2. Campuses as Social Systems
Students,
Faculty, Staff,
Alumni
Institutional
Social Contexts
Policies
Structural
Vision/Mission
Framework
Institutional
History/Core
Values
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998
3. Climate In Higher Education
Community
Members
Creation
and
Distribution
of
Knowledge Climate
(Living,
Working,
Learning)
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
4. Assessing Campus Climate
• Campus Climate is a construct
What is it?
• Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards
and practices of employees and students of an
Definition? institution
• Personal Experiences
• Perceptions
How is it
measured? • Institutional Efforts
Rankin & Reason, 2008
5. Campus Climate & Students
How students Discriminatory Research supports the
experience their environments have a pedagogical value of
campus environment negative effect on a diverse student
influences both student learning.2 body and faculty on
learning and enhancing learning
developmental outcomes.3
outcomes.1
1 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005
2 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991.
3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, 2003.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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
11. 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.
12. 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.”
13. Process to Date
2004-2005
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
14. Process to Date
2005-2006
Conversations at system level continued
Proposal presentation made to UW System
Provosts and various constituent groups in
Madison in September 2006
15. Process to Date
2006-2007
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
16. 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
17. 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
18. Process to Date
Participating Institutions
Spring 2008 Fall 2009
UW Colleges UW-Eau Claire
UW-La Crosse UW-Parkside
UW-Milwaukee UW-River Falls
UW-Oshkosh UW-Whitewater
UW-Stevens Point
19. Overview of the Project
Phase I
• Fact-Finding Groups
Phase II
• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation
Phase III
• Data Analysis
Phase IV
• Final Report and Presentation
20. Phase I
Process to Date
September 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.
21. Phase II
Process to Date
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.
22. Phase II cont’d
Process to Date
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.
23. 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
24. Survey Assessment
Limitations
Self-selection bias
Response rates
Caution in generalizing results for
constituent groups with significantly lower
response rates
25. 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.
26. Phase III
Process to Date
January – March 2010
Quantitative and qualitative analyses
conducted by Rankin & Associates.
27. Phase Process
IV to Date
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.
29. 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.
30. Faculty Response Rates
Assistant Professor (55%, n = 63)
Associate Professor (54%, n = 67)
Professor (51%, n = 67)
Instructional Academic Staff (33%, n = 61)
Adjunct Faculty (n = 9)
31. Staff Response Rates
Classified Staff Exempt (56%, n = 50)
Non-Instructional Academic Staff (49%, n = 95)
Classified Staff Non-Exempt (27%, n = 88)
Limited Academic Staff (24%, n = 7)
Limited Term Employee (19%, n = 28)
Administrators (n = 30)
33. Student Response Rates by
Selected Demographics
By By
Race Gender
Students of Color Women Students
29% (n = 276) 41% (n = 2635)
White Students Men Students %
37% (n = 3676) 28% (n = 1294)
35. Student Respondents by
Class Standing (n)
First year
2nd yr
3rd yr
1091 4th yr
919 5th yr or more
Master's degree
700 758 Doctoral degree
Professional degree
392
47 1 2
Students
36. Student Residence
8% of student respondents lived with
53% of student 38% of student partner, spouse, children, parents, family
or relatives
respondents respondents
lived in lived in off-
residence halls campus
apartment or
house
37. Income by Student Status (n)
Undergraduate Dependent
995
Undergraduate Independent
Graduate students
546
499 494
313
178
139
95
21 30 32 21 18 14 15
38. Employee Respondents by
Position Status (n)
Adjunt professor
Instructional academic staff
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Professor
Limited term employee
Classified staff non-exempt
Classified staff exempt
Non-instructional academic staff
Limited academic staff
Administrator 88 95 90
Other
63 67 67
61
50
28 30
9 7
40. Respondents by Gender
and Position Status (n)
2551 Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
1258
84 156 105 95 108
36 53 43
Female Male
There were 10 respondents who identified as transgender
(8 students; 2 employees)
41. Respondents by Sexual Orientation
and Position Status (n)
Students
3710
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
245
140 129 164 18 15 7
Heterosexual LGB
42. Respondents by Racial Identity (n)
(Unduplicated Total)
3626
276
People of Color White People
43. Respondents by Faculty/Staff
Appointments by Gender
Women Men
n % 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
45. Respondents with Conditions that Substantially
Affect Major Life Activities (n)
Physical Disability
72 Learning Disability
Psychological Condition
63
34
6 4 4 0 6
0 1 1 2
Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff
46. Citizenship Status by Position
Students Employees
n % 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
49. Comfort Levels with Overall Campus
Climate, Department/Work Unit Climate,
and Class Climate by Demographic Groups
Most Comfortable Least Comfortable
Heterosexual Men White People LGBQ People of Color
50. Overall Satisfaction
• Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their
jobs at UW Eau Claire.
78%
• Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the
way their careers have progressed at UW Eau Claire.
65%
• Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their
89% education UW Eau Claire.
• Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way
their academic careers have progressed at UW Eau Claire.
76%
51. Lowest Levels of Satisfaction by
Demographic Groups
Satisfaction with • Women and classified staff
Job
Satisfaction with • Women and classified staff
Career Progression
Satisfaction with • Students of Color and LGBQ
students
Education
Satisfaction with • LGBQ Students
Academic Career
Progression
52. Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by
Selected Demographic Categories (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
84 81 78 80 78
74
14 15
9 10 11 11
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.
** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
53. Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their
Careers Have Progressed by Selected
Demographic Categories (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
78
72
61 63 63 64
26
18 17 17
12
5
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.
** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
54. Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their
Careers Have Progressed By Position Status (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
70
64
55
16 16 17
Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.
** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
55. 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”.
56. Student Satisfaction with Education at UW
Eau Claire (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
91 90 89
86
81 82
11
2 4 4
2 2
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.
** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
57. Student Satisfaction with Academic Career
at UW Eau Claire (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
78 76 77
72 71 68
11
7 9 10 7 7
Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual
* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.
** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.
58. 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.
60. Experiences with Harassment
508 respondents indicated that
they had personally experienced
exclusionary, intimidating, offens
11% ive and/or hostile conduct that
interfered with their ability to
work or learn at UW-Eau Claire
61. Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
Gender (n=133)
Age (n=116)
Institutional Status (n=90)
Religion/Spiritual Status (n=82)
26 Political Views (n=73)
Physical Characteristics (n=68)
23
Educational Level (n=66)
Race (n=45)
18 Ethnicity (n=43)
16 Sexual Orientation (n=39)
14 13 13
9 9 8
62. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived
Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to
Gender by Gender (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to gender²
33
20
11 11 11
0
Women Men Transgender
(n=338)¹ (n=162)¹ (n=2)¹
(n=113)² (n=17)² (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.
63. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived
Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by
Position Status (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to status²
52
44
39
30
23
20
9 8
Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff
(n=351)¹ (n=79)¹ (n=32)¹ (n=31)¹
(n=27)² (n=31)² (n=14)² (n=16)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.
64. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived
Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to
Race by Race (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to race²
55
20
10
2
People of Color White
(n=66)¹ (n=427)¹
(n=36)² (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.
65. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived
Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by
Sexual Orientation due to Sexual Orientation (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
61 Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²
24
10
2
LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents
(n=49)¹ (n=435)¹
(n=30)² (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.
66. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived
Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to
Disability Status by Disability Status (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to disability²
62
38
34
25 26
22
10
No disability Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological Condition
(n=16)¹ (n=16)¹ (n=21)¹
(n=455)¹
(n=4)² (n=6)² (n=13)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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
71. 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
72. 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.”
73. Sexual Misconduct at UW-Eau Claire
Believed they had been
touched in a sexual
manner that made
8% them feel
uncomfortable or
fearful
Were fearful of being
4% sexually harassed at
UW Eau-Claire
75. Respondents Who Believed
They Were Sexually Assaulted
By Gender By Sexual By Racial
By Position
Identity Identity Identity
• Women • Heterosexual • White • Students
(3%; n = 78) (2%; n = 77) People (n = 76)
• Men • LGBQQ (2%; n = 81) • Employees
(1%; n=7) (3%, n = 7) • People of (n = 4)
• Transgender Color
(1%, n = 1) (2%, n = 6)
76. 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
77. Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving
UW-Eau Claire
36% (n = 1672) of all Respondents
-----------------------------------------------
Students (34%); Faculty (56%);
Academic Staff (61%); Classified Staff (49%)
78. 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%)
79. 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%)
81. 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
86. Form of Observed
Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or
Hostile Conduct
n %
Stares
359 41.7
Derogatory remarks
340 39.5
Deliberately ignored or excluded
309 35.8
Racial/ethnic profiling
252 29.3
Someone isolated or left out because of their identity
197 22.9
Intimidation/bullying
161 18.7
Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity
153 17.8
Graffiti
150 17.4
Derogatory written comments
142 16.5
Someone isolated or left out when working in groups
99 11.5
Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 861).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
87. Form of Observed Exclusionary,
Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct
n %
Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity
85 9.9
Threats of physical violence
56 6.5
Someone receiving a low performance evaluation
56 6.5
Someone fearing for their physical safety
55 6.4
Someone isolated or left out because of their socioeconomic status
53 6.2
Someone receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment
47 5.5
Victim of a crime
31 3.6
Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails
30 3.5
Physical violence
27 3.1
Derogatory phone calls
21 2.4
Someone fearing for their family’s safety
9 1.0
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Perceived Discrimination
Employment Employment
Hiring Practices Related to Practices Excluding
(27%) Promotion/Tenure Promotion/Tenure
(10%) (24%)
Due to Gender Due to Gender Due to Gender
(27%) (24%) (34%)
Due to Race Due to Position Due to Position
(17%) (20%) (19%)
Due to Ethnicity Due to Age Due to Age
(17%) (11%) (10%)
94. 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
95. 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
96. 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
97. 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
98. 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.
99. 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
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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
104. 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
105. 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
107. 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.
108. Summary of Findings
Opportunities and Challenges
Challenge
Racial Tension
Challenge
Gender Inequity
Challenge
Homophobia and Heterosexism
Challenge
Differential Treatment Due to Institutional Position
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. 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%).
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. 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 .
119. Process Forward
Fall/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
120. Tell Us What You Think…
Additional questions/comments on results?
Thoughts on process?
Suggested actions?
College/University campuses are complex social systems. They are defined by the relationships between faculty, staff, students, and alumni; bureaucratic procedures embodied by institutional policies; structural frameworks; institutional missions, visions, and core values; institutional history and traditions; and larger social contexts.
Climate on college campuses not only affects the creation of knowledge, but also has a significant impact on members of the academic community who, in turn, contribute to the creation of the campus environment.
