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


Conversations at system level continued

Proposal presentation made to UW System Provosts and various constituent groups in Madison in September 2006


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 (%)



61

7278

63 63 64

1812

5

17

26

17

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed By Position Status (%)


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 (%)



9186

81

9082

89

211

4 24

2

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Student Satisfaction with Academic Career at UW Eau Claire (%)



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 (%)


Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff

9

30

2023

8

3944

52


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


Experienced conduct due to race²

(n=66)¹

(n=36)²

(n=427)¹

(n=7)²


Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by

Sexual Orientation due to Sexual Orientation (%)


LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents

24

10

61

2


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 (%)


No disability Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological Condition

10

34

222625

38

62


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.uwec.edu/

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


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


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.


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%).


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..?

uw-eau claire campus climate assessment results of report april 27, 2010

Documents