service

learning is a type of experiential learning that engages students in service within

the community as an integrated aspect of a course. Students participate in an

organized service activity and reflect on that activity to gain further understanding

of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline and an enhanced sense

of personal values and civic responsibility. Within service learning, classroom

studies complement service within the community and enable students to reflect

upon and address local and national social problems. Service learning engages

students in active, collaborative, and inquiry-based learning experiences that meet

identified community needs. Service learning classes are offered in many

departments and demonstrate the creative expertise of faculty committed to

extending disciplinary work into local communities. Service learning not only

changes the way students learn, but it changes society's view of education and

service. In this sense, service learning is a philosophy of education and service to

the community (http://www.marquette.edu/servicelearning/index.shtml).

Though seemingly identical in their structure and ultimate goals for student engagement

in and learning from the community, these two concepts are distinctly different as the notion of

White 21

“service to the community” connotes a very different reality than the idea of “working with”

local community organizations and members. As anti-racist writer Tim Wise suggests, the most

effective means of relating to another is through solidarity, rather than charity. As he states,

“Charity is unidirectional. The provider has a resource or a service. The recipient

– individual or community – has the identified need and the effort involves

getting the resource or the service […] in the hands of the needy. But that is not

solidarity, because solidarity is multidirectional. It identifies both provider and

recipient as having resources, as having strengths, as having needs, and

recognizes that all have wisdom. Racially and economically oppressed

communities and individuals […] have more understanding and wisdom about

their collective situation and circumstance and how it came to be than even the

most studied person with a Ph.D. who writes books about these topics – because

they live it every day. […] So we have to make it a multidirectional thing

whereby the provider gives something of need to the recipient but gets something

back by tapping into the wisdom of the recipient individual” (Wise).

By relying on language “service to the community,” the service learning program seems to abide

by the understanding that a hierarchy exists in the relationship between Marquette and

Milwaukee. Even though this is an unintended effect, rhetorical analysis indicates an inherent

problem with the emphasis on service learning, rather than community-based learning, which

seems to correlate directly with Tim Wise’s understanding of solidarity.

Further, this rhetoric seems to suggest that the service learning program will allow

students to transcend the limitations of the “Marquette Bubble” and become more comfortable as

members of the Milwaukee community. However, my observations while at the bus stop and

White 22

many of Ben’s responses seem to indicate otherwise, again suggesting the manner in which the

strict emphasis on service learning could actually be contributing to the deterioration of a quality

relationship between Marquette and the Milwaukee community. For example, during my

observations, I saw five students with whom I have personal relationships. When they

approached me, each inquired about my purpose at the bus stop, but four of these students

implied that the only possible reason I could have for taking the bus would be that I was leaving

to attend my service learning placement by asking questions, such as: Are you heading to service

learning? Where is your service learning site? Are you off to service learning? I found these

questions to be very intriguing, but not initially. In fact, including them in these field notes

seemed out of place until I realized the implications of these questions in regards to student

perceptions of service learning, public bus use, and possible interactions with the Milwaukee

community. I am intrigued to know why these students assumed that my only purpose in using

the Milwaukee County Transit System would be for service learning. Still, these observations

connect to a comment I overheard in my one of Social Welfare and Justice classes. A fellow

student was discussing her obligations to drive a freshman to her service learning site on her way

home from school and when explaining why she was driving the freshman to the site she noted

this interesting detail, “Yeah, this girl’s parents won’t let her take the bus. So she either has to

take a cab or get a ride with someone. I don’t know why they won’t let her take the bus. It

seems really weird to me.” This observation obviously affirms what my interviewee noted about

the perceptions of the transit system and the manner in which preconceived notions inhibit

student interaction with the Milwaukee community, but this also presents a new potential

problem with the relationship, the influence that students’ parents have to deter their student

from developing a deeper connection to the Milwaukee community. Yet, perhaps my friends

White 23

were validated in their assumption that service learning is the only possible reason why a

Marquette student might venture out into this “off-campus” area because, during my 45 minutes

of observation, the only other student who stopped near the bus stop to wait was, in fact, a

service learning student. Right before I left the bus stop, around 1:15 p.m. one student (white

male, freshman) walked down the path to the left of the waiting area and stood on the grassy area

to the left of this pathway; this positioning, though created a significant, noticeable gap between

him, the bus stop awning, and the crowd of other individuals waiting on the right side of the

awning for approaching buses. He had a backpack with him and checked his cell phone five

times over the course of 10 minutes; I approached him to inquire where he was headed and he

informed me he was headed to his EDUC 1210 service learning site for the first time.

Developing a Quality, Effective Relationship between Students and Community Members

Another unique paradox is evident in the data collected from Ben’s responses and my

field observations; while he discusses and even describes an experience to evidence the essential

importance of conversation and communication in developing effective, quality, sustained

relationships and community. Yet, he struggles and highlights the struggles of other students and

even the university as an institution to communicate about involvement in Milwaukee and the

underlying issues within this community partnership. This paradox seems to indicate another

problematic element of the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship; although Ben affirms the

potential successes that would likely result from students’ entering into communication with

members of the Milwaukee community and experiencing perception-changing discussions, he

seems to write off this idea as illogical and impractical, despite his emphasis on the necessity of

communication and shared interests for developing quality relationships and communities, like

White 24

those which he has developed with his roommates, others on his floor, and others in the

organizations in which he participates on Marquette’s campus:

I think it would definitely benefit both communities,” he stated. “But, I think the

hard part is how you make that happen because Marquette obviously can’t bring

in fifty homeless people off the streets and just have a “meet and greet,” because,

let’s be honest, that is not going to happen logistically and frankly, that would be

kind of weird if Marquette did that. But, I think it comes down to the fact that if

people have more experiences like mine and just meet someone through whatever

is happening in their day, like if they meet someone and just have a conversation

and like, while doing volunteer work or while grocery shopping in downtown

Milwaukee or getting a gift card or just whatever the experience is, I think it has

to be more of an individual thing as opposed to a “meet and greet” of people.

Hearing this emphasis on developing a new way of relating to the Milwaukee community

shocked me, especially given his excitement about increasing his involvement in the Milwaukee

community this year, in comparison to last year, and given my personal experiences with

members of the Milwaukee community and through my volunteer work at Repairers of the

Breach and Noon Run. This particular statement also highlights a few other potential problems

causing the disintegration of a Marquette-Milwaukee partnership – students lack information

about potential opportunities for involvement; students are unwilling to pursue the necessary

paths to become involved; and Marquette fails to provide this information in an appropriate

manner. What causes these failures, though, I wondered, especially because of my extensive

knowledge about possible opportunities for involvement? And, even though my involvement

relies on community service organizations, I think that if this provides an effective entry point

White 25

for students to experience the true realities of the Milwaukee community, then it should be

acknowledged by those in the university trying to increase the quality of the relationship with the

Milwaukee community.

But, maybe this is the real problem – is there anyone in the university interested in,

committed to, and willing to understand the issues inhibiting this relationship? Or, is the

university afraid to develop a connection with Milwaukee because of preconceived notions and

the importance of the capitalist culture of the university? For example, Ben describes how “it

would be kind of weird if Marquette [invited homeless people into the university].” Yet,

Marquette has done that through Project Homeless Connect. While this was not a project solely

directed by Marquette University and it occurred for the first time in October 2011 during the

university’s fall break, actions to this effect have been accomplished and have been successful –

to some extent. However, why was this event held over fall break and why, again in 2012, is it

held over fall break again? Other events take place in the Alumni Memorial Union throughout

the school year, while classes are in session, and if this event is designed to promote a

connection between Marquette and the members of the Milwaukee community, then why is it

purposefully designed to occur when there is likely to be minimal involvement with students and

faculty members? Why is an event like this not promoted?

Ben seemed to connect this phenomenon to the lack of information and misguided

information. And although Ben mentions this significant discrepancy in the information

provided to students about potential opportunities to break the “Marquette Bubble,” he does not

seem to address the reasons for which this discrepancy exists, only noting how it would be

“weird” if actions were taken to combat this:

White 26

I don’t feel all that informed. Like, I think that’s part of why I didn’t do as much

service last year as I would have liked, because I just didn’t know it was

available. I mean, we have O-Fest and everything, but I feel like even though I

signed for a lot of service things through O-Fest, I just didn’t get any other

information and so, I think this year it’s been a lot more of my taking an active

role to look for service opportunities as opposed to just expected it to be easy to

find out about everything. So, I guess it could be made easier for people to know

what options are available to them.

Again, this presents the idea that missing information and misguided information about the

Milwaukee community prevents a positive relationship from developing. However, this

statement also implies other potential explanations, including student ignorance and

complacency and institutional creation, acceptance, and perpetuation of this ignorance. When I

asked about potential ways in which developing a more significant connection to the Milwaukee

community might be made easier, Ben continued to highlight the futility of this endeavor, saying

“I’m not sure, I mean, maybe just like, Marquette as an institution just highlighting certain

groups that are available, maybe as opposed to just expecting all the groups to do their own

publicity or something like that. That’s just the first thing that came to mind, but I’m not sure

other than that.” He went on to describe the different types of students - those who “are super

involved with of things” and those like he is, who “have just no clue as to what’s out there or

even if they did know the things that are available, they didn’t know how to get involved.” This

reality certainly seems to contradict the Marquette ideal that every student will “be the

difference” because of his or her experience of attending Marquette; I doubt that Marquette, as

an institution, desires that its students be completely unaware of opportunities for involvement

White 27

both at Marquette and in Milwaukee. Still, in spite of university goals, rhetoric, and ideals,

clearly these two student archetypes exist. This reality leaves many questions unanswered: In

what ways does the university rely on a system of cumulative advantage in its efforts to promote

student involvement? How are the students who are already extensively involved in the

Marquette campus have a greater opportunity for knowledge about and actual placement into

connections and networks in the Milwaukee community? I have to examine these thoughts in

terms of my own experiences here at Marquette; because of my participation in many service

work with the Marquette and Milwaukee communities, I have access to significant connections

in Milwaukee and have the privilege of knowing more details about potential opportunities to

build sustained relationships with community members. But, for many students, even some of

my closest friends, the access to involvement information is extremely limited. Why?

Defining the Ideal Relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee

Another phenomenon that presented itself in my interview and observation was the

emphasis on certain qualities – qualities of Marquette, of Milwaukee, of their relationship to each

other, of the “Marquette Bubble,” and of ideal relationships. Beyond the separate qualities Ben

described though and the intra-interview comparisons and contrasts he evidenced, I found the

contrast between the different ways in which distinct qualities were emphasized and made

evident between the interview responses, my observations, and my personal experiences to be

incredibly intriguing. That is, while Ben made very few explicit comparisons and contrasts

between the qualities of Milwaukee and Marquette, and the “Marquette Bubble,” the

implications he made suggest certain realities about the relationship between Marquette and

Milwaukee. Because the pattern in which he juxtaposed these qualities was similar to the

White 28

patterns I observed, I examined my notes to verify the prominence of the perceptions and

descriptions of Marquette, Milwaukee, and the Bubble in relation to student actions. For

example, in many responses to questions about the atmosphere of Marquette and the neighboring

Milwaukee communities, Ben almost always described the racial dynamics and low-

socioeconomic status of Milwaukee in contrast to those of Marquette. Interestingly, he

consistently returned to the idea that there is a difference between Milwaukee and Marquette and

that this difference exists as a predominant quality influencing their relationship:

I’m just going to throw this out there because I think a problem that a lot of

people have but don’t want to acknowledge is obviously the racial aspect of

Milwaukee. Um, because, like, um, with Marquette being a majorly white school

and Milwaukee being a primarily black community, I think that presents a lot of

problems for some people. But, like, for myself and the way that my family raised

me, was to be, like tolerant and inclusive, and actively engage all people, not just

white people and I don’t know, I mean, like (clears throat) I personally have no

problem with that and like getting involved with Milwaukee, that doesn’t present

a problem for me, but I know it does for some people. […]I mean, everyone can

attest to the fact that when you step on Marquette’s campus, you realize that there

is a difference between Marquette and downtown Milwaukee, just physically, but

I do think it is something that lessens over time.

He continues in this manner, juxtaposing generalizations about the Milwaukee community with a

comparison between his actions and the actions of other Marquette students. Still, I find this

statement incredibly intriguing. Even though he brought up the subjects of socioeconomic and

racial disparities between Marquette and Milwaukee, he was unable to come up with a response

White 29

when asked to expand on these distinctions, asking only “What do you want me to say?” Is this

a sign that students are ill-equipped or ignorant or uncomfortable with talking about these

distinctions? This comparison, though, also seems to function as a defense of his actions. But,

why do he and other Marquette students feel the need to defend their actions? In what ways

might the university be perpetuating students’ inability to discuss these topics through their

actions? Similarly, he discusses – with conviction – the idea that Milwaukee is a “primarily

black city” and while his emphasis suggests the prevalence of this perception among the

Marquette student population, this statement is incorrect. According to the 2010 Census,

Milwaukee County is 44% White and 40% African American (2010 Census). Perhaps this

incorrect way of defining Milwaukee, and Marquette’s decision not to correct it, is another

contributing factor to the deteriorating Marquette-Milwaukee relationship. Though I initially

thought that these emphases and seemingly separate qualities of Milwaukee and Marquette

related only this particular student, these same qualities continued to show up in relation to the

“Marquette Bubble,” which seems to indicate a few key connections between the “Marquette

Bubble” and the inherent identity of the university and the manner in which we as a university

relate the community around us. That is, whenever Ben described the “Marquette Bubble,” the

qualities he discussed were almost always the qualities on which he relied to describe the general

Marquette environment.

His responses also developed a similar, contrasting paradox when the discussion shifted

toward describing what constitutes an ideal relationship and community based on his experiences

at Marquette. Interestingly, he identifies communication and mutual investment in another’s life

as central to developing quality relationships and yet, when asked about the possibility of

White 30

extending similar qualities to or relying on similar techniques to develop the Marquette-

Milwaukee connection, he persists in identifying these as impractical, “weird,” and futile:

There is definitely a huge community aspect of Marquette. My floor in

Abbottsford last year was a fantastic community. We all got really, we all

became really close to each other really early on in the year and, all those guys –

they really help me out with a lot of things. Like, for example, at the end of last

year I was trying to decide if I wanted to stay in the Pre-Law Scholars program or

if I wanted to drop out of the program so I could add a Theology double-major as

well as be able to study abroad and so, like, the guys on my floor knew that that

was something I’d been thinking about for a long time. It was a really big

decision for me and it kept me kind of down for a while because I just couldn’t

come to a decision on it and so all of them just helped talk it out with me, that

kind of thing, just helping me I guess.” He continued: “[It] spans all across

campus and in different groups within campus. Like, SEAC, for example, we’ve

got all kinds of people in SEAC. I remember for my Greenhouse Committee, we

were talking – all the people that wanted to do it, I think there were five of us, and

we were going through names, major, that kind of thing, and I think we had a

Nursing major, human resources, myself as political science and theology, and we

were all surprised that there were no engineers on the committee that wanted to

build something. So, yeah, people come together in all kinds of different ways.

Then, I asked him about the ways in which he sees this sense of community extend from

Marquette organizations out to the Milwaukee community; he responded in a distinctly different

manner from the previous responses: “Okay, um, yeah, I think it’s a lot harder to see because,

White 31

um, I, just because not as many people are willing to go out into the Milwaukee community, I

guess, back to the whole “Marquette Bubble” idea. I think that that idea turns a lot of people off

to becoming part of the Milwaukee community.” Interestingly, though his initial responses

might indicate that they were prompted by questions about the community at Marquette – they

were not. Each of these responses followed my questioning and prompting about the type of

community that exists in Milwaukee and the relationship Marquette has with this community.

Yet, he immediately discusses the concept of community at Marquette. Is this a common notion

– that the Milwaukee community can exist within Marquette, or rather, that it exists solely

because of Marquette? When I examine this understanding through the lens that many

community members have shared with me, this tendency to limit Milwaukee to that which can

exist within Marquette’s limitations becomes increasingly problematic. If we limit the city of

Milwaukee to Marquette, then we discount every other aspect of the city, both positive and

negative, and the importance of these other aspects to our educational and personal maturation.

The implications of this limited understanding seem to be why this is problematic for the

relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee, especially when compared to the perspectives of

many of the members of the Milwaukee community. While at Repairers of the Breach,

Milwaukee’s only daytime shelter and resource center for the homeless, as a fully participating

guest member in their community, I engaged in a conversation with Mark Young, the active

center manager. He describes this difference between Marquette and Milwaukee in a distinct

way:

I know what it’s like up there at Marquette. It’s like a high school setting in an

adult atmosphere. I run past all those skinny girls trying to run to get skinnier and

all those crazy parties you all always having. And I know the tension up there at

White 32

Marquette. The tension is so thick you could cut it with a knife.” He went on: “I

never expected to find anything up there at Marquette. I used to run away from

there as fast as I could. But, I found something up there through Campus

Ministry. I know about St. Ignatius and the Spiritual Exercises. I know they

trying to teach the students something about real community up there. They force

the students out, not these Midnight Run students – I know Gerry. But, other

students. Even students who don’t want to be out in the community. But, you

know what, that’s what makes them better. And, it makes us better.

When I returned to Repairers of the Breach during a subsequent service learning session, Mark

again emphasized this understanding of Marquette as separate and different from Milwaukee. I

find it interesting that while many students recognize this atmosphere at Marquette, they almost

never acknowledge the fact that Milwaukee’s community members see it too. Mark also

describes the Marquette culture as contributing to the estrangement between the students and the

members of Milwaukee. While explaining his personal story, Mark notes these behaviors as his

responses to walking near Marquette:

I have been clean and sober for a year and two weeks now. But that doesn’t

meant I don’t face temptation. I was walking by Marquette and I saw all those

kids partying, drinking, enjoying their youth, and even after not one marijuana

stick or one drink or nothing for a year, I wanted to when I was there. I’m jealous

of all them at Marquette – it’s like a whole different world down there.

His next statements surprised me, though: “But, we got Marquette with us today and all of us

together – there’s hope in that. You wouldn’t know it when you walk through there or when you

see the kids, but [Marquette is] devoted to community service.”

White 33

Rather than continuing to highlight the discrepancies between Marquette and Milwaukee,

he notes a possible solution to my research question. (Ironically, this theory of how to revitalize

the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship occurred in an institution centered around and named for

“repairing the breaches” that exist in personal lives and in the greater community). I also have

found it an interesting phenomenon that once I, and other volunteers, go out into the community

we immediately lose our personal identities and become known simply as “Marquette.” Even

after over a year of service at the same organizations, I am still known as “Marquette.” I am still

greeted with the standard “Hey Marquette!” when I walk through the door. This identity with

the university seems problematic and, as the data suggests, is another possible cause for the

disintegrating quality of the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship. This identity with Marquette

identifies the students who actually interact with those in Milwaukee with the rhetoric of the

university and with the university culture – both that which is positive and that which is negative.

Another Look: Examining the Marquette University Perspective

Following my initial interview with Ben, I realized my research would be incomplete

without an examination of the university’s perspective on these potentially problematic factors.

To facilitate this, I interviewed the Marquette University Dean of Students, Stephanie Quade,

Ph.D. Prior to participating, she was asked to speak, to her best efforts, on behalf of the

university and thus disclose the official university perspective, rather than convey personal

opinions.

When asked about the effects of university rhetoric, including the existence of the

“Marquette Bubble” and the ideal of “being the difference,” she described how “weary” she is of

these phrases.

White 34

I’ve grown tired of that phrase because I think that, I think it’s something that

people think is unique to Marquette. And I think, actually, that an awareness of

any urban setting or any setting in the country is going to, you know, there’s a

Bubble over any place, right? This is one of the things for 21st century America -

if you have means and an inclination, you can isolate yourself from things that

you don’t want to see. And so I think that this idea of it being a “Marquette

Bubble” is not necessarily accurate (Stephanie Quade).

This response surprised me; rather than discuss the problematic nature of promoting this rhetoric,

she describes her weariness as a consequence of the understanding that the “Bubble” is a unique

phenomenon. That is, while she identifies it as problematic, she conceptualizes these problems

as created by students and faculty who choose to acknowledge its existence, rather than accept it

as a common, expected reality. Accepting this reality, though, without evaluating its potentially

detrimental impacts, in some ways, actually denies its reality. Complacency and acceptance

negate the concrete, significant influences this reality has on campus and community

interactions. Further, if failure of students and faculty to accept these conditions as common is

the only problem we recognize with the existence of the “Marquette Bubble,” is our perspective

complete? Or, are we ignorant of the underlying problem – the common existence of these

detrimental “Bubbles” throughout the nation? Dr. Quade suggests the inherent connection

between this underlying problem and individual student perceptions: “I think that it’s a willing

failure to acknowledge the larger context in which the institution exists” (Quade). Interestingly,

students seem to think of the “Marquette Bubble” in the concrete physical terms. They recognize

it because they see an exact place with an exact definition – a reality. She, however, seems to

focus on its rhetorical, perceptual qualities. When examining the potential barriers created by the

White 35

“Marquette Bubble,” Dr. Quade discusses the manner in which these perceptions are actually

more important in analyzing the “Marquette Bubble” than the physical qualities:

Again, I think that there are some people who are just going to be inclined to put blinders

up regardless of where they are, right? And so, what that really does is reinforces, or it

can, reinforce, your own world view without exposing you to dissonance with that world

view (Quade).

Still, we cannot deny that the physical realities exist and do impact the perceptions that the

neighboring Milwaukee community members harbor toward Marquette faculty and students. For

example, if “proximity to campus” is a factor considered in housing decisions (Quade), why do

many faculty and staff members live in suburban areas, rather than in downtown Milwaukee?

How does this reality contribute to the stereotypes to which each community adheres? Whose

responsibility is it to expose members of the Marquette community, particularly students, to this

“dissonance” with their world views (Quade)? She continued:

Kind of like the “Marquette Bubble,” there are certain things that I have just

grown weary of. I think “be the difference” is one of those things that actually

sounds really good and people recognize that it had a certain sound to it when it

got put forward, but the challenge with it is, like many other things, is that it too

can be all things to all people (Quade).

These statements brought another question to my mind – since we know that weariness

and frustration exist, why are we not actively pursuing efforts to address it? In what ways is the

university working to modify the pervasiveness of the “Marquette Bubble”? efforts can be made

to address it? Of course, answering these questions has not and will not be an immediate, short-

term process. Dr. Quade describes the many frustrations that have resulted from this tedious,

White 36

broad process based on her 25 years of experience at Marquette and the necessary actions that

are not yet implemented. In spite of her frustrations, though, she does provide a few initial

suggestions; first, she noted the importance of the academic environment – our identity as an

academic institution – in providing opportunities to engage with Milwaukee: “I would like to see

us maybe more comprehensively look at our academic offerings to think about what other areas

on campus can think about their work that same way,” (Quade). This emphasis on academics is

intriguing, yet it seems to relate directly to the overarching goals of programs like Service

Learning and Community-Based Learning. Foundationally, we are an educational institution;

and, with this identity, shouldn’t we accept the reality that there are many viable ways in which

to learn and mature and receive an education that occur outside of the classroom and outside of

the particular university setting? How can we expect our students to become viable community

members and participants after graduation if they do not experience the authentically positive

and negative elements of the so-called “real world?” In examining the extent to which we

accomplish our “real job” of educating students, we must also reexamine the understanding of

whole-person education. Marquette must accept the understanding that our “real job” as an

educational and “values-based” institution includes recognizing educational opportunities and

“teaching point[s]” in every interaction; by failing to acknowledge or choosing to suppress these

opportunities, we are only limiting our reputation as an academic institution and we actually

contradict the very rhetoric by which we claim to abide. And, unless the university aims to

implement this understanding, the relationship with the Milwaukee community will not reach its

maximum efficiency and effectiveness. As Dr. Quade described,

we have a lot of very good efforts and we have a lot of good will but what we lack

in many ways is a sense of how these things are a part of a larger whole. And

White 37

some of what that may mean is we can’t be all things to all people and so we’re

going to have to pick and choose on some things and we’re going to have to

decide that we’d rather be a little bit deeper on some things and wider on some

things (Quade).

Further, in its efforts to revitalize our outreach to the Milwaukee community, the university must

direct at least some of its efforts to ensure that the outreach efforts do not become excessively

specific, limiting our relationship with Milwaukee to a “single story” of our neighbors in the

community (Chimamanda Adichie). Still, numerous challenges and complications accompany

this process:

I think it’s really incumbent upon us as an institution to identify ways for students

to have meaningful interactions with people who live in the city, so not just the

city, but with people who live in the city. And, I don’t mean just exclusively

people who are poor or who are in some ways disadvantaged because that’s also

not fair, right? […] there are ways that we can encourage students to take

advantage of the diversity in Milwaukee, and there are also ways that we can help

students understand, and you know, that means professional stuff too. For

example, what are the internships that are available to students? How can

students really engage with the business community? And then, additionally, are

there ways for students to recognize those who have less than, and to begin to

recognize what their commitment is and what are the systems that exist that allow

those kinds of disparities to persist (Quade).

This statement correlates directly to Chimamanda Adichie’s understanding: “The single story

creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are

White 38

incomplete. They make one story become the only story” (Adichie); if the university limits its

perspective to either of two extremes – the ignorance and complacency of the “Marquette

Bubble” or an excessively expanded immersion, then it would negate completely the motivations

for and effectiveness of engaging in a partnership with Milwaukee.

Another factor she highlights as potentially “hurting” the university’s relationship to and

partnership with the community is the university’s tendency, when encouraging involvement in

the community, to utilize a drop-in, drop-out philosophy. She describes this concept of selective

community participation by citing the large-scale, days of service that occur sporadically

throughout the year. In doing so, she implies the general detriments that this selectivity and

readily-employed process of picking and choosing when and where we participate in the

community have on our partnership:

Part of being in a city is to reflect on the riches that the city has, right? But, the

hope would be that, over four years or more in college, that a student would sort

of see all of that, and that the feeling is that then, by the time the student

graduates, that this student is really ready to work in the world as the world is, not

the world as the student maybe wants to see the world […] So, one of the

challenges that I’ve considered over time is when we send our students out to

service projects in specific, particularly when we send them out into the urban

centers and they come back, and one of the things that I am fearful that we’ve

done is reinforce every single negative stereotype that a student may have in that

situation (Quade).

Here, she seems to note the potentially problematic nature of university actions because of the

rhetoric on which they rely. Though she describes the university’s genuine concern that its

White 39

actions contribute to, rather than combat, the persistence of negative stereotypes, she does not

provide any concrete ways in which or efforts in progress to address this obvious discrepancy.

The university neither intends to cause these problematic circumstances nor desires their

prominence; she admits their possibly inhibiting influence. Still, she notes that these realities

stem from more than university actions and rhetoric. The range of circumstances and influences

is extensive; she suggests the need to evaluate the ways in which certain influences are perhaps

more significant. This evaluation, though, does not connote a complete abandonment of large-

scale efforts that tend to rely on this drop-in, drop-out selectivity. Instead, we must consider the

effectiveness, accuracy, and authenticity of the underlying attitudes, rhetoric, and intentionality

of these efforts, so as to ensure their reflection of our institutional values. She continued:

I think that this is all very connected, and that we have people who have good

intentions and set up programs that they think are going to be great and they’ll

send somebody out into the city and they’ll do this great thing, but, if we’re not

careful in terms of how we do that, then we continue to reinforce negative

stereotypes, that question of privilege. […] It’s not, I mean, I would never

suggest that we shouldn’t do it, but it’s hard to do these things well. And, it’s

hard to always be able to capitalize on the teachable moment (Quade).

Interestingly, she recognizes the reality that teachable moments do exist in these efforts to

address students’ fear of the unknown, but only in so far as the university recognizes this fear

and encourages students to extend beyond the “little, self-contained ecosystem” of the campus

(Quade); This process connects directly to our goals and identity as an educational institution.

Thus, reciprocal teaching and learning within the community environment seems to be an

essential motivation for engaging Milwaukee.

White 40

Recognizing this central purpose, however, does not deny the other problematic factors

inhibiting effective partnership. Like Ben, Dr. Quade also implies student ignorance about the

city of Milwaukee and its opportunities as another potentially detrimental factor. Instead of

addressing the “lovely rhetoric” and idyllic phrases inhibit the Marquette-Milwaukee

partnership, the primary focus of university actions involves combatting student fear and

ignorance with the collaboration of students and faculty “to identify mechanisms for students to

engage with the city that they live in and to recognize that they don’t just go to Marquette but

that they actually are people who exist in a larger city – a city that has reality and some of that

reality, you know, walks across the campus” (Quade).

However, unlike Ben Ryan and other students with whom I have discussed the

relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee, Dr. Quade does not attribute the deterioration of

this relationship to a lack of information about or access to involvement opportunities. Stil, she

does indicate the incredible need to continue to encourage student and faculty involvement and

the importance of encouraging them in the right way – a way that perhaps contributes more than

solidifying their preconceived notions about the city of Milwaukee:

If we can really get our academic colleagues to more creatively think about ways

of getting students out in the world, I think we’ll bit a little bit better off. […] By

virtue of the fact that people are connected in the online world, there’s less and

less need to sort of go out into the larger world, so I think that fear of the

unknown develops from that. I think too, we have done a reasonably good job of

helping people understand that there are safety concerns if they leave the

immediate campus area. But, I don’t think we help them understand that that’s

not all there is. So, I think that there is our own PR problem (Quade).

White 41

Perhaps the key to revitalizing the relationship between Marquette and Milwaukee is the

inherent connection between this desire to encourage involvement and the extent to which we

adhere to our authentic intentions. This remains a central question – a question I hope to answer

as I continue my research endeavors. An interesting concept, and a possible starting point from

which I can answer these and related research questions, involves this commitment to authentic

intentionality. Dr. Quade describes our university community as inconsistent in this

commitment: “It’s my feeling in general that in a lot of ways the word “intentionality” is what’s

missing from a lot of what we do” (Quade). Our identity as an educational institution remains

distinct from, but does not negate our existence within a larger context contributes to our

relationship with Milwaukee. That is, because our ideals and intentions certainly stem from the

identities to which we adhere and, as a result, we must discern what qualities we use to identify

ourselves and our community outreach efforts.

I think that one of the things that we’re really trying to do right now,

institutionally, is come up with additional monies and other ways of continuing to

support that. Student research, undergraduate student research in particular, is

another one of the things that, institutionally, we’re really trying to make a

priority and, you know, this is what happens – there’s a limited amount of money

and you have to kind of decide how you’re going to put that forward and so

undergraduate research is another one of these initiatives that, I think, people feel

really strongly that we need to be more intentional about (Quade).

Implications, Contributions, and Directions for Future Research Endeavors

White 42

Our university shares a community with individuals affected by homelessness; yet, as this

initial data indicates, we often fail to recognize these individuals as members of our community.

And though we continuously choose to ignore it, there is an undeniable discrepancy between

university actions, rhetoric, and ideals. However, this reality does not have to continue – this

initial investigation presents us, as members of both the Marquette and Milwaukee communities,

with a different choice – a choice either to transform the deteriorating Marquette-Milwaukee

relationship into an effective partnership or to contribute to its further demise. However, to

progress out of the “Bubble” of ignorance and rejection, we must be willing to acknowledge the

need for a renewed understanding of our relationship with the Milwaukee community and to

work toward a more effective partnership.

In the largest context, I intend for this research project to become a central element of the

Strategic Planning Committee’s discussions about the themes of community and civic

engagement. I hope that this project illuminates the factors inhibiting these ideas from becoming

realities and, in doing so, prompts new and continued conversation regarding how best to

integrate these findings into university actions and rhetoric. That is, I hope that, as the Strategic

Planning committee works to create “a comprehensive, university-wide strategic plan to submit

to the University Board of Trustees in May 2013,” they examine this ethnography with great

consideration (Marquette University Strategic Planning Website). As these Strategic Planning

themes constitute a “blueprint [that will] guide the university's priorities and decision-making for

the next five to seven years,” creating a document with the most effective, most informed, and

most rhetorically accurate representation of our intentions in partnering with the city and people

of Milwaukee is the only manner through which we can progress and develop genuine

partnerships with the Milwaukee community (Marquette University Strategic Planning Website).

White 43

Dr. Quade describes the Strategic Planning process as “really asking that larger question of

whether or not the university mission statement is as dynamic as we want it to be to reflect the

kind of place we want to be” (Quade); this reflects the core of my proposal for change. As a

direct consequence of this research, I aim to revitalize both communities’ notions about the “kind

of place we want to be” and the partnership we hope to have.

Even now, after a year and a half of collaborating with Milwaukee community members,

I maintained my relationships with the site coordinators, members, and other volunteers. They

are more than superficial, forced acquaintances, but friends, neighbors, and fellow participants in

our Milwaukee community. I am no longer willing to adhere to the incomplete identification of

our neighbors and fellow Milwaukee residents as “that homeless man.” I am no longer afraid to

use the public transit system or become involved in areas I once thought were too far off-

campus; I am no longer afraid to make eye contact with those individuals who come to Noon

Run or to have conversations with those experiencing homelessness. Now, they are my friends

and neighbors, and Milwaukee has become as much of a home to me as Marquette is. I refuse to

accept the notion that Milwaukee is an unsafe, undesirable community to be kept separate from

the Marquette students - I will defy the boundaries of the “Marquette Bubble.” I hope that this

research on the nature of the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship and the barriers preventing it

will allow Marquette University, its students, and the Milwaukee community members to adhere

to these same convictions.

In engaging both the Marquette and Milwaukee communities and highlighting the areas

in which their relationship with each other can become more effective, this data not only presents

an incredible need, but also provides initial concrete suggestions about the means through which

this can be accomplished. Based on these initial interviews and investigations, I propose that the

White 44

university increase student awareness and understanding of the circumstances facing the city of

Milwaukee. Likewise, there must be an increase in university efforts to quell, rather than

promote, the use of the “Marquette Bubble” in describing and promoting our campus –

particularly to prospective students. The efforts to transform the Marquette-Milwaukee

relationship, though, must extend beyond the Marquette community. Therefore, I propose that

university rhetoric and actions regarding community outreach and Service Learning endeavors

become much more reflective of the values, ideals, and structure of Community-Based Learning.

This process also necessitates an examination of the authenticity of our adherence to our

Catholic, Jesuit identity and the corresponding pillars we aim to uphold. As part of this

examination of our adherence to these pillars, I propose that we establish a renewed commitment

to understanding the potential impact that these pillars have on Milwaukee. Further, I propose an

increase in collaborative outreach efforts, efforts validating the contributions of both

communities, and community involvement in large scale days of service. Marquette University

must commit to acknowledging the complex dynamics of this impoverished and racially-

segregated community and to promoting active collaboration with members of this community.

And, if these circumstances are to improve, then this commitment must occur in all aspects of

campus community life.

Future Research Endeavors

As I continue my research, I will rely on additional rhetorical and comparative analysis to

examine related archival data exploring these and other contributing factors, investigating the

manner in which these contributing factors and the Marquette-Milwaukee relationship has

developed throughout the past few decades. With this research, I hope to increase student and

White 45

institutional recognition of the major factors inhibiting the development of an effective

partnership between Marquette and Milwaukee. And further, with greater understanding of the

historical implications of these factors, I intend to discern the most effective means of addressing

student ignorance and adherence to these incomplete, incorrect stereotypes about the neighboring

community members. In addition, I plan to collect survey responses from Marquette students

regarding their understanding of the “Marquette Bubble” and other likely factors inhibiting the

Marquette-Milwaukee partnership; their explanations of student reluctance to participate in

community outreach; and their suggestions for ways in which to improve this reality. I intend to

reach data and analysis saturation as a direct result of these survey responses, additional

interviews, and digital ethnographic analyses of the Marquette University online publications and

websites. So, I cannot foresee what additional proposals and implications, and even other

research directions, will arise. Still, I argue for the necessity of these endeavors in allowing

Marquette and Milwaukee community members to become witnesses to a new, often hidden and

stigmatized element of Milwaukee. Similarly, I hope that after its completion, my research will

become a significant resource for Marquette’s administrators, faculty, students, and alumni –

enabling the creation of a more cohesive community both in and around Marquette’s campus

and inspiring a community devoted to quality leadership, communication, and extended

networking opportunities for its members.

Conclusion

I have come to rely on this research as another means through which I can step outside

the “Marquette Bubble” and acknowledge the Milwaukee community. I only hope that other

members of both communities will be willing and able to participate in effective, meaningful,

White 46

and perhaps even transformative interactions with each other. That is, I hope Marquette

University will become more willing to increase the community involvement of all of its students

and will avoid filling the students with unqualified fear and stereotypes about our neighboring

community. Without encouraging increased understanding of and collaboration with the

neighboring Milwaukee community, how can we at Marquette ever completely abide by and

fulfill our goal of “being the difference?”

Works Cited and Consulted

Adichie, Chimamanda. ”The Danger of a Single Story.” TED Conferences, LLC. Oct.

2009. <http://www.ted.com/speakers/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie.html>

U.S. Census Bureau. "American FactFinder - Results." Census.gov. U.S. Cenus Bureau, 2010.

Web. 06 Nov. 2012. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0>.

Goodman, Brooke. "Don't Shy Away from Service Learning." Marquette Tribune: Viewpoints.

White 47

Marquette University, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

<http://marquettetribune.org/2012/09/27/viewpoints/goodman-dont-shy-away-from-

service-learning-tf1-ab2-mt3/>.

Marquette University. "Our Mission Statement." Office of Teaching and Learning: Service

Learning Program. Marquette University, 2012. Web. 2 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.marquette.edu/servicelearning/index.shtml>.

"Marquette University Basic Statistics." College Prowler. National Center for Education

Statistics IPEDS Database, May 2012. Web. 07 Nov. 2012.

<http://collegeprowler.com/marquette-university/statistics/basic-statistics/>.

Marquette University. “Strategic Planning Themes” Office of the President. Marquette

University, Aug. 2012. Web. 15 November 2012.

<http://www.marquette.edu/president/strategic-planning-themes.php

Princeton University “Research Matters." Princeton University Community-Based Learning

Initiative. The Trustees of Princeton University, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 2 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.princeton.edu/cbli/>.

LilRedress. ""The Marquette Bubble" - Marquette University." Trip Advisor. Trip Advisor LLC,

17 July 2012. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. <http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-

g60097-d527240-r134625383-Marquette_University-Milwaukee_Wisconsin.html>.

Quade, Stephanie. Personal interview. 8 Nov. 2012.

Ryan, Ben. Personal interview. 21 Sept. 2012.

Tolan, Tom, and Karen Herzog. "Poverty Numbers Spike in Milwaukee." Jsonline.com.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/Poverty-numbers-spike-in-Milwaukee.html>.

White 48

Wise, Tim. "Charity Versus Solidarity: What's the Difference and Why Does It Matter? (2008

Presentation)." Tim Wise, 14 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2012.

<http://www.timwise.org/2012/09/charity-versus-solidarity-whats-the-difference-and-

why-does-it-matter-2008-presentation/>.

Appendix A

Expanded Coding Categories:- Qualities of Marquette

o Physical – campus, locationo Rhetorical – key phrases, ideas, university mottos, mission statements, sloganso Realities of Marquette – demographics, physical location, student knowledge

about Milwaukeeo Ideals of Marquette - demographics, physical location, student knowledge

about Milwaukee- Qualities of Milwaukee

o Location - directions, racial segregation, demographics of different areas in and surrounding the city

White 49

o People - demographics, involvement level, personal characteristics, potential for relationships

- Knowledge about Marquette:o Prior to arriving here - students, faculty, and administratorso After arriving here - students, faculty, and administrators

- Knowledge about Milwaukee:o Prior to arriving here - students, faculty, and administratorso After arriving here - students, faculty, and administrators

- Relationship between Marquette and Milwaukeeo Potential problems within this relationship/where this relationship breaks

down: Marquette Bubble Difference between Marquette students and people in Milwaukee Student perceptions University rhetoric/ideas vs. university actions/realities Student fear Bus system, Milwaukee County Transit System

o Areas in which this relationship is productive, effective? Service learning Service organizations Outreach programs

- Motivations for involvement at Marquette – from the perspective of students, faculty, administrators

- Motivations for involvement in Milwaukee – from the perspective of students, faculty, and administrators

- Types of involvement at Marquette – of students, faculty, administrators- Types of involvement in Milwaukee – of students, faculty, administrators

Appendix BAdditional Interview Questions:

- Marquette Student and Faculty Questions:o Do you have any leadership roles in any of these organizations? If so, what

organizations and what responsibilities do you have in this organization?o Are these organizations involved in any outreach to the Milwaukee

community? If so, what types of outreach to the Milwaukee community have these organizations/groups/activities been involved in?

o What did you know about the city of Milwaukee prior to arriving at Marquette?

o What comes to mind when you hear the phrase “Marquette Bubble”?

o How far have you traveled off campus? What was your method of transportation?

o Have you ever ridden a public bus around the city of Milwaukee? If so, where and for what purpose?

o What do you associate with the Milwaukee County Transit System?

White 50

o What about the Milwaukee and its inhabitants attract you?

o What, if anything, interests you about volunteering or becoming more involved in community service?

o How have you been involved in the Milwaukee community or in community service since coming to Marquette?

o What do you feel motivates students to commit to understanding the Milwaukee community and the impoverishment within it?

o What would you like to become involved in at Marquette?o What would you like to become involved in here in Milwaukee?o What motivates you to become involved in the Milwaukee community? What

motivates you to participate in community service?

o What experiences have you had with the homeless, impoverished near the Marquette campus?

o What inhibits you from participating in or becoming involved in the Milwaukee community?

o What fears do you have about becoming involved in community service or in the Milwaukee community in a deeper way?

o What can the university do to combat these fears, inhibitions, and barriers?

o What did you know about the city of Milwaukee before coming to Marquette?o Do you know of any issues currently facing the Milwaukee community? If so,

what are they and how have you experienced them?o What do you know about the city of Milwaukee after a year of attending

Marquette?o What do you know, if anything, about services for the homeless and

impoverished in the Milwaukee community?o How have your thoughts or preconceived notions about the Marquette Bubble

and the Milwaukee community changed because of your experiences here at Marquette?

o How has the university changed your opinion on the city of Milwaukee and the people in it?

o How has Marquette become a home to you, if you consider Marquette to be a home?

o In what ways has the city of Milwaukee become a home, or at least more familiar, to you?

o How would you describe the importance of the Marquette pillars? Which of the four do you feel has the most impact on Marquette’s campus?

o What barriers, if any, are created by the concept of the “Marquette Bubble”?o What experiences have you had in the Milwaukee community that have

transformed you or changed your perspective on homelessness, poverty, community service, and Marquette?

White 51

o How would you describe the Marquette standard of working to “be the difference?” In what ways do you feel that this concept applies in your own experiences on Marquette’s campus?

o What perceptions about the city of Milwaukee did you have prior to attending Marquette? Did any of these perceptions change?

o What do you understand Marquette’s responsibility to be in the Milwaukee community?

o How does this responsibility relate to Marquette’s identity as a Jesuit institution and Milwaukee’s 2010 reality as the fourth poorest city in the nation (Glauber and Poston)?