REVISED Draft Statement of SRI Task Force on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Other Bias Issues
March 14, 2014
Rationale: The SRI Task Force (“Task Force”), convened during the 2013-2014 academic year, seeks to
promote methods to assist all those who review faculty credentials for any purpose (hiring, retention,
promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review) to be sensitive to possible effects of bias concerning personal
characteristics of the faculty member as reflected in both the numerical Students Ratings of Instruction
(“SRIs”) and any written comments provided by students.
The Task Force notes the voluminous literature that exists on the subject of bias in student evaluations
of faculty. There are over two thousand publications on methods of evaluating faculty and on
interpreting the results. However, the Task Force finds contradictory research results, incomplete
statements of the methodology used, or sweeping generalizations that engender suspicion of the
motivation of the authors or the validity of the results. In conclusion, the literature, in and of itself, is
not very helpful to make substantive decisions.
Nonetheless, the Task Force is concerned about possible bias in SRIs and student comments that, relate,
even implicitly, to personal characteristics of the faculty member, including: race, ethnicity, nationality,
English accent, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It is the Task Force’s opinion that the cumulative
weight of the studies indicates the existence (or strong potential for the existence) of these kinds of
personal biases. Some prominent examples from the literature include the:

Possibility of lower scores for female instructors than male instructors (although this is perhaps
the most controversial research finding, as some studies show this effect and some do not).

Possibility of lower scores for faculty of color.
1

Possibility of lower scores for female instructors of color compared with male instructors of
color.

Possibility of lower scores for instructors for who English is a second language, particularly for
particularly for males.
While the Task Force recognizes that personal biases may take many forms, including the possibility of
“positive” biases, it feels that the University should state clearly that the University intends to sensitize
reviewers at all levels to the possibility of personal biases in SRIs and students comments.
Moreover, the Task Force notes that the Websites of Indiana University, Bloomington, and the
University of Pennsylvania, to take two examples, caution hiring personnel and reviewers of faculty
about gender and racial bias in hiring and faculty reviews, and include some strategies for attempting to
detect or eliminate it.
Based on these factors, the Task Force recommends that the following statement be placed in the
appropriate places in the Faculty Handbook concerning all levels of review:
Statement: “Care should be taken and sensitivity should be used when evaluating both the numerical
SRIs and the subjective student comments that may be related, explicitly or implicitly, to personal
characteristics of faculty members. To the maximum extent possible, overt or subtle statements or
other signs of racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, cisgenderism, or xenophobia should be completely
ignored. In reviewing numerical SRIs, care should be taken to ignore patterns that may emerge
regarding scores for “the instructor’s contribution to the course” which may reflect personal bias.
Examples include SRI scores that appear lower (or higher) than other criteria of faculty evaluation might
suggest (e.g., peer observations, faculty narrative, or supplemental materials supplied by students such
2
as letters of appreciation). In reviewing subjective student comments, appropriate sensitivity should be
maintained when observing even the slightest hint of bias about any personal characteristics of faculty
members, as opposed to substantive comments that relate directly to “the course as a whole” and “the
instructor’s contribution to the course.”
3