UW-Whitewater Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report May 4, 2010.

UW-Whitewater

Campus Climate Assessment

Results of Report

May 4, 2010

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.

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.

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

Results

Response Rates

Who are the respondents?

3,239 people responded to the call to participate (26% response rate overall).

Several respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.

Who are the respondents?

76%

•Students

16%

•Staff

9%

•Faculty

Faculty Response Rates

Instructional Academic Staff (42%, n = 90)

Assistant Professor (60%, n = 79)

Adjunct Faculty (16%, n = 7)

Associate Professor (62%, n = 71)

Professor (63%, n = 57)

Faculty Response Rates by Selected Demographics

Faculty of Color

54% (n = 47)

White Faculty

50% (n = 249)

By RaceWomen Faculty

58% (n = 157)

Men faculty

45% (n = 144)

By Gender

Staff Response Rates

Administrators (n = 29)

Limited Term Employee (25%, n = 15)

Classified Staff Non-Exempt (45%, n = 133)

Classified Staff Exempt (99%, n = 71)

Non-Instructional Academic Staff (61%, n = 130)

Limited Academic Staff (14%, n = 5)

Staff Response Rates by Selected Demographics

Staff of Color

64% (n = 29)

White Staff

55% (n = 347)

By RaceWomen Staff

64% (n = 241)

Men staff

47% (n = 140)

By Gender

Student Response Rates

Associate Degree (n = 142)

Non-Degree Seeking (n = 37)

Transfer (n = 143)

Dual Enrollment (n = 5)

Bachelor Degree Student (20%, n = 1,869)

Professional Degree (n = 23)

Master Degree Student (16%, n = 226)

Student Response Rates by Selected Demographics

Students of Color

27% (n = 314)

White Students

22% (n = 2110)

By RaceWomen Students

27% (n = 1543)

Men Students 16% (n = 891)

By Gender

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Student Respondents by Class Standing (n)

Students

435

349

437

350

180

350 5

First year 2nd yr

3rd yr 4th yr

5th yr or more Master's degree

Doctoral degree Professional degree

Student Residence

43% of student respondents

lived in residence halls

39% of student respondents lived in off-

campus apartment or

house

2% of student respondents lived

in fraternity or sorority housing

Income by Student Status (n)

147

299

63

342

9347

498

73 76

223

1932

143

9 13

Undergraduate Dependent

Undergraduate Independent

Graduate students

Employee Respondents by Position Status (n)

7

9071 79

57

15

133

71

130

5

29

101

Adjunt professorInstructional academic staffAssistant professorAssociate professorProfessorLimited term employeeClassified staff non-exemptClassified staff exemptNon-instructional academic staffLimited academic staffAdministratorOther

Collapsed Employee Status (n)

Series1

304

179

204

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Gender and Position Status (n)

There were 5 respondents who identified as transgender

Female Male

1383

797

16094

157 144105 72136

68

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Sexual Orientation and Position Status (n)

Heterosexual LGB

2287

114

266

30163

15

191

9

Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Racial Identity(Duplicated Total)

28137

252 34 36 10

2868

1895 10 46 10 33

AfricanAfrican American/BlackAlaskan NativeAsianAsian AmericanSoutheast AsianCaribbean/West IndianCaucasian/WhiteIndian subcontinentLatino(a)/HispanicMiddle EasternNative American IndianPacific IslanderOther

Respondents by Racial Identity (Unduplicated Total)

Se

418

2777

People of Color White People

Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

Se

2134

308

672

97

ChristianOther than ChristianNo AffiliationOther

Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect Major Life Activities (n)

36

10 12 12

63

2 2 2

40

5 3 3

Physical Condition Learning Disability Psychological Condition

StudentsFacultyAcademic StaffClassified Staff

Citizenship Status by Position

Students Employeesn % n %

US citizen 2377 97.1 436 90.6

US citizen – naturalized 29 1.2 18 3.7

Dual citizenship 8 0.3 * *

Permanent resident (immigrant) 9 0.4 13 2.7

Permanent resident (refugee) * 0.0 * 0.2

International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa)25 1.0 9 1.9

* 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 White People

Least Comfortable

LGBQ People of Color

Overall Satisfaction

81%

•Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Whitewater.

68%

•Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education UW-Whitewater.

90%

•Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Whitewater.

80%

•Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW-Whitewater.

Levels of Satisfaction by Demographic Groups

• Academic staff were least satisfiedSatisfaction with Job

• Classified staff were least satisfiedSatisfaction with Career Progression

• LGBQ students and Students of Color were least satisfied

Satisfaction with Education

• Students of Color were least satisfiedSatisfaction with Academic Career

Progression

Employee Comments with Regard to Job and Career Progression Satisfaction

Employees who were satisfied with their careers enjoyed working with students, their colleagues, and within their departments. They felt challenged and appreciated.

Those respondents who were dissatisfied were disappointed in their low salaries; lack of opportunities for professional advancement; and “dysfunctional” departments, coworkers, or supervisors. A number of the dissatisfied individuals indicated they felt overworked, unchallenged, and underappreciated.

Student Comments with Regard to Satisfaction with Academic Experiences

Students who were satisfied with the way their experiences at UW-Whitewater said they enjoyed their courses; faculty were caring, helpful, and intelligent; they were “on track” to graduate in four years; felt UW-Whitewater had adequate resources available to students; and enjoyed relationships with their student peers.

Dissatisfied students said they were disappointed in their courses; faculty were uncaring and/or uninterested; general education courses wasted their time; and academic advisors failed to provide sufficient advice.

Challenges and Opportunities

Experiences with Harassment

445 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-Whitewater

14%

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

Series1

29

25 25

15

12 12 11 11 108

Gender (n=129)

Age (n=113)

University Status (n=110)

Physical Characteristics (n=65)

Religion/Spiritual Status (n=53)

Political Views (n=52)

Educational Level (n=49)

Race (n=49)

Ethnicity (n=46)

Sexual Orientation (n=34)

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to

Gender (by Gender) (%)

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.

Women Men

14 13

37

14

Overall experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to gender²

(n=283)¹

(n=105)²(n=155)¹

(n=22)²


Position Status by Position Status (%)


Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff

11

2522

28

16

4237

32


Experienced conduct due to status²

(n=258)¹

(n=42)²

(n=77)¹

(n=32)²

(n=57)¹

(n=18)²

(n=38)¹

(n=14)²


Race by Race (%)


People of Color White

1813

48

3


Experienced conduct due to race²

(n=75)¹

(n=36)²

(n=359)¹

(n=12)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Sexual

Orientation by Sexual Orientation (%)


LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents

27

13

53

2


Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²

(n=45)¹

(n=24)²

(n=387)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..

(n=382)¹

(n=15)²

(n=19)¹

(n=7)²

(n=22)¹

(n=9)²

(n=21)¹

(n=11)²

13

27 30

40

3

3741

52

No disability Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological Condition


Experienced conduct due to disability²

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Deliberately ignored or excluded 218 49.0

Felt intimidated/bullied 143 32.1

Stares 93 20.9

Derogatory remarks 89 20.0

Isolated or left out when working in groups 75 16.9

Isolated or left out because of my identity 54 12.1

Received a low performance evaluation 49 11.0

Derogatory written comments 41 9.2

Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 40 9.0

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 445). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Feared for my physical safety 35 7.9

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 34 7.6

Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 28 6.3

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 23 5.2

Threats of physical violence 22 4.9

Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 22 4.9

Derogatory phone calls 18 4.0

Graffiti 12 2.7

Victim of a crime 12 2.7


Respondents Who Believed They Were Deliberately Ignored or Excluded

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 34 percent (n = 75) - in a class 33 percent (n = 71) - in a meeting with a group of people


Respondents Who Believed They Were Intimidated or Bullied

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 34 percent (n = 48) - at a campus job 25 percent (n = 36) - in a class


Respondents Who Believed They Received Stares

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 53 percent (n = 49) - in a class 47 percent (n = 44) - while walking on campus


Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (n)

128

16

26

56

22

5 7610 11

6

25

611

21

9 73

12

Student Respondents Faculty Respondents Academic StaffRespondents

Classified StaffRespondents

Source = UndergraduateSource = FacultySource = AdministratorSource = StaffSource = Supervisor

What did you do?1

Personal responses: Was angry (56%) Felt embarrassed (41%) Told a friend (39%) Avoided the harasser (34%) Ignored it (28%)

Reporting responses: Didn’t know who to go to (17% ) Made a complaint to a campus employee/official (16%) Did not report the incident for fear of retaliation (18%) Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously (12%) 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-Whitewater

Believed they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful

7%

Were fearful of being sexually harassed at UW-Whitewater

5%

Respondents Who Experienced Sexual Assault

73 respondents were victims of sexual assault

2%

Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted

By Gender Identity

• Women (3%; n = 62)

• Men (1%; n=10)

By Sexual Identity

• Heterosexual (2%; n = 65)

• LGBQQ (2%, n = 4)

By Racial Identity

• White People (2%; n = 59)

• People of Color (3%, n = 13)

By Position

• Students (3%, n = 63)

• Employees (1%, n = 8)

Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted

Where did it occur?On-campus (n = 38)Off-campus (n = 30)

Who were the offenders against students?*Students (n = 26)

What did you do1?Told a friend (n = 45)

Did nothing (n = 17)

Told a family member (n = 12)

Sought support from a campus resource (n = 11)1Respondents could mark more than one response

Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Whitewater

38% (n = 1,206) of all respondents

Faculty (62%)

Academic Staff (62%)

Classified Staff (59%)

Students (31%)

Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Whitewater

Employees

Men (64%)

Women (61%)

White (63%)

Employees of Color (57%)

LGBQ (67%)

Heterosexual (62%)

Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Whitewater

Students

Men (39%)

Women (35%)

Students of Color (56%)

White (34%)

LGBQ (44%)

Heterosexual (35%)

Perceptions

Respondents Who Observed or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary,

Intimidating, Offensive and/or Hostile Working or Learning Environment

% n

Yes 23.0 727

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Race (%)

31

39

White People (n=631)

People of Color (n=63)

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Gender (%)

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)

Series1

39

22

LGB (n=66)

Heterosexual (n=643)

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%)

28

4447 45

Students (n=506)

Faculty (n=77)

Academic Staff (n=58)

Classified Staff (n=56)

Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct

n %Derogatory remarks

265 36.5Deliberately ignored or excluded

219 30.1Racial/ethnic profiling

215 29.6Stares

214 29.4Intimidation/bullying

149 20.5Someone isolated or left out because of their identity

125 17.2Derogatory written comments

120 16.5Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity

90 12.4Someone isolated or left out when working in groups

82 11.3

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 727). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%)

Students (43%) Colleagues (15%) Faculty Members (13%) Staff Members (8%)

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 727). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Respondents Who Observed People Being Targets of Derogatory Remarks

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 37 percent (n = 99) - while walking on campus 37 percent (n = 97) - in a public space on campus


Respondents Who Observed People Being Deliberately Ignored or Excluded

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 46 percent (n = 101) - in a class 26 percent (n = 57) - in a residence hall

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 727. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Respondents Who Observed Racial Profiling

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 35 percent (n = 75) - while walking on campus 34 percent (n = 73) - in a residence hall


Perceived Discrimination

Hiring

(25%)

Due to Gender (22%)

Due to Race (21%)

Due to Ethnicity (19%)

Employment Practices up to and including dismissal

(12%)

Due to Race (23%)

Due to Age (20%)

Due to Gender (20%)

Employment Practices Related to

Promotion (20%)

Due to Gender (27%)

Due to Age (16%)

Due to Race (16%)

Work-Life Issues

The majority of respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues.

Work-Life Issues

75% (n = 518) of employee respondents were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations.

37% (n = 258) believe there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units.

25% (n = 170) were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision.

76% (n = 487) believed that they had colleagues or peers who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it.

Work-Life Issues

63% (n = 431) believed that they had support from decision makers/colleagues who supported their career advancement

44% (n = 133) of faculty thought their research interests were valued by their colleagues

23% (n = 157) constantly felt under the scrutiny by their colleagues

26% (n = 180) felt they had to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate

37% (n = 250) thought their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience

Work-Life Issues

67% (n = 459) of employees are usually satisfied with the way in which they were able to balance their professional and personal lives

42% (n = 287) found UW-Whitewater supportive of family leave

37% (n = 256) have had to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities

18% (n = 121) felt that employees who have children were considered less committed to their careers

18% (n = 125) felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities

Work-Life Issues

12% (n = 82) believed the institution was unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, co-parenting partners

23% (n = 149) thought they had equitable access to domestic partner benefits

24% (n = 159) 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.”

Respondents of Color and sexual minority respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender, race and sexual orientation.

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.

64% of Students of Color and 81% of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race

58% of LGB students and 70% of heterosexual students thought the climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation

Institutional Actions

http://www.uww.edu/index.php

Visible Leadership

Many respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that most of the offices/individuals on campus provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community.

Substantial percentages of respondents were also unaware of such 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 all dimensions of “difference” listed in the survey.

EmployeesCampus Initiatives That Would Positively

Affect the Climate

More than half of all employee respondents recommended: training mentors and leaders within departments to model positive

climate behavior offering diversity training/programs as community outreach would

positively affect the climate that faculty/staff/students learn a second language, participate in

service-learning projects with lower socioeconomic status populations, and work with underrepresented/underserved populations

providing on-campus child care services providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities


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


Affect the Climate

Less 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

providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course objectives throughout the curriculum

rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity training

requiring 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

90% percent of students were satisfied with their education at UW-Whitewater.

81% of employees were satisfied with their jobs at UW-Whitewater

Over 85% 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

Homophobia and Heterosexism

Challenge

Racial Tension

Challenge

Gender Inequity

Challenge

Differential Treatment Due to University Position

Differential Treatment by University Status

For those who reported they experienced harassment, university status was the third most common basis.

Of those respondents who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion, UW-Whitewater status was indicated as the fourth most common basis for discrimination.

Differential Treatment by University Status – Classified Staff

A greater percentage of classified staff respondents (28%, n = 57) believed they had been harassed than did academic staff respondents (22%, n = 38) and faculty (25%, n = 77).

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 and faculty.

Classified staff were slightly more likely academic staff and faculty to observe harassment, discriminatory hiring, discriminatory disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion.

Gender Inequity

Gender was cited as the most common basis for perceived harassment, with women more than two times (37%, n = 105) as likely as men (14%, n = 22) to indicate such a basis.

Women were slightly more likely than men to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices and promotion/tenure practices.

Gender the most cited basis for observed discriminatory hiring and discriminatory practices related to promotion and tenure.

Racial Tension at UW-Whitewater

More Respondents of Color (18%, n = 75) reported personally experiencing harassment when compared to their White counterparts (13%, n = 359).

Forty-eight percent (n = 36) of Respondents of Color said the harassment was based on their race.

People of Color were 16 times more likely to indicate racial profiling as a form of experienced harassment and nine times more likely to indicate someone assumed they were admitted or hired because of their identity when compared with their White counterparts.


People of Color were more likely than White people to observe offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct.

Of those who observed harassment, 28% (n = 203) believed it was based on race.

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.


Employees of Color were more likely than White employees to report: colleagues expect them to represent “the point of view” of their identity they have to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as

legitimate they are more reluctant to take family leave that they are entitled to for fear

that it may affect their career there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with

colleagues in their work unit that others seem to find it easier than they do to “fit in.”

Employees of Color were also more likely to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices and practices related to promotion and tenure.


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, 53% (n = 24) of LGBQ respondents versus two percent (n = 7) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation.

A much higher percentage of LGBQ respondents believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did heterosexual respondents (39% compared with 22%).


39% (n = 282) of respondents who observed harassment indicated the base for that conduct was sexual orientation, making it the most common basis for observed harassment.

LGBQ respondents were less comfortable with the overall climate for diversity, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes.

LGBQ employee respondents were less likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation.

LGBQ students were more likely than heterosexual students to have seriously considered leaving the institution.

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-Whitewater website Full Report will be available in June 2010

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..?

UW-Whitewater Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report May 4, 2010.

Documents

Transcript of UW-Whitewater Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report May 4, 2010.