Disruptive activism has been a part of college campus since 1766 when the Bad Butter Rebellion at Harvard took place (Dickey, 2016; Ireland, 2012; Moore, 1976). More recently institutions have been facing an increase in disruptive campus activism (Dickey, 2016). When disruptive campus activism occurs on a college campus it is often the student affairs professionals that are asked to help manage the situation. These professionals serve as both the advisors to the student activism and campus managers representing the university. Understanding how student affairs professionals reconcile the role they play will add to the existing research on activism on college campuses. The findings of this study show that operationalizing a specific role can be challenging when it comes to disruptive campus activism. Reconciling the role is also challenging, especially if you don't have the preferred role of advisor. Student affairs professionals who perform the advisor role often understand what their role is and how to operationalize the function. Campus managers, however, have less of an understanding of how to operationalize their functions, and when disruptive campus activism occurs, they are forced into stressful situations. For both groups, there were six main factors that influenced how they reconciled their particular role. The student affairs professionals' personal identities played a major factor in reconciling the actions in their roles. This factor was particularly influential when the 4 professional held a minoritized identity. All participants believed that the advisor role was more central to their work than was the manager role. The advisor identity was based on a core value of student advocacy and education. Interestingly, this value was articulated more clearly by those participants who occupied professional roles that were more managerial in nature. For both advisors and campus managers, the issue at the heart of the disturbance played a major factor. When issues occurred that student affairs professionals believed in, campus managers found it harder to impede activism and advisors encouraged to push the issue further. How the institution viewed disruptive campus activism played a large factor into reconciliation for all participants. If a professional felt they had institutional support, reconciliation was easier. For campus managers, timing of when they heard about an issue and their capacity to try and work with the students played a key factor. Lastly, the position level of the student affairs professional played a factor into their reconciliation depending on if they had more contact with higher level administrators versus their co-workers. Implications for practice include better defining roles for student affairs and teaching student affairs professionals how to negotiate the tension and fulfill the core value of advocating for students. This study can be used to help student affairs professionals better understand and negotiate the role conflicts they experience around disruptive campus activism. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]