UW-Eau Claire Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report April 27, 2010.
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of UW-Eau Claire Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report April 27, 2010.
UW-Eau Claire
Campus Climate Assessment
Results of Report
April 27, 2010
Campuses as Social Systems
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998
Students, Faculty, Staff,
Alumni
Institutional Policies
Structural Framework
Institutional History/Core
Values
Vision/Mission
Social Contexts
Climate In Higher Education
Climate (Living, Working, Learning)
Creation and Distribution of
Knowledge
Community
Members
Barcelo, 2004; Bauer, 1998, Kuh & Whitt, 1998; Hurtado, 1998, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Milhem, 2005; Peterson, 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2005; Smith, 1999; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008
Assessing Campus Climate
Rankin & Reason, 2008
What is it?
•Campus Climate is a construct
Definition?
•Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and students of an institution
How is it measured?
•Personal Experiences
•Perceptions
•Institutional Efforts
Campus Climate & Students
How students experience their
campus environment influences both learning and
developmental outcomes.1
Discriminatory environments have a negative effect on student learning.2
Research supports the pedagogical value of a diverse student body
and faculty on enhancing learning
outcomes.3
1 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 20052 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991. 3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, 2003.
Why conduct a climate assessment?
To foster a caring University community that provides leadership for constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. To open the doors wider for underrepresented groups is to create a welcoming environment.To improve the environment for working and learning on campus.
Project Objectives
Provide UW-Eau Claire with information, analysis, and recommendations as they relate to campus climate.
This information will be used in conjunction with other data to provide UW-Eau Claire with an inclusive view of campus and a system-wide review.
Projected Outcomes
UW-Eau Claire will add to their knowledge base with regard to how constituent groups currently feel about their particular campus climate and how the community responds to them (e.g., pedagogy, curricular issues, professional development, inter-group/intra-group relations, respect issues).UW Eau-Claire will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work regarding diversity (e.g., Inclusive Excellence, Equity Scorecard).
Inclusive Excellence
Inclusive Excellence broadens and expands our notion of "diversity" and what it means to truly be an inclusive campus community.
Honoring the multi-faceted, intersectional differences among us, enables us to address the needs of individuals and groups thereby creating an "equitable" and welcoming campus environment.
Inclusive Excellence is not limited to compositional diversity, but extends to include curricular transformation, improved policies for all campus members, better retention of students and faculty, and a welcoming campus climate for all.
The Climate Project & Inclusive Excellence
The Climate Study is foundational to Inclusive Excellence in that it is the first time in the UW System that we are collecting data on multiple and intersectional identities based on experiences and perceptions of campus life by all members of the community.
It is a population study that encouraged every campus community member to provide input on the campus climate.
The input, data, and final results will be used in tandem with other data as a starting point to build an action plan that speaks to Inclusive Excellence.
Setting the Context
Examine the Research Review work already
completed
Preparation Readiness of the campus
Assessment Examine the climate
Follow-up Building on the successes and
addressing the challenges
Current Campus Climate
Access
Retention
Research
Scholarship
Curriculum Pedagogy
UniversityPolicies/Service
Intergroup &IntragroupRelations
Transformational Tapestry Model©
Baseline Organizational
Challenges
SystemsAnalysis
Local / Sate /Regional
Environments
Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment
AdvancedOrganizational
Challenges
ConsultantRecommendations
Assessment
Transformationvia
Intervention
FiscalActions
Symbolic Actions
AdministrativeActions
EducationalActions
Transformed Campus Climate
Access
Retention
Research
Scholarship
Curriculum Pedagogy
UniversityPolicies/Service
Intergroup &IntragroupRelations
© 2001
External Relations
External Relations
University of Wisconsin System Mission
The mission of the system is to develop human resources, to discover and disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate society by developing in students heightened intellectual, cultural and humane sensitivities, scientific, professional and technological expertise and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.
Core Mission of the University Cluster
…“Serve the needs of women, minority, disadvantaged, disabled, and nontraditional students and seek racial and ethnic diversification of the student body and the professional faculty and staff.”
Process to Date2004-2005
Academic Planner (C. Saulnier) made aware of bias incidents at several campuses & began conversation regarding system-wide campus climate project
Taskforce committee formed to investigate consulting firms who conduct climate assessments in higher education.
Rankin & Associates identified as leading expert in multiple identity studies in higher education
Process to Date2005-2006
Conversations at system level continued
Proposal presentation made to UW System Provosts and various constituent groups in Madison in September 2006
Process to Date2006-2007
UWS Administrators form Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) Conducted in-depth interviews with other higher
education institutions who had contracted with R&A resulting in very positive reviews
In collaboration with R&A identified potential fact-finding groups and developed protocol
Identified “next steps” in process
Process to Date 2006-2007
President Reilly pledges support for the project and agrees to finance 75% of the costs
Five campuses volunteer to participate in climate assessment in the first year
Participating institutions Provosts’ Teleconference with R&A to discuss process, Scope of the Work, Projected Time-line, Proposed Budget
At the request of R&A, the Provosts were invited to add additional members to the CSWG to ensure institutional representation
Process to Date 2006-2007
Project Co-Chairs and Project Coordinator named Vicki Washington (Co-Chair, CSWG)
Interim Assistant Vice President of the Office of Academic Development and Diversity, UW System Administration
Ed Burgess (Co-Chair, CSWG)
Department of Dance, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lisa Beckstrand (Project Coordinator)
Academic Planner, Director of Inclusivity Initiative, Office of Academic & Student Services, UW System Administration
Process to Date Participating Institutions
Spring 2008UW Colleges
UW-La Crosse
UW-Milwaukee
UW-Oshkosh
UW-Stevens Point
Fall 2009UW-Eau Claire
UW-Parkside
UW-River Falls
UW-Whitewater
Overview of the Project
• Fact-Finding Groups
Phase I
• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation
Phase II
• Data Analysis
Phase III
• Final Report and Presentation
Phase IV
Process to DatePhase ISeptember 2007
Fact-finding groups were held with UW System students, staff, and faculty from various constituent groups to discuss their perceptions of the college climate.
Information from the fact finding Groups used by CSWG to identify baseline system-wide and institutional challenges and to assist in developing survey questions.
Process to DatePhase II
August 2007 - February 2008
Bi-monthly meetings with CSWG to develop the survey instrument
Development of Communication Plan
CSWG developed the final survey instrument template that was administered to the five participating institutions in spring 2008.
Process to DatePhase II cont’d
Summer and Fall 2009
Diversity Leadership Committee (DLC) at UW-Eau Claire revised the survey to better match the campus context at UW-Eau Claire.
Approved by UW-Eau Claire Institutional Review Board (IRB) in September 2009.
The survey was distributed in October 2009.
Survey Instrument
Final instrument 91 questions and additional space for respondents to provide
commentary On-line or paper & pencil options
Sample = Population All members of the UW-Eau Claire community were invited to
participate
Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at UW-Eau Claire Respondents’ perceptions of climate at UW-Eau Claire Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change
Survey Assessment Limitations
Self-selection biasResponse ratesCaution in generalizing results for
constituent groups with significantly lower response rates
Method Limitation
Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 10 individuals where identity could be compromised.
Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility of identifying individuals.
Process to DatePhase IIIJanuary – March 2010
Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted by Rankin & Associates.
Process to DatePhase IV April 2010
Draft of the report reviewed by DLC committee members.
Final report forwarded to DLC representatives.
Presentation of survey results to the campus community.
Results
Response Rates
Who are the respondents?
4,607 people responded to the call to participate (37% response rate overall).
Several respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.
Faculty Response Rates
Instructional Academic Staff (33%, n = 61)
Assistant Professor (55%, n = 63)
Adjunct Faculty (n = 9)
Associate Professor (54%, n = 67)
Professor (51%, n = 67)
Staff Response Rates
Administrators (n = 30)
Limited Term Employee (19%, n = 28)
Classified Staff Non-Exempt (27%, n = 88)
Classified Staff Exempt (56%, n = 50)
Non-Instructional Academic Staff (49%, n = 95)
Limited Academic Staff (24%, n = 7)
Student Response Rates
Bachelor Degree Student (33%, n = 3401)
Master Degree Student (17%, n = 82)
Doctoral Degree Student (n = 8)
Associate Degree (n = 139)
Non-Degree Seeking (n = 59)
Transfer (n = 229)
Dual Enrollment (n = 2)
Professional Degree (n = 32)
Student Response Rates by Selected Demographics
Students of Color
29% (n = 276)
White Students
37% (n = 3676)
By RaceWomen Students
41% (n = 2635)
Men Students % 28% (n = 1294)
By Gender
Results
Demographic Characteristics
Student Respondents by Class Standing (n)
Students
1091
919
700 758
392
47 1 2
First year 2nd yr
3rd yr 4th yr
5th yr or more Master's degree
Doctoral degree Professional degree
Student Residence
53% of student respondents
lived in residence halls
38% of student respondents lived in off-
campus apartment or
house
8% of student respondents lived
with partner, spouse, children, parents, family or
relatives
Income by Student Status (n)
Below $29,999K
$30K - $59,999
$60K - $99,999
$100K-$149K
$150K or above
178
546
995
494
313
499
13995
21 1421 30 32 18 15
Undergraduate Dependent
Undergraduate Independent
Graduate students
Employee Respondents by Position Status (n)
Series1
9
61 63 6767
28
88
50
95
7
30
90
Adjunt professorInstructional academic staffAssistant professorAssociate professorProfessorLimited term employeeClassified staff non-exemptClassified staff exemptNon-instructional academic staffLimited academic staffAdministratorOther
Collapsed Employee Status (n)
Series1
267
160
138
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
Respondents by Gender and Position Status (n)
There were 10 respondents who identified as transgender (8 students; 2 employees)
Female Male
2551
1258
84 36156 108105 5395 43
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
Respondents by Sexual Orientation and Position Status (n)
Heterosexual LGB
3710
164245
1814015
1297
Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
Respondents by Racial Identity (n) (Unduplicated Total)
Se
276
3626
People of Color White People
Respondents by Faculty/Staff Appointments by Gender
Women Menn % n %
Adjunct professor 6 1.7 2 1.0
Instructional Academic Staff 45 12.6 16 7.8
Assistant professor 47 13.2 16 7.8
Associate professor 31 8.7 35 17.2
Professor 27 7.6 39 19.1
Limited Term employee 22 6.2 5 2.5
Classified staff non-exempt 67 18.8 21 10.3
Classified staff exempt staff 28 7.9 22 13.7
Non-instructional academic staff 66 18.5 28 13.7
Limited academic staff 5 1.4 2 1.0
Administrator 12 3.4 18 8.8
Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)
Se
3110
456
931
80
ChristianOther than ChristianNo AffiliationOther
Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect Major Life Activities (n)
Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff
34
60
6
63
4 1 1
72
4 0 2
Physical Disability
Learning Disability
Psychological Condition
Citizenship Status by Position
Students Employeesn % n %
US citizen 3833 97.1 528 94.5
US citizen – naturalized 28 0.7 8 1.4
Dual citizenship 18 0.5 6 1.1
Permanent resident (immigrant) 14 0.4 15 2.7
International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 55 1.4 * *
* Data is missing due to n < 5
Findings
Overall Comfort Levels
Campus Climate (88%)
Department/Work Unit (86%)
Classroom (87%)
Comfort Levels with Overall Campus Climate, Department/Work Unit Climate,
and Class Climate by Demographic Groups
Most Comfortable
Heterosexual Men White People
Least Comfortable
LGBQ People of Color
Overall Satisfaction
78%
•Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW Eau Claire.
65%
•Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education UW Eau Claire.
89%
•Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW Eau Claire.
76%
•Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW Eau Claire.
Lowest Levels of Satisfaction by Demographic Groups
• Women and classified staffSatisfaction with
Job
• Women and classified staffSatisfaction with
Career Progression
• Students of Color and LGBQ students Satisfaction with
Education
• LGBQ StudentsSatisfaction with Academic Career
Progression
Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by Selected Demographic Categories (%)
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
74
84 81 78 80 78
149 10 11
1511
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Selected
Demographic Categories (%)
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
61
7278
63 63 64
1812
5
17
26
17
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed By Position Status (%)
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff
7064
55
16 16 17
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
Employee Comments with Regard to Job and Career Progression Satisfaction
Employees who were satisfied with the way their careers have progressed enjoyed their day-to-day work lives, were “passionate” about the content of their jobs, saw advancement as a possibility, worked in pleasant atmospheres/departments, were happy to have a full time job, and felt supported by their superiors.
Those employees who were not satisfied with their career progression felt “stuck” in their jobs, saw no possibility for advancement, received low salaries, were disparaged or discouraged by their supervisors, and felt that they were “overworked”.
Student Satisfaction with Education at UW Eau Claire (%)
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
9186
81
9082
89
211
4 24
2
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
Student Satisfaction with Academic Career at UW Eau Claire (%)
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
7872 71
7668
77
7 9 10 711
7
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
Student Comments with Regard to Satisfaction with Academic Experiences
Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have progressed said they had informative academic advisors, had good relationships with “excellent teachers,” UW-Eau Claire has met their expectations, and they were earning “good grades.”
Dissatisfied students said that some coursework was “unnecessary” or “redundant,” their academic advisors “could be better,” they were not able to enroll in required courses, the coursework was not challenging enough, the coursework was too difficult, they had difficulty adjusting to college life, and they were not certain which major to choose.
Challenges and Opportunities
Experiences with Harassment
508 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-Eau Claire
11%
Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
Series1
26
23
1816
14 13 13
9 9 8
Gender (n=133)
Age (n=116)
Institutional Status (n=90)
Religion/Spiritual Status (n=82)
Political Views (n=73)
Physical Characteristics (n=68)
Educational Level (n=66)
Race (n=45)
Ethnicity (n=43)
Sexual Orientation (n=39)
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to
Gender by Gender (%)
Women Men Transgender
11 11
20
33
11
0
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to gender²
(n=338)¹
(n=113)²
(n=162)¹
(n=17)²
(n=2)¹
(n=0)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by
Position Status (%)
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..
Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff
9
30
2023
8
3944
52
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to status²
(n=351)¹
(n=27)²
(n=79)¹
(n=31)²
(n=31)¹
(n=16)²
(n=32)¹
(n=14)²
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to
Race by Race (%)
People of Color White
20
10
55
2
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to race²
(n=66)¹
(n=36)²
(n=427)¹
(n=7)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by
Sexual Orientation due to Sexual Orientation (%)
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..
LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents
24
10
61
2
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²
(n=49)¹
(n=30)²
(n=435)¹
(n=7)²
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Disability Status by Disability Status (%)
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..
No disability Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological Condition
10
34
222625
38
62
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to disability²
(n=455)¹(n=16)¹
(n=4)²
(n=16)¹
(n=6)²
(n=21)¹
(n=13)²
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
n %
Deliberately ignored or excluded 245 48.2
Felt intimidated/bullied 165 32.5
Stares 111 21.9
Derogatory remarks 93 18.3
Isolated or left out when working in groups 88 17.3
Isolated or left out because of my identity 64 12.6
Received a low performance evaluation 61 12.0
Derogatory written comments 47 9.3
Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 46 9.1
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 508. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents Who Believed They Were Deliberately Ignored or Excluded
Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 39 percent (n = 96) - in a class 34 percent (n = 82) - in a meeting with a group of people
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 381). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents Who Believed They Were Intimidated or Bullied
Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 32 percent (n = 52) - in a class 21 percent (n = 35) - in a meeting with a group of people 21 percent (n = 35) - at a campus job
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 381). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (n)
Student Respondents Faculty Respondents Academic Staff Re-spondents
Classified Staff Re-spondents
162
11 114
115
33
137
1217
11 14
57
6
16 169
29
17
Source = Undergraduate
Source = Faculty
Source = Administrator
Source = Staff
Source = Supervisor
What did you do?1
Personal responses: Was angry (53%) Told a friend (40%) Felt embarrassed (40%) Ignored it (34%) Avoided the harasser (30%)
Reporting responses: Didn’t know who to go to (16% ) Made a complaint to campus employee/official (13%) Did not report the incident for fear of retaliation (13%) Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously (10%) Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously (9%)
1Respondents could mark more than one response
Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault
The survey defined sexual harassment as “A repeated course of conduct whereby one person engages in verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, that is unwelcome, serves no legitimate purpose, intimidates another person, and has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or classroom environment.”
The survey defined sexual assault as “Intentional physical contact, such as sexual intercourse or touching, of a person’s intimate body parts by someone who did not have permission to make such contact.”
Sexual Misconduct at UW-Eau Claire
Believed they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful
8%
Were fearful of being sexually harassed at UW Eau-Claire
4%
Respondents Who Experienced Sexual Assault
88 respondents were victims of sexual assault
2%
Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted
By Gender Identity
• Women (3%; n = 78)
• Men (1%; n=7)
• Transgender (1%, n = 1)
By Sexual Identity
• Heterosexual (2%; n = 77)
• LGBQQ (3%, n = 7)
By Racial Identity
• White People (2%; n = 81)
• People of Color (2%, n = 6)
By Position
• Students (n = 76)
• Employees (n = 4)
Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted
Where did it occur?Off-campus (n = 48)
Who were the offenders against students?*Students (n = 34)
What did you do1?Told a friend (n = 57)
Did nothing (n = 24)
Told a family member (n = 18)
1Respondents could mark more than one response
Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Eau Claire
36% (n = 1672) of all Respondents
-----------------------------------------------
Students (34%); Faculty (56%);
Academic Staff (61%); Classified Staff (49%)
Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Eau Claire
Employees:Women (55%); Men (59%)
Employees of Color (46%); White Employees (58%)
LGBQ Employees (65%); Heterosexual Employees (57%)
Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Eau Claire
Students:
Women (34%); Men (34%)
Students of Color (36%); White Students (33%)
LGBQ Students (48%); Heterosexual Students (33%)
Perceptions
Employees Who Observed or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive and/or Hostile Working or Learning Environment
% n
Yes 19.0 861
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Race (%)
18
26
White People (n=759)
People of Color (n=86)
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Gender (%)
Series1
19 19
Women (n=564)
Men (n=289)
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)
38
18
LGB (n=79)
Heterosexual (n=761)
Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%)
Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct
n %Stares
359 41.7Derogatory remarks
340 39.5Deliberately ignored or excluded
309 35.8Racial/ethnic profiling
252 29.3Someone isolated or left out because of their identity
197 22.9Intimidation/bullying
161 18.7Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity
153 17.8Graffiti
150 17.4Derogatory written comments
142 16.5Someone isolated or left out when working in groups
99 11.5Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct
n %Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity
85 9.9Threats of physical violence
56 6.5Someone receiving a low performance evaluation
56 6.5Someone fearing for their physical safety
55 6.4Someone isolated or left out because of their socioeconomic status
53 6.2Someone receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment
47 5.5Victim of a crime
31 3.6Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails
30 3.5Physical violence
27 3.1Derogatory phone calls
21 2.4Someone fearing for their family’s safety
9 1.0
Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%)
Students (54%) Didn’t Know the Source (22%) Faculty Members (14%) Colleagues (11%)
Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents Who Observed People Being Stared At
Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 63 percent (n = 227) - while walking on campus 47 percent (n = 167) - in a public space on campus 43 percent (n = 155) - in a class
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents Who Observed Others as Targets of Derogatory Remarks
Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 35 percent (n = 119) - while walking on campus 34 percent (n = 114) - in a public space on campus
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents Who Observed Someone Being Deliberately Ignored or Excluded
Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 43 percent (n = 132) - in a class 23 percent (n = 72) - in a public space on campus
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Perceived Discrimination
Hiring
(27%)
Due to Gender (27%)
Due to Race (17%)
Due to Ethnicity (17%)
Employment Practices Related to Promotion/Tenure
(10%)
Due to Gender (24%)
Due to Position (20%)
Due to Age (11%)
Employment Practices Excluding Promotion/Tenure
(24%)
Due to Gender (34%)
Due to Position (19%)
Due to Age (10%)
Work-Life Issues
The majority of respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues.
Work-Life Issues
76% (n = 435) of employee respondents were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations
37% (n = 210) believe there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units
27% (n = 154) were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision
71% (n = 405) believed that they had colleagues or peers who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it
Work-Life Issues
63% (n = 357) believed that they had support from decision makers/colleagues who supported their career advancement
50% (n = 134) of faculty thought their research interests were valued by their colleagues
23% (n = 131) constantly felt under the scrutiny by their colleagues
28% (n = 161) felt they had to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate
40% (n = 228) thought their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience
Work-Life Issues
62% (n = 357) of employees are usually satisfied with the way in which they were able to balance their professional and personal lives
39% (n = 221) found UW-Eau Claire supportive of family leave
40% (n = 230) have had to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities
18% (n = 88) felt that employees who have children were considered less committed to their careers
21% (n = 118) felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities
Work-Life Issues
15% (n = 84) believed the institution was unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, co-parenting partners
26% (n = 140) thought they had equitable access to domestic partner benefits
18% (n = 96) believed they had equitable access to tuition reimbursement
Welcoming Workplace Climate
More than half of all employees thought the workplace climate was welcoming of “difference.”
Exceptions include: mental health status, gender expression, learning disability status, and political views.
Respondents of Color and sexual minority respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming.
Welcoming Classroom Climate
More than half of all student respondents felt that the classroom climate was welcoming for students based on “difference” across all dimensions.
56% of Students of Color and 73% of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race
44% of LGB students and 64% of heterosexual students thought the climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation
Institutional Actions
Visible Leadership
More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the Chancellor, department chairs, Multicultural Affairs, the Admissions Office and Advising provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community.
Substantial percentages of respondents were unaware of the degree to which many of the other offices, units, committees, and groups provided visible leadership.
Inclusive Curriculum
More than half of all students and faculty felt the courses they took or taught included materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on “difference.”
The exceptions included mental health status, learning disability, physical disability, and veteran/active military status.
Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate
More than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion
and tenure for faculty/staff with families would positively affect the climate
training mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior
offering diversity training/programs as community outreach would positively affect the climate
Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate
More than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing, improving, and promoting access to quality services for
those individuals who experience sexual abuse providing mentors for minority faculty/students/staff new to campus providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents at
the campus level and departmental level providing on-campus child care services providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities
Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate
Less than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course
objectives throughout the curriculum rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity
training diversity related activities as one of the criteria for hiring and/or
evaluation of staff, faculty, and administrators reallocating resources to support inclusive climate changes on
campus requiring the Affirmative Action Office to provide diversity and
equity training to every search and screen committee
Summary
Strengths and Successes
Challenges and Opportunities
Summary of Findings Strengths and Successes
89% percent of students were satisfied with their education at UW-Eau Claire.
78% of employees were satisfied with their jobs and 65% with how their careers have progressed.
Over 75% of respondents reported that they were very comfortable or comfortable with the overall climate, climate in their departments or work unit, and climate in their classes.
Summary of FindingsOpportunities and Challenges
Challenge
Differential Treatment Due to Institutional Position
Challenge
Homophobia and Heterosexism
Challenge
Gender Inequity
Challenge
Racial Tension
Racial Tension at UW-Eau Claire
Twice as many Respondents of Color (20%, n = 66) reported personally experiencing harassment when compared to their White counterparts (10%, n = 427).
Fifty-five percent (n = 36) of Respondents of Color said the harassment was based on their race, while only two percent (n = 7) of White respondents indicated the basis as race.
People of Color were also more likely than White people to observe offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct.
Of those who observed harassment, 24% (n = 203) believed it was based on race.
Racial Tension at UW-Eau Claire
People of Color were less comfortable than White respondents with the overall climate for diversity, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes, with the largest difference in the classroom.
Employees of Color were more likely than White employees to report: they were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear that it will affect their
performance evaluation or tenure decision colleagues expect them to represent “the point of view” of their identity their colleagues have lower expectations of them than of other employees that they have to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as
legitimate.
Employees of Color were also more likely to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices, employment-related disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion.
Gender Inequity
According to all respondents who experienced harassment, the conduct was most often based on gender.
Women were three times (33%, n = 113) more likely than men (11%, n = 17) to indicate the basis of harassment as gender.
Women respondents were also less satisfied with their jobs and the way their careers have progressed when compared with men.
This theme did not extend to students such that men student respondents were less satisfied with both their jobs and academic career progression.
Gender Inequity
Of those respondents who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, 27% (n = 42) said it was based on gender.
Of those individuals who believed that they had observed discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, 24% (n = 13) said it was based on gender.
Of those individuals who observed discriminatory practices related to promotion, 34%, (n = 46) said it was based on gender.
In all three instances, gender was the most cited basis for discrimination.
Gender Inequity
Women faculty were less likely than men faculty to feel their research interests were valued by their colleagues.
Women employees were more reluctant to take family leave that they are entitled to for fear that it will affect their career, and feel they have to work harder than colleagues to be perceived as legitimate and achieve the same recognition/rewards.
Women employees were also more likely to feel that faculty/staff who have children are considered less committed to their careers.
Homophobia and Heterosexism
LGBQ respondents were more than twice as likely than heterosexual respondents to believe that they had experienced harassment.
Of those who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 61% (n = 30) of LGBQ respondents versus two percent (n = 7) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation.
More than twice as many LGBQ respondents believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did heterosexual respondents (38% compared with 18%).
Homophobia and Heterosexism
LGBQ respondents were less comfortable with the overall climate, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes than their heterosexual counterparts.
LGBQ employee respondents were less likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation.
LGBQ students respondents were less likely to think the classroom climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation
LGBQ respondents were more likely to have seriously considered leaving the institution.
Differential Treatment by University Status
For those who reported they experienced harassment, university status was the second most common basis.
Of those respondents who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, advanced experience level of the job candidate was cited as the fifth most common basis for discrimination.
For those who believed they had observed discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions and discriminatory practices related to promotion, UW-Eau Claire status was the second most common basis.
Differential Treatment Classified Staff
Although classified staff respondents were less likely than faculty members to believe that they had been harassed, they were more likely to attribute the conduct to their status at UW-Eau Claire.
Classified staff members were less satisfied with their jobs and much less satisfied than with the way their careers have progressed when compared with academic staff.
Classified staff members were more likely than faculty and academic staff members to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring and employment-related disciplinary actions .
Next Steps
Process ForwardFall/Winter 2010
Share report results with community Community dialogue regarding the assessment results Community feedback on recommended actions Executive Summary available on the UW-Eau Claire web site Full Report will be available by June 1
Recommended planning “advance” to begin a “call to action” regarding the challenges uncovered in the report
Tell Us What You Think…
Additional questions/comments on results?Thoughts on process?Suggested actions?
Questions..? Other Ideas..?