University of Wisconsin Stout Campus Climate Project Final Report

University of Wisconsin

Stout

Campus Climate

Project Final Report

July 2011

Rankin & Associates Consulting

Wisconsin System Climate Assessment Project

UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i

Sample Demographics ................................................................................................... iv

Quantitative Findings ...................................................................................................... v

Qualitative Findings ....................................................................................................... ix

Summary of Strengths and Potential Challenges ........................................................... xi

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

The Importance of Examining Campus Climate ............................................................ 1

History of the Project ...................................................................................................... 2

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 4

Research Design.............................................................................................................. 4

Results ................................................................................................................................. 7

Description of the Sample ............................................................................................... 7

Sample Characteristics .................................................................................................. 12

Campus Climate Assessment Findings ............................................................................. 32

Personal Experiences .................................................................................................... 32

Experiences – Sexual Misconduct ............................................................................ 51

Satisfaction with UW-Stout ...................................................................................... 62

Perceptions of Campus Climate .................................................................................... 71

Employees’ Attitudes and Experiences .................................................................... 88

Students’ Attitudes and Experiences ........................................................................ 95

Institutional Actions ................................................................................................ 100

Recommendations to Improve the Climate..................................................................... 114

Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 117

References ....................................................................................................................... 122

Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 124

Appendix A – Comment Analysis………................……………………...125

Appendix B – Data Tables………………………………………………..133

Appendix C – Survey Instrument…………………………………………215




Executive Summary

College 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 (Hurtado, Milem,

Clayton-Pederson, Alma, & Allen, 1998).

Institutional missions suggest that higher education values multicultural awareness and understanding within an environment of mutual respect and cooperation. Academic communities expend a great deal of effort fostering climates that nurture their missions with the understanding that climate has a profound effect on the academic community’s ability to excel in teaching, research, and scholarship. Institutional strategic plans advocate creating welcoming and inclusive climates that are grounded in respect, nurtured by dialogue, and evidenced by a pattern of civil interaction.

The climate on college campuses not only affects the creation of knowledge, but also affects members of the academic community who, in turn, contribute to the creation of the campus climate. Several national education association reports and higher education researchers advocate creating a more inclusive, welcoming climate on college campuses

(Boyer, 1990; AAC&U, 1995; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Harper &

Hurtado, 2007).

The University of Wisconsin System has a long history of supporting diversity initiatives

1

as evidenced by the system’s support and commitment to this project. In

2005, a taskforce committee of the UW Systems Inclusivity Initiative was formed to search for consulting firms that conduct climate assessments in higher education. Rankin

& Associates (R&A) was identified as leader in conducting multiple identity studies in higher education. In 2006, R&A presented a proposal to the UW System Provosts and

1

For more information on UW System diversity initiatives see http://www.uwsa.edu/vpacad/diversity.htm

i



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 various constituent groups, which resulted in the formation by UW System administrators of the Climate Study Working Group (CSWG)

2

and subsequent contract with R&A to facilitate a system-wide climate assessment.

Because of the inherent complexity of the topic of diversity, it is crucial to examine the multiple dimensions of diversity in higher education. The conceptual model used as the foundation for this assessment of campus climate was developed by Smith (1999) and modified by Rankin (2002).

Fact-finding groups were held in September 2007 to discuss with University of

Wisconsin System students, staff, and faculty their perceptions of the UW System campus climates. Informed by these fact-finding groups and by previous work of R&A, the CSWG developed the final survey instrument template that would be administered to the five participating campuses in spring 2008.

Five campuses (UW Colleges, UW-La Crosse, UW- Oshkosh, UW-Milwaukee and UW-

Stevens Point) volunteered to participate in the first year, 2007-2008. The Tier II institutions who participated in 2008-2009 included UW-Eau Claire, UW-Parkside, UW-

River Falls, and UW-Whitewater. UW-Stout was one of the Tier III campuses that participated in 2010-2011. The other Tier III campuses included UW-Green Bay, UW-

Madison (CALS), UW-Platteville, and UW-Superior as well as UW-Extension.

A Diversity Leadership Committee (DLC) was created at UW-Stout to assist in coordinating the survey effort on campus. The DLC reviewed the CSWG survey template and revised the instrument to better match the campus context at UW-Stout. The final survey contained 86 questions, including open-ended questions for respondents to provide commentary. This report provides an overview of the UW-Stout campus-specific findings of the internal assessment, including the results of the campus-wide survey and a thematic analysis of comments provided by survey respondents.

2

The CSWG included 2 representatives from each of the five participating institutions. The Provost from

each institution was requested to appoint the two representatives. ii




All members of the campus community (e.g., students, faculty, academic staff, and classified staff) were invited to participate in the survey. The survey was designed for respondents to provide information about their personal experiences with regard to climate issues, their perceptions of the campus climate, student and employee satisfaction, and respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding climate issues and concerns on campus.

A summary of the findings, presented in bullet form below, suggests that while the UW-

Stout has several challenges with regard to diversity issues, these challenges are found in higher education institutions across the country. iii




Sample Demographics

1,877 surveys were returned representing the following:



18.5% response rate

3



1,155 undergraduate students (13% response rate); 101 graduate students;

(14% response rate); 254 faculty (56% response rate); and 320 staff

4



(39% response rate)

174 (9%) People of Color

5

; 1,659 (88%) White respondents



34 (2%) people who identified as having mobility impairment



48 (3%) people who identified as having a learning disability



103 (6%) people who identified as having a mental health disorder



107 (7%) people who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer; 14

(1%) who were questioning their sexuality; 1,677 (92%) people who

 identified as heterosexual

1,086 (58%) women; 770 (41%) men; 5 (<1%) transgender

6

 615 (33%) people who identified their spiritual affiliation as other than

Christian (including those with no affiliation)

3

Caution is suggested in generalizing results for constituent groups with significantly lower response rates. The response rates for UW-Stout by position were faculty (56%), staff (39%), and for students

(13%). Despite the low response rate for students, the results provided here reflect participant’s beliefs and concerns with regard to the campus climate.

4

For the UW-Stout report, “staff” included Limited Term Employees, Classified Staff Represented,

Classified Staff Non-Represented, Non-Instructional/Other Academic Staff, Limited Academic Staff, and Administrators.

5

While recognizing the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g., Chicano(a)

versus African-American or Latino(a) versus Asian-American), and those experiences within these

identity categories (e.g. Hmong versus Chinese), Rankin and Associates found it necessary to collapse

some of these categories to conduct the analyses due to the small numbers of respondents in the

individual categories.

6

“Transgender” refers to identity that does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male

or female gender, but combines or moves between these (Oxford English Dictionary 2003). OED

Online. March 2004. Oxford UW Press. Feb. 17, 2006 <http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/ 00319380>. iv




Quantitative Findings

Personal Experiences with Campus Climate

7

•

Some of respondents believed

8

they had personally experienced offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct that interfered unreasonably with their ability to work or learn on campus (hereafter referred to as harassment)

9

within the past two years. University status was most often cited as the reason given for the perceived harassment. People of Color and sexual minorities

10

perceived such harassment more often than White people and heterosexual respondents, and many of them felt it was due to their race or sexual orientation. Perceived harassment largely went unreported. o 21% (n = 385) of respondents (37% of employees; 13% of students) believed they had personally experienced offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct that interfered unreasonably with their ability to work or learn on campus. o The percentage of respondents experiencing harassment at UW-Stout is slightly lower than the percentage of respondents who experienced harassment in studies of other institutions.

11

o The perceived conduct was most often based on the respondents’ university status (26%, n = 101), gender (23%, n = 87), age (21%, n = 81), and educational level (14%, n = 54). o Compared with 19% (n = 313) of White people, 31% (n = 54) of People of

Color believed they had personally experienced such conduct. o Of Respondents of Color who reported experiencing this conduct, 41% (n

= 22) stated it was because of their race. o Compared with 18% (n = 140) of men, 22% (n = 238) of women respondents believed they had personally experienced such conduct. o Of the women who believed they had experienced this conduct, 31% (n =

73) stated it was because of their gender.

7

Listings in the narrative are those responses with the greatest percentages. For a complete listing of the

results, the reader is directed to the tables in the narrative and Appendix.

8

The modifier “believe(d)” is used throughout the report to indicate the respondents’ perceived

experiences. This modifier is not meant in any way to diminish those experiences.

9

Under the United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1, harassment is defined as "a course of

conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and

serves no legitimate purpose" ( http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html

). In higher education institutions,

legal issues discussions define harassment as any conduct that has unreasonably interfered with one’s

ability to work or learn on campus. The questions used in this survey to uncover participants’ personal

and observed experiences with harassment were designed using these definitions.

10

Sexual minorities are defined, for the purposes of this report, as people who identify as lesbian, gay, or

bisexual.

11

Rankin’s (2003) national assessment of climate for underrepresented groups where 25% (n = 3767) of

respondents indicated personally experiencing harassment based mostly on their race (31%), their

gender (55%), or their ethnicity (16%). v



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 o Compared with 19% (n = 318) of heterosexual respondents, 30% (n = 32) of sexual minority respondents believed they had personally experienced such conduct. o Of sexual minority respondents who believed they had experienced this conduct, 47% (n = 15) stated it was because of their sexual orientation. o 21% (n = 79) of participants made complaints to UW-Stout officials, while 18% (n = 68) did not know whom to go to, and 17% (n = 64) did not report the incident for fear of retaliation.

•

A small percentage of respondents believed they had been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. o 8% (n = 146) believed that they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful while at UW-Stout. o 33 (2%) respondents believed that they had been sexually assaulted during their time at UW-Stout. o Of these respondents, 18 (55%) respondents believed they had been assaulted off-campus and 10 (30%) respondents believed they had been assaulted on campus. o Women, bisexual people, and White respondents, and students were more likely than other groups to believe that they had been sexually assaulted. o The alleged perpetrators of the perceived sexual assault were most often students, strangers, acquaintances, or friends. o 15% (n = 5) of these respondents made complaints to local law enforcement officials, 15% (n = 5) sought medical services, and 15% (n =

5) sought support from a campus resource/counseling center; however, most respondents told a friend (61%, n = 20) and 27% (n = 9) did nothing.

Satisfaction with UW-Stout

•

75% (n = 441) of UW-Stout employees were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Stout. 63% (n = 360) were “highly satisfied” or

“satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Stout. o Employees of Color were less satisfied and LGBQ employees were more satisfied with their jobs at UW-Stout than were other employee groups. o Academic staff members were more satisfied with their jobs than were faculty members and classified staff. o Employees of Color and classified staff were least satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Stout.

•

84% (n = 1,046) of students were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-Stout. o A slightly lower percentage of Students of Color were satisfied with their educations and with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW-

Stout than were other students.

vi




•

48% (n = 888) of all respondents have considered leaving UW-Stout. o Among employees, 72% of men (n = 179) and 65% of women (n = 202) thought of leaving the institution. o 75% of Employees of Color (n = 43), in comparison with 66% of White employees (n = 326), have seriously considered leaving UW-Stout. o 79% of sexual minority employees (n = 23), compared to 67% (n = 334) of heterosexual employees, have seriously thought of leaving the institution.

o Among students, 38% of women (n = 281) and 38% of men (n = 192) considered leaving the University. o 46% of Students of Color (n=52) and 37% of White students (n = 415) thought of leaving UW-Stout, as did 38% of LGBQ students and 38% of heterosexual students.

Perceptions of Campus Climate

•

Most respondents indicated that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the overall climate at UW-Stout (74%, n = 1,393), in their departments or work units (73%, n = 1,365), and in their classes (81%, n =

1,201). The figures in the narrative show some disparities based on race. o Compared with 77% of White people, 56% of People of Color were

“comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the overall campus climate. o Compared with 74% of White people, 67% of People of Color were

“comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments or work units. o Compared with 83% of White people, 67% of People of Color were

“comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in classes.

•

More than one-quarter of all respondents indicated that they were aware of or believed they had observed harassment on campus within the past two years. The perceived harassment was most often based on sexual orientation.

People of Color and sexual minorities were more aware of perceived harassment. o 30% (n = 552) of the participants believed that they had observed or personally been made aware of conduct on campus that created an offensive, hostile, exclusionary or intimidating working or learning environment. o Most of the observed harassment was based on sexual orientation (47%, n

= 259), race (32%, n = 175), ethnicity (28%, n = 156), gender (27%, n =

147), gender expression (21%, n = 115), and gender identity (19%, n =

103). o Compared with 28% (n = 469) of White respondents, 41% (n = 70) of

Respondents of Color believed they had observed or personally been made aware of such conduct. vii



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 o Compared with 28% (n = 470) of heterosexuals, 53% (n = 56) of sexual minorities believed they had observed or personally been made aware of such conduct. o Compared with 24% (n = 306) of students and 33% (n = 49) of classified staff, 49% (n = 123) of faculty and 41% (n = 68) of academic staff believed they had observed such conduct. o These incidences were reported to an employee or official only 10% (n =

53) of the time.

•

With regard to campus accessibility for people with mobility and visual impairment, respondents considered elevators (61%, n = 1,084), the University website (58%, n = 1,015), D2L (57%, n = 1,015), in-class instruction (53%, n =

935), on-line and hybrid courses (53%, n = 932), and walkways and pedestrian paths (52%, n = 919) the most accessible (rated “fully accessible”) areas of campus.

•

Some employee respondents believed that they had observed discriminatory employment practices and indicated that they were most often based on UW-

Stout status and gender. o 27% (n = 156) of employee respondents believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring. o 17% (n = 102) believed that they had observed discriminatory employmentrelated disciplinary actions at UW-Stout (up to and including dismissal). o 25% (n = 146) believed that they had observed discriminatory promotion practices.

Institutional Actions

•

More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the faculty

(71%, n = 1,263), senior administration (61%, n = 1,076), students (59%, n =

1047), support staff (59%, n = 1,042), and the UW System (62%, n = 1,088) provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community.

•

More than half of all respondents believed that diversity initiatives were relevant to their work (56%, n = 916), that diversity events at UW-Stout were well advertised (55%, n = 888), and that they felt welcome at these events (58%, n =

935).

•

While 54% (n = 865) felt they learned from diversity events, only 41% (n = 668) of respondents thought diversity events at UW-Stout fit into their schedules, and

33% (n = 540) believed they were expected to attend diversity events.

•

29% (n = 463) thought diversity initiatives were not relevant to their roles on campus.

•

40% (n = 225) of employee respondents thought providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion/tenure for faculty/staff with families would positively affect the climate. viii




•

68% (n = 377) thought it would be a good idea to train mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior.

•

55% (n = 304) thought offering diversity training/programs as community outreach would positively affect the climate.

•

66% (n = 364) of employees felt providing on-campus child care services would positively affect the climate.

•

More than half of all employees thought the following initiatives would also positively affect the climate on campus: improving, and promoting access to quality services for those individuals who experience sexual abuse (71%, n =

386), providing mentors for minority faculty/students/staff new to campus (72%, n = 390), and providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents at the campus level (81%, n = 44) and departmental level (79%, n = 433).

Qualitative Findings

Out of the 1,877 surveys received at UW-Stout, several respondents contributed remarks to one or more of the open-ended questions. No respondents commented on all openended questions. Respondents included undergraduate and graduate students, as well as faculty, academic staff, and classified staff. The open-ended questions asked whether: their campus experiences differed from experiences in the surrounding community; for general elaboration on personal experiences and thoughts;

12

to name three things the respondent would like to see changed on campus and three things they would like to see remain the same; and, to describe the current classroom and campus climates.

One of the open-ended items queried, “Are your experiences on campus different than those you experience in the community surrounding campus? If so, how are these experiences different?” Five hundred thirteen (513) people answered the question.

Several people said they did not spend much time on campus and, therefore, had no reference to answer the question. Other respondents said their experiences were the same on and off campus. A few of the respondents said they had more positive experiences in

Menomonie than on the UW-Stout campus, citing a friendlier atmosphere among local residents. Most respondents who had different experiences on and off campus said that

UW-Stout was more inclusive of and welcoming to students, faculty, and people from underrepresented backgrounds.

12

The complete survey is available in Appendix C. ix




Approximately 450 respondents offered suggestions for how to improve the climate at

UW-Stout. Several individuals thought the climate at UW-Stout was very welcoming and needed no improvement. Others warned that diversity initiatives might thwart the welfare of “White, Christian,” majority members on campus. Additionally, they felt that UW-

Stout ought to value all faculty and staff for the work they do by compensating employees at market levels, and by fostering a climate of respect and appreciation from supervisors, administrators, and co-workers. A number of respondents mentioned difficulties on campus experienced by certain constituents (including women employees and students, underrepresented employees and students, LGBTQ employees and students, non-Christians, and Christians) and ways to improve their experiences. Respondents also requested that UW-Stout make established policies and procedures more transparent and consistently adhere to those policies.

The last of the open-ended items (Question 86) allowed respondents to elaborate on any of their survey responses, further describe their experiences, or offer additional thoughts about climate issues. About 230 people offered additional comments regarding their experiences and opinions. Some respondents reiterated their satisfaction with UW-Stout.

Others offered specific examples of discrimination or areas in which the University ought to focus attention. Several people were dismayed that UW-Stout does not enforce the recent ban on on-campus smoking. More than a few people mentioned inequities and tensions instigated by a sense of institutional classism (i.e., the “hierarchy” of employee positions). A number of respondents agreed that the campus can seem “unfriendly” and

“formal,” because of both the recent influx of technology and the culture of the area. To that end, respondents suggested that although Menomonie’s community is generally

White and Christian, UW-Stout attracts people from a diverse array of backgrounds.

In addition, a few respondents commented on the survey instrument and the project process. Some applauded the University’s participation in the assessment and wanted to make certain that the results were made public and used to better UW-Stout. Several x



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 respondents insisted that UW-Stout leadership share with its constituents the climate assessment findings and initiatives instituted as a result of the survey.

Summary of Strengths and Potential Challenges

Two strengths/successes emerged from the quantitative data analysis. These findings should be noted and credited. First, more than half of employees were highly satisfied or satisfied with their jobs at UW-Stout (75%, n = 441) and how their careers have progressed (63%, n = 360). Additionally, high percentages of students were highly satisfied and satisfied with their education at UW-Stout (84%, n = 1,046).

Second, 74% (n = 1,393) of employees and students reported that they were very comfortable and comfortable with the climate at UW-Stout, and 73% (n = 1,365) with their department or work unit. Eighty-one percent (n = 1,201) of faculty and students were very comfortable and comfortable with the classroom climate. These quantitative results were also supported by various voices offered in response to the open-ended questions. The respondent’s voices echoed their positive experiences with the UW-Stout’ campus climate. However, disparities existed where respondents from underrepresented groups typically reported less satisfaction and comfort with the overall campus climate, their department/work unit climate, and their classroom climate at UW-Stout then their majority counterpart respondents. These underrepresented groups include People of

Color, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, and classified staff.

Four potential challenges were also revealed in the assessment. The first challenge relates to racial tension. Significantly more Respondents of Color (31%, n = 87) reported personally experiencing exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (harassing behavior) that has interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-Stout when compared to their White counterparts (19%, n = 313). Fortyone percent (n = 22) of Respondents of Color said the harassment was based on their race, while only one percent (n = 3) of White respondents indicated the basis as race.

People of Color were also more likely to indicate racial profiling, graffiti, stares, feeling deliberately ignored or excluded, fearing for one’s safety and for their family’s safety, xi



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 someone assuming they were admitted or hired because of their identity, fearing getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment, being singled out as the “resident authority” regarding identity, feeling isolated or left out when working in groups and because of identity as the form of experienced harassment when compared with their

White counterparts. White respondents were more likely to indicate receiving derogatory written comments, phone calls, emails, and remarks, as well as higher rates of threats of physical violence, target of physical violence, and victim of a crime.

Respondents’ observations of others being harassed also contributed to their perceptions of campus climate. People of Color were also more likely than White people to observe offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct. Of all respondents who observed harassment, 32% (n = 175) believed it was based on race, second to sexual orientation and followed by ethnicity (28%, n = 156).

People of Color were less comfortable than White respondents with the overall climate for diversity at UW-Stout, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes, with the largest difference with the overall climate. A further evaluation of the classroom climate indicates that while 72% of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race, only 49% of Students of Color agreed. Disparities also existed between Employees of Color and White employees when they were asked to rank the degree to which they agreed with certain statements. Of the 15 questions evaluated by race because of significant discrepancies, White employees, when compared to Employees of Color, were more likely to report support from decision makers/colleagues who support their career advancement, feel comfortable asking questions about performance expectations, and feel that their research interests are valued by colleagues. Employees of Color were more likely than White faculty and staff to report that others seem to find it easier to “fit in”, that they have to work harder than colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate, that colleagues expect them to represent “the point of view” of their identity, and Faculty of Color feel pressured to change their teaching methods to achieve tenure/promotion, among other questions. xii




While 62% of all respondents felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on race, about 44% of Respondents of Color agreed. Employees of Color were also more likely than White employees to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices, discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion at UW-Stout.

The experiences shared by LGBQ respondents’ calls attention to the second challenge at

UW-Stout: homophobia and heterosexism. LGBQ respondents were 11% more likely than heterosexual respondents to believe that they had experienced harassment. Of those who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 47% (n =15) of LGBQ respondents versus one percent (n = 4) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation. Almost twice the percentage of sexual minority respondents believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did heterosexual respondents (53% compared with 28%), and of all respondents who observed misconduct, most believed it was based on sexual orientation

(47%, n = 259).

Heterosexual respondents were more comfortable than LGBQ respondents with the overall climate for diversity at UW-Stout, the climate in their departments/work units

(only slightly more comfortable), and the climate in their classes, with the largest difference in the classrooms. LGBQ employee respondents were less likely than heterosexual respondents to believe the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation. Finally, 79% of sexual minority employees, compared to 66% of heterosexual respondents, have seriously thought of leaving the institution, with LGBQ students and heterosexual students reported the same rate (38%) of consideration.

A third challenge is gender disparities experienced or perceived between women and men. Gender was the most observed reason for employment discrimination and at much higher rates than all other reported reasons. Of the respondents who believed they had observed discriminatory employment practices, 23% felt discriminatory hiring was based on gender, 20% indicated employment-related disciplinary actions were based on gender, xiii



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 and 27% reported gender as the basis for discriminatory practices related to promotion.

Gender was reported as the second highest reported reason (23%, n = 87) for personal experiences of offensive, hostile, exclusionary, and/or intimidating conduct that interfered unreasonably with one’s ability to work or learn at UW-Stout. Slightly higher rates of women (22%) versus men (18%) reported personal mistreatment, but significantly more women (31%) than men (10%) believed that the mistreatment was based on their gender. Gender was the fourth most reported basis for those who observed harassment (27%, n = 147).

The final challenge relates to differential treatment by university status at UW-Stout.

Of all respondents (21%) who experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct, university status (26%, n = 101) was most often cited as the basis for the mistreatment. Of the 36% (n = 56) classified staff respondents who reported personally experiencing misconduct, 41% (n = 23) said the conduct was based on their status at UW-

Stout, higher than any other employee group.

Classified staff reported observing discriminatory hiring, discriminatory employmentrelated disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion, more than any other employee group. Over 10% of all respondents indicated University status as the reason for unfair and unjust hiring practices. A closer evaluation of employee groups revealed that classified staff shared differential treatment from that of their academic staff counterparts. For example, 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. xiv




Introduction

The Importance of Examining Campus Climate

The primary missions of higher education institutions are the discovery and distribution of knowledge. Academic communities expend a great deal of effort fostering environments where these missions are nurtured, with the understanding that institutional climate has a profound effect on the academic community’s ability to excel in teaching, research, and scholarship.

13

The climate on college campuses not only affects the creation of knowledge, but also affects members of the academic community who, in turn, contribute to the creation of the campus environment.

14

Several national education association reports advocate creating a more inclusive, welcoming climate on college campuses.

Nearly two decades ago, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the American Council on Education (ACE) suggested that in order to build a vital community of learning a college or university must provide a climate where

…intellectual life is central and where faculty and students work together to strengthen teaching and learning, where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed, where the dignity of all individuals is affirmed and where equality of opportunity is vigorously pursued, and where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported (Boyer, 1990).

During that same time period, the Association of American Colleges and Universities

(AAC&U) (1995) challenged higher education institutions “to affirm and enact a commitment to equality, fairness, and inclusion (p. xvi).” AAC&U proposed that colleges and universities commit to “the task of creating…inclusive educational environments in which all participants are equally welcome, equally valued, and equally heard (p. xxi).”

The report suggested that, in order to provide a foundation for a vital community of

13

For more detailed discussions of climate issues see Hurtado (2005); Bauer (1998), Boyer (1990),

Milem, Chang, & Antonio, (2005); Peterson (1990), Rankin (1994, 1998), and Tierney and Dilley

(1996).

14

For further examination of the effects of climate on campus constituent groups and their respective

effects on the campus climate see Bauer, (1998); Bensimon (2005); Hurtado, 2005, Hurtado, Milem,

Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen (1998); Peterson (1990), Rankin (1994, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2005), Tierney

(1990).

1



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 learning, a primary duty of the academy must be to create a climate that cultivates diversity and celebrates difference.

In the ensuing years, many campuses instituted initiatives to address the challenges presented in the reports. More recently, Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2005) proposed that,

Diversity must be carried out in intentional ways in order to accrue the educational benefits for students and the institution. Diversity is a process toward better learning rather than an outcome (p. iv).

The report further indicates that in order for “diversity initiatives to be successful they must engage the entire campus community” (p. v). Ingle (2005) strongly supports the idea of a “thoughtful” process with regard to diversity initiatives in higher education.

History of the Project

The University of Wisconsin System has a long history of supporting diversity initiatives and an interest in campus climate issues.

15

In 2005, an academic planner was made aware of bias incidents at several campuses, and conversations began regarding a system- wide campus climate project. A taskforce committee of the UW System Inclusivity

Initiative was formed to search for consulting firms that conduct climate assessments in higher education. Rankin & Associates (R&A) was identified as a leader in conducting multiple identity studies in higher education. Conversations at the system level continued, and R&A presented a proposal to the UW System Provosts and various constituent groups in September 2006. Following this meeting, UW System Administrators formed the Climate Study Working Group (CSWG), who conducted in-depth interviews with other higher education institutions that had contracted with R&A. In July 2007, UW

System contracted with R&A to facilitate a System-wide climate assessment. Five campuses (UW Colleges, UW-La Crosse, UW- Oshkosh, UW-Milwaukee and UW-

Stevens Point) volunteered to participate in the first year, 2007-2008. The Tier II institutions who participated in 2008-2009 included UW-Eau Claire, UW-Parkside, UW-

15

For more information on UW System diversity initiatives see http://www.uwsa.edu/vpacad/diversity.htm

2




River Falls, and UW-Whitewater. The Tier III institutions who participated in 2010-2011 include UW-Extension, UW-Green Bay, UW-Madison (CALS), UW-Platteville, UW-

Stout, and UW-Superior.

The first phase of the project included conducting fact-finding groups to learn from

University of Wisconsin System students, staff, and faculty their perceptions of the campus climate, which would inform question construction on a system-wide survey instrument.

The CSWG began working with R&A in spring 2007 to assist with identifying the factfinding groups and developing the protocol that would be used in conducting the groups.

The fact-finding groups were conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on

September 27 and 28, 2007. One hundred seventy-eight (178) people participated in the

19 fact-finding groups, which were divided by certain demographic characteristics so that participants might feel safe to speak about their own experiences. Of the 178 participants,

50 were students and 128 were faculty or staff.

Informed by the fact-finding groups and by prior work of R&A, the CSWG developed the final survey instrument template that was administered to the five campuses in spring 2008. The Tier II CSWG slightly revised the survey and the Tier III

CSWG provided further modifications. Most recently, UW-Stout was one of the five UW

System institutions that participated in the climate project. Surveys were administered at

UW-Green Bay, UW-Platteville, UW-Madison, UW-Stout, and UW-Superior during the spring 2011 semester. The UW Extension survey was administered in June 2011. The

Diversity Leadership Committee reviewed the CSWG template and revised the survey instrument to better fit the context at UW-Stout. The final survey contained 86 questions, including open-ended questions for respondents to provide commentary.

This report provides an overview of the findings of the internal assessment, including the results of the campus-wide survey and the analysis of comments provided by survey respondents. The results of the internal assessment continue to be used to help to lay the groundwork for future initiatives.

3




Methodology

Conceptual Framework

This project defines diversity as the “variety created in any society (and within any individual) by the presence of different points of view and ways of making meaning, which generally flow from the influence of different cultural, ethnic, and religious heritages, from the differences in how we socialize women and men, and from the differences that emerge from class, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability and other socially constructed characteristics.

16

” The inherent complexity of the topic of diversity requires the examination of the multiple dimensions of diversity in higher education. The conceptual model used as the foundation for this assessment of campus climate was developed by Smith (1999) and modified by Rankin (2002).

Research Design

Survey Instrument.

The survey questions were constructed based on the work of

Rankin (2003) and informed by the fact-finding groups held in September, 2007 in

Madison.

17

The Diversity Leadership Committee reviewed the drafts of the survey. The final survey contained 86 questions,

18

including open-ended questions for respondents to provide commentary. The survey was designed to have respondents provide information about their personal campus experiences, their perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of UW-Stout institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding diversity issues and concerns on campus. The survey was

16

Rankin & Associates (2001) adapted from AAC&U (1995).

17

The original project that served as the foundation for survey was conducted in 2000-2001. The sample

included 15,356 respondents from ten geographically diverse campuses (three private and eight public

colleges and universities). Subsequent to the original project, the survey questions have been modified

based on the results of sixty additional campus climate project analyses. For a more detailed review of

the survey development process (e.g., content validity, construct validity, internal reliability, factor

analysis), the reader is directed to: Rankin, S. and Reason, R. (2008). A Comprehensive Approach to

Transforming Campus Climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.

18

To insure reliability, evaluators must insure that instruments are properly worded (questions and

response choices must be worded in such a way that they elicit consistent responses) and administered

in a consistent manner. The instrument was revised numerous times, defined critical terms, and

underwent "expert evaluation" of items (in addition to checks for internal consistency).

4



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 available in both an on-line and pencil-and-paper format. All surveys responses were input into a secure site database, stripped of their IP addresses, and then tabulated for appropriate analysis.

Sampling Procedure.

The project proposal, including the survey instrument, was reviewed and approved in November 2009 by the UW-Stout Institutional Review Board

(IRB). The proposal indicated that any analysis of the data would insure participant confidentiality. The final Web-based survey and paper-and-pencil surveys were distributed to the campus community in spring 2011. Each survey included information describing the purpose of the study, explaining the survey instrument, and assuring the respondents of anonymity. The survey was distributed to the entire population of students and employees via an invitation to participate from the Chancellor. To encourage participation, members of the Diversity Leadership Committee forwarded subsequent invitations.

Limitations.

Several limitations to the generalizability of the data existed. The first limitation occurred because respondents in this study were “self-selected.” Self-selection bias therefore is possible since participants had the choice of whether to participate. The bias lies in that an individual’s decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, which could make the sample non-representative. For example, people with strong opinions or substantial knowledge regarding climate issues on campus may have been more apt to participate in the study.

A second limitation

19

resulted from the decision to attempt deliberately to over-sample certain populations. For example, after the initial survey announcements, subsequent

“invitations to participate” were forwarded to various constituent groups identified by the

DLC.

19

Previous research on institutional climate (Smith, 1997; Tierney, 1990) suggests using a random

sampling technique will miss the voices of underrepresented groups due to their small numbers.

Stratified random sampling may be used to address this challenge, but it was determined that due to the

intent of the project to provide all members of the community with the opportunity to participate and

to have their voice included, a population study was completed.

5




A third limitation is in regard to response rates. Caution is suggested in generalizing the results for response rates less than thirty percent. The response rates for UW-Stout by position were faculty (56%), staff

20

(39%), and for students (13%). Despite this limitation with regard to student respondents, the results provided here reflect participant’s beliefs and concerns with regard to the campus climate.

Data Analysis. Survey data were analyzed to compare the responses (in raw numbers and percentages) of various groups via SPSS (version 18.0). Numbers and percentages were also calculated by salient group memberships (e.g., by gender, race/ethnicity, status

21

) to provide additional information regarding participant responses. Throughout this report, including the narrative and data tables within the narrative, all information was presented using valid percentages.

22

. Refer to the survey data tables in Appendix B for actual percentages

23

where missing or no response information can be found. The rationale for this discrepancy in reporting is to note the missing or “no response” data in the appendices for institutional information while removing such data within the report for subsequent cross tabulations.

A few survey questions allowed respondents the opportunity to describe further their experiences on UW-Stout’s campus, to expand upon their survey responses, and to add any additional thoughts they wished. These open-ended comments were reviewed using standard methods of thematic analysis. One reviewer read all comments and a list of common themes were established based on the judgment of the reviewer. Most themes were based on the issues raised in the survey questions and revealed in the quantitative data; however, additional themes that appeared in the comments were noted.

20

For the UW-Stout report, “staff” included Limited Term Employees, Classified Staff Represented,

Classified Staff Non-Represented, Non-Instructional/Other Academic Staff, Limited Academic Staff, and Administrators

21

University status was defined in the questionnaire as “Within the institution, the status one holds by

virtue of their position/status within the institution (e.g., staff, full-time faculty, part-time faculty,

administrator).”

22

Percentages derived using the total number of respondents to a particular item (i.e., missing data were

excluded).

23

Percentages derived using the total number of survey respondents.

6




This methodology does not reflect a comprehensive qualitative study. Comments were solicited to give voice to the data and to highlight areas of concern that might have been missed in the body of the survey. Comments were not used to develop grounded hypotheses independent of the quantitative data.

Results

This section of the report describes the sample, provides validity measures (content and construct) and reliability measures (internal consistency, and presents results as per the project design, examining respondents’ personal campus experiences, their perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of the UW-Stout’s institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding diversity issues and concerns on campus.

Description of the Sample

24

One thousand eight hundred seventy-seven (1,877) surveys were returned for an 18.5% response rate. The sample and population figures, chi-square analyses, and response rates are presented in Table 1.

The sample had a significantly greater proportion of females and a smaller proportion of males than did the population. Additionally, the sample had significantly smaller proportions of Southeast Asians and European Americans/Whites than the population.

Further, the sample has significantly greater proportions of Asians, Asian Americans,

Latinos/Hispanics, Native American Indians, and Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Native than the population. It should be noted that the sample data included 6 categories of race/ethnicity (representing 57 individuals) that were not cited in UW-Stout’s population demographics.

Significant differences in proportions within positions were also found between the sample and the population. The sample has significantly smaller proportions of non-

24

All frequency tables are provided in Appendix B. For any notation regarding tables in the narrative,

the reader is directed to these tables.

7



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 degree, bachelor degree, and master degree students, as well as limited academic staff.

The sample has significantly larger proportions of assistant and associate professors, and professors than the population. It should be noted that the sample data included 8 categories of position data (representing 311 individuals) that were not cited in UW-

Stout’s population demographics.

Table 1. UW-Stout Demographics of Population and Sample Respondents

25

Characteristic

Gender a

Subgroup

Male

Position c

Female

Transgender

Other

Race/Ethnicity b,1

African

African American/Black

Alaskan Native

Asian

Asian American

Caribbean/West Indian

European American/White

Indian Subcontinent

Latino(a)/Hispanic

Middle Eastern

Native American Indian

Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Native

Southeast Asian

Other

Non-Degree Seeking Student

Associate Degree Student

Bachelor Degree Student

Master Degree Student

Professional Degree Student

Instructional Academic Staff

Instructor

Assistant Professor

Associate professor

Professor

Population

N %

5054 49.9%

5080 50.1%

93 1.0%

69

43

9149 94.5%

82 0.8%

0.7%

0.4%

48

12

182

0.5%

0.1%

1.9%

416 4.1%

8221 81.1%

731 7.2%

168 1.7%

116

83

86

1.1%

0.8%

0.8%

30

16

1109

96

5

46

16

72

56

64

Sample

n %

770 41.2%

1086

5

6

13

12

2

52

31

5

1699

6

26

5

25

7

14

26

58.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.7%

0.6%

0.1%

2.8%

1.7%

0.3%

90.5%

0.3%

1.4%

0.3%

1.3%

0.4%

0.7%

1.4%

1.6%

0.9%

59.1%

5.1%

0.3%

2.5%

0.9%

3.8%

3.0%

3.4%

Response

Rate

15.2%

21.4% n/a n/a n/a

12.9% n/a

75.4%

72.1% n/a

18.6% n/a

31.7% n/a

52.1%

58.3%

7.7% n/a

7.2% n/a

13.5%

13.1% n/a

27.4% n/a

62.1%

67.5%

74.4%

25

The table population categories for race are those used by the institution. The table sample categories

for race are those created by the CSWG based on their knowledge of the community in the UW System.

8




Table 1 (continued)

Characteristic Subgroup

Population Sample Response

Rate

N % n %

Limited Term Employee

Classified Staff Represented

Classified Staff Non-Represented

101

408

#

0

267

31

118

37

41

47

1189

1.7%

6.3%

2.0%

2.2%

2.5%

95.3% n/a n/a n/a

34.8%

Citizenship

d

Non-Instructional/Other

Academic Staff

Limited Academic Staff

Administrator

Other

US Citizen (born in US)

2.6%

46 0.5%

9141 97.6%

93 5.0% n/a n/a n/a

13.0%

(students) US Citizen Naturalized

Dual Citizenship

17

7

1.4%

0.6% n/a n/a

Permanent Resident

(Immigrant/Refugee)

International

58

164

0.6%

1.8%

11

20

0.9%

1.6%

19.0%

12.2%

Other 5 0.1% 3 0.2% 60.0%

1

Respondents were instructed to indicate all racial/ethnic categories that apply. a Χ 2

(1, N = 1856) = 52.55, p = .0001 b Χ 2

(7, N = 1866) = 256.40 p = .0001 c Χ 2

(8, N = 1566) = 666.02, p = .0001 d

X

2

(3, N = 1223) = 4.62, p = .2022

# 408 is the total population number of classified staff (Classified Staff Represented/Classified Staff Unrepresented).

Given that these are combined, the response rates for each group were not possible to compute.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because respondents were instructed to indicate all categories that apply .

Validity. Validity is the extent to which a measure truly reflects the phenomenon or concept under study. The validation process for the survey instrument included both the development of the survey questions and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey questions were constructed based on the work of Hurtado (1999) and Smith

(1997) and were further informed by instruments used in other institutional studies.

Several researchers working in the area of diversity-as well as higher education survey research methodology experts - reviewed the template used for the UW System survey.

The survey was also reviewed by members of the UW-Stout Diversity Leadership

Committee.

Content validity was ensured given that the items and response choices arose from literature reviews, previous surveys, and input from CSWG members. Construct validity

9




– the extent to which scores on an instrument permit inferences about underlying traits, attitudes, and behaviors – should be evaluated by examining the correlations of measures being evaluated with variables known to be related to the construct. For this investigation, correlations ideally ought to exist between item responses and known instances of harassment, for example. However, no reliable data to that effect were available. As such, meticulous attention was given to the manner in which questions were asked and response choices given. Items were constructed to be non-biased, non-leading, and non-judgmental, and to preclude individuals from providing “socially acceptable” responses.

Reliability - Internal Consistency of Responses. Correlations between the responses to questions about overall campus climate for various groups (question 71) and those that rate overall campus climate on various scales (question 78) were moderate (Bartz, 1988) and statistically significant, indicating a positive relationship between answers regarding the acceptance of various populations and the climate for that population. The consistency of these results suggests that the survey data were internally reliable

(Trochim, 2000). Pertinent correlation coefficients

26

are provided in Table 2. All

correlations in the table were significantly different from zero at the .01 level; that is, there was a relationship between all selected pairs of responses.

26

Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the degree to which two variables are related. A value of one

signifies perfect correlation. Zero signifies no correlation.

10

Table 2. Pearson Correlations between Ratings of Acceptance and Campus Climate for Selected Groups

Climate Characteristics

Respectful of:

African Americans/Blacks

Alaskan Natives

Asians

Asian Americans

Latino(a)/Hispanics

Middle Eastern persons

Multiracial/multiethnic/ multicultural persons

Native Americans

Pacific Islanders/Hawaiian

Natives

LGBT individuals

Socioeconomically

Disadvantaged persons

Women

Non-native English

Speakers

1 p=0.01 for all r values

Non-Racist

.526

.440

.465

.439

.483

.502

.472

.475

.451

Non-Homophobic

.546

Non-Classist

.513




Non-Sexist

.487

Positive for Non-Native

English Speakers

.498

11




Sample Characteristics

27

The majority of the sample were female (58%, n = 1,086, Figure 1). Five transgender

28

individuals completed the survey; however, they are not included in Figure 1 to maintain the confidentiality...

Figure 1

Respondents by Gender

1

Position Status (n)

&

683

60

119

99 94

Female

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

462

40

131

63 58

Male

27

All percentages presented in the “Sample Characteristics” section of the report are valid percentages.

28

Self-identification as “transgender” does not preclude identification as male or female, nor do all those who might fit the definition self-identify as transgender. Here, those who chose to self-identify as transgender have been reported separately in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus identity that might otherwise have been overlooked.

12




The majority of respondents were heterosexual

29

(92%, n = 1,677) and seven percent (n =

107) were sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer) (Figure 2). Fourteen people

(1%) were questioning their sexual orientations.

Figure 2

Respondents by Sexual Orientation

& Position Status (n)

Students

Faculty

Academic Staff


1131

217

151 137

Heterosexual

72 16

LGBQ

6 7

29

Respondents who answered “other” in response to the question about their sexual orientations and wrote

“normal” or “heterosexual” in the adjoining text box were recoded as heterosexual. Additionally, this report uses the terms “LGB” and “sexual minorities” to denote individuals who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and those who wrote in “other” terms, such as “pan-sexual,”

“homoflexible,” “fluid,” etc.

13




About 30% (n = 73) of faculty members were 52 to 60 years old, and 26% (n = 63) of faculty were between the ages of 43 and 51 (Figure 3). Thirty-one percent (n = 51) of academic staff were between the ages of 52 and 60, and 34% (n = 51) of classified staff were between the ages of 52 and 60.

Faculty

Academic Staff


Figure 3

Employee Respondents by Age & Position Status (n)

73

63

54

51 51

34

40

20

25

20

32

23

31

10

2

22-25

2

26-32 33-42 43-51 52-60

10

14

61-69

1

0

0

70 and over

14




Thirty-seven percent (n = 431) of responding undergraduates were 20 to 21 years old, and

39% (n = 39) of responding graduate students were 22 to 25 years old (Figure 4).

431

Figure 4

Student Respondents by Age & Position Status (n)

Undergraduates

Graduate Students

324

251

2

19 and under

20-21

4

85

31

22-25

39

26-32

32

13

33-42

18

7

14

4

43-51 52 and over

15




Figures 5 and 6 depict the employee respondent population by UW-Stout status (Figure

5).

Figure 5

Employee Respondents by

Position Status (n)

Instructor

Assistant professor

Associate professor

Professor

Limited term employee

Classified staff represented

Classified staff non-represented

Instructional academic staff

Other academic staff

Administrator

Other

72

64

56

118

93

37

46

41

47

31

16

16




For the purposes of some analyses, employee “status” data were collapsed

30

into the following categories: faculty, academic staff, and classified staff (Figure 6). Forty-four percent (n = 254) of employee respondents were faculty, 29% (n = 165) of employee respondents were academic staff, and 27% (n = 155) were classified staff.

Figure 6

Collapsed Employee Position Status (n)

254

Faculty

Academic Staff


165

155

30

Throughout the analyses, the term “faculty” is used to include instructors, instructional academic staff, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors. When the term “academic staff” is used, it will encompass all limited term employees, other academic staff, and administrators. “Classified staff” include classified staff represented and classified staff non-represented. These categories were collapsed for the purposes of analyses and to ensure the confidentiality of respondents.

17




Table 3 presents the types of appointments faculty and staff held at UW-Stout.

Table 3. Faculty/Staff Appointments

Appointment n

Instructor

Assistant professor

Associate professor

Professor

Limited term employee

Classified staff represented

Classified staff non-represented

Instructional academic staff

Other academic staff

Administrator

9

33

31

18

20

81

13

28

56

23

Note: Table reports employee responses only (n = 567).

Women

%

56.3

46.5

55.4

29.0

69.0

69.2

36.1

60.9

60.2

56.1 n

7

37

25

44

8

35

23

18

37

18

Men

%

43.8

52.1

44.6

71.0

27.6

29.9

63.9

39.1

39.8

43.9

18




Table 4 depicts faculty and staff members’ primary work affiliations at UW-Stout.

Eighty-five percent of employees (n = 489) were full-time in their positions (Table B13).

Table 4. Faculty/Staff Academic Department/Work Unit/Program Affiliations

Academic department/ work unit/program n %

Academic department/ work unit/program n

2 Apparel & Communication

Technologies

Art & Design

ASLS Administration

Athletics/Rec Complex/University

Recreation

Biology

Planning, Assessment, Research and Quality Office

Business

Business & Financial Services

CAHSS Administration

CEHHS Administration

Chancellor's Office Admin

Chemistry

COM Administration

Construction

Engineering & Technology

English & Philosophy

Enrollment Services

Equal Opportunity & Affirmative

Action

Food & Nutrition

Graduate College / Honors / Intl.

Education

Health, Safety and Risk

Management

Hospitality and Tourism

Housing & Residence Life

Human Development & Family

Studies

12

20

17

13

12

2

7

15

20

11

5

4

3

3

5

12

8

0

8

4

11

13

7

8

2.0

3.3

2.8

2.2

2.0

0.3

1.2

2.5

3.3

1.8

0.8

2.0

1.3

0.5

0.5

0.8

0.7

0.0

1.3

0.7

1.8

2.2

1.2

1.3

Human Resources

Learning and Information

Technology

Math, Statistics & Computer

Science

Military Science

Operations Management

Outreach Services and Research

Services

Physical Education

Physical Plant

Physics

Provost's Office

Psychology

Rehabilitation & Counseling

School of Education

Social Science

Speech, Communication, Foreign

Language, Theatre & Music

STEM Administration

STTI & related outreach

Student Life Services

Student Services

SVRI

University Advancement

University Communications

University Dining Services

University Library

Academic and Student Affairs

Administration

Missing

22

5

2

10

5

16

2

19

38

7

19

5

20

24

69

11

5

1

7

9

12

5

6

17

40

Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or staff (n = 598).

19

3.2

0.8

3.3

1.8

0.8

0.2

1.2

1.5

2.0

0.8

1.0

2.8

6.7

2.7

0.3

3.2

0.8

0.3

1.7

0.8

6.4

1.2

4.0

11.5

%

0.3

3.7




About four percent (n = 24) of employee respondents indicated that the highest level of education they completed was high school (Table B10). Three percent (n = 20) had finished associate’s degrees, 15% (n = 89) bachelor’s degrees, 33% (n = 190) master’s degrees, and 33% (n = 194) doctoral or professional degrees.

Thirty-six percent (n = 208) of employee respondents have been at UW-Stout for four or fewer years (Figure 7). About 25% (n = 147) of employee respondents have been employed by UW-Stout for five to 10 years, and 20% (n = 113) have been at UW-Stout for 11 to 20 years. Nineteen percent (n = 112) of employees have been at the University for more than 20 years.

Figure 7

Employee Respondents’ Time at the UW-Stout (n)

20




Sixteen percent (n = 96) of current UW-Stout employees have worked for more than one

UW System institution/System Administration (Table B18). Of those respondents, 37 worked at UW-Eau Claire, 17 worked at UW-Madison, eight worked at UW-River Falls, and eight worked at one of the UW-Colleges (Table B19).

Ninety-one percent (n = 1,155) of the student respondents were undergraduate students, and eight percent (n = 101) were graduate students

31

(Figure 8). Ninety percent of students (n = 1,134) were full-time students.

16

Figure 8

Student Respondents by Class Standing (n)

787

Associate

Bachelor-Stout

Bachelor-Transfer

Master's

Doctoral

Professional

322

Students

96

0 5

31

Throughout the results, the term “Undergraduate students” will be used to signify transfer students,

associate degree students,, non-degree seeking students, and bachelor’s degree students. “Graduate students” will denote master’s degree, doctoral/terminal degree, and professional degree students. These categories were collapsed for the purposes of analyses and to ensure the confidentiality of respondents .

21




Table 5 illustrates the level of education completed by students’ parents or legal guardians.

Table 5. Students’ Parents’/Guardians’ Highest Level of Education

Parent /Legal Guardian 1 Parent/Legal Guardian 2

Level of Education n % n %

40

315

176

3.1

24.6

13.8

No high school

High school

Some college

Business/Technical certificate/degree

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Some graduate work

Master’s degree

Doctoral degree

Other professional degree

Unknown

Not applicable

37

288

169

136

102

296

27

144

31

11

4

7

2.9

22.5

13.2

10.6

8.0

23.1

2.1

11.3

2.4

0.9

0.3

0.5

Missing 27

Note: Table reports student responses only (n = 1,279).

2.1

9

16

38

132

99

300

19

115

14

6

10.3

7.7

23.5

1.5

9.0

1.1

0.5

0.7

1.3

3.0

22




Twenty-one percent (n = 262) of student respondents were first-year students, and between 19 and 22% (n = 756) were second- through fourth-year students (Figure 9).

Nine percent (n = 119) were fifth-year seniors, while seven percent (n = 89) were graduate students.

Figure 9

Student Respondents’ College Career (n)

262

235

276

245

119

87

First year

2nd yr

3rd yr

4th yr

5th yr or more

Master's degree

Doctoral degree

Professional degree

0 2

Students

Sixty-one percent (n = 779) of student respondents were currently dependent students

(i.e., their family/guardians assisted with their living/educational expenses), and 37% (n =

469) were independent students (i.e., they were the sole providers for their living/educational expenses) (Table B21). Thirty-three percent (n = 422) of all students were working 20 or more hours per week (Table B24).

Twenty-three percent (n = 291) of student respondents reported that they or their families have annual incomes of less than $30,000. Twenty-one percent (n = 266) reported annual

23



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 incomes between $30,000 and $59,999, 25% (n = 314) between $60,000 and $99,999,

11% (n = 135) between $100,000 and $149,999, and seven percent (n =86) over

$150,000 annually (Table B22). These figures are displayed by student income in Figure

10. Information is provided for those who indicated that they were financially dependent versus those who indicated that they were financially independent.

Figure 10

Income by Student Position Status (n)

Undergraduate Dependent

Undergraduate Independent

Graduate students

189

54

46

164

82

21

236

57

21

99

28

6

68

14

3

24




Of the students completing the survey, 40% (n = 509) lived in residence halls and 44% (n

= 560) lived in off-campus houses and apartments (Table 6).

Table 6. Students’ Residence

University housing residence hall

Private residence hall

University housing apartment

Fraternity/sorority housing

Off-campus apartment/house

With partner/spouse/children

Other n

509

4

10

6

560

90

14

%

39.8

0.3

0.8

0.5

43.8

7.0

1.1

With regard to race and ethnicity, 91% (n = 1,699) of the respondents were

White/Caucasian. Three percent were Asian (n = 52), and two percent (n = 31) were

Asian American. One percent or fewer were African (n = 13), African American (n = 12),

Alaskan Native (n = 2), Southeast Asian (n = 14), Caribbean/West Indian (n = 5),

Latino(a)/Hispanic (n = 26), from the Indian subcontinent (n = 6), Middle Eastern (n = 5),

Native American Indian (n = 25), or Pacific Islander (n = 7) (Figure 11). Of the Asian respondents, respondents identified as Chinese, Filipino, Hindu, Hmong, Indian,

Japanese, Korean, Nepali, South Korean, and Vietnamese. Among Latinos, respondents identified as Chilean, Colombian, Mexican, Panamanian, Puerto Rican, and South

American. Most people that choose “other” wrote in comments such as “European

American,” “choose not to answer,” “I won’t tell you,” “White, but I have dark skin,” and

“why does it matter?”

25




Figure 11

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (n)

1

(Duplicated Total)

1 Inclusive of multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic

26




Respondents were given the opportunity to mark multiple boxes regarding their racial identity, allowing them to identify as bi-racial or multi-racial. Given this opportunity, the majority of respondents chose White (n = 1,659, 88%) as part of their identity and 174 respondents (9%) chose a category other than White as part of their identity (Figure 12).

Given the small number of respondents in each racial/ethnic category, many of the analyses and discussion use the collapsed categories of People of Color and White people.

32

Figure 12

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (n)

(Unduplicated Total)

32

While the authors recognize the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g.,

Chicano(a) versus African American or Latino(a) versus Asian American) and those experiences within these identity categories (e.g., Hmong versus Chinese), we collapsed these categories into People of

Color and White for many of the analyses due to the small numbers in the individual categories.

27




Table 7 illustrates that approximately 62% (n = 1,163) of the respondents were affiliated with a Christian denomination, while 21% (n = 386) identified as having no spiritual affiliation (no affiliation, atheist, agnostic). Many respondents that marked “other” named

Christian religions not identified on the survey (e.g., Christian Missionary Alliance,

Evangelical, Messianic). Others identified their spiritual affiliations as Secular Humanist,

Deist, Dudeist, Heathen, “my own beliefs,” “pastafarian,” Jedi, and “none of your business.”

Table 7. Respondents’ Religious or Spiritual Affiliations

Affiliation n

Animist

Anabaptist

Agnostic

Atheist

Baha’i

Baptist

Buddhist

Eastern Orthodox

Episcopalian

Hindu

Jehovah’s Witness

Jewish

Latter Day Saints (Mormon)

Lutheran

Mennonite

Methodist

Moravian

Muslim

Native American Traditional

Practitioner

Nondenominational Christian

Pagan

Pentecostal

Presbyterian

Quaker

Roman Catholic

Seventh Day Adventist

Shamanist

Sikh

Unitarian Universalist

United Church of Christ

Wiccan

Spiritual, but no religious affiliation

No affiliation

Other

14

18

2

10

3

446

1

62

0

6

0

24

7

5

2

0

84

90

2

144

9

11

18

1

387

2

12

0

10

51

5

140

212

58

%

0.7

1.0

0.1

0.5

0.2

23.8

0.1

3.3

0.0

0.3

0.1

0.0

4.5

4.8

0.0

1.3

0.4

0.3

0.1

7.7

0.5

0.6

1.0

0.1

20.6

0.1

0.6

0.0

0.5

2.7

0.3

7.6

11.3

3.1

28




While 88% (n = 1,095) of student respondents had no children, nine percent (n = 104) were co-parenting, and three percent (n = 33) were single parents (Figure 13). More than half of employee respondents were co-parenting with a spouse or partner (58%, n = 318), approximately one-third had no children (34%, n = 186), and seven percent (n = 34) were single parents.

Figure 13

Respondents’ Parental Status by Position Status (n)

Seventy-five percent (n =423) of employees were married, five percent (n = 26) were partnered, and 14% (n = 76) were single (Table B7). Sixty-three percent (n = 785) of student respondents said they were single, while 25% (n = 310) considered themselves partnered. Six employee respondents and students were partnered in a civil union.

29




Fifteen percent of respondents (n = 277) had a disability that substantially affects major life activities. Of those 277 respondents, 103 (37%) said they had mental health disorders,

48 (17%) had learning disabilities, and 34 (12%) had mobility impairment (Figure 14).

“Other” disabilities included conditions such as “not so healthy family members,” “tennis elbow,” “visual impairment,” “hip,” “carpel tunnel,” “color blind,” disabled Vietnam

Vet,” and “depression/seasonal affective disorder.”

Figure 14

Respondents by Ability/Disability (n)

Mobility impairment

Senosry impairment

Learning disability

Mental health disorder

Chronic health disorder

Other

103

34

19

48

28

45

30




Ninety-four percent (n = 1759) were U.S. born citizens (B15). Table 8 provides citizenship information for students and employees.

Table 8. Respondents’ Citizenship Status n

Students

%

U.S. citizen

U.S. citizen – naturalized

Dual citizenship

Permanent resident

(immigrant)

Permanent resident (refugee)

International (F-1, J-1, or

H1-B, or other visa)

1189

17

7

8

3

20

95.3

1.4

0.6

0.6

0.2

1.6 n

Employees

%

527

16

2

11

0

10

92.6

2.8

0.4

1.9

0.0

1.8

Ninety-six respondents (5%) were active military members or veterans (Table B8).

Thirty-two percent (n = 591) of all respondents grew up in a small town, 24% (n = 442) grew up in a suburban area, 17% (n = 311) were raised in a rural area (non-farm), 12% (n

= 221) grew up on a farm/ranch, and nine percent (n = 177) grew up in urban areas

(Table B25).

31




Campus Climate Assessment Findings

33

The following section

34

reviews the major findings of this study. The review explores the climate at UW-Stout through an examination of respondents’ personal experiences, their general perceptions of campus climate, and their perceptions of institutional actions regarding climate on campus, including administrative policies and academic initiatives.

Each of these issues is examined in relation to the identity and status of the respondents.

Personal Experiences

Within the past two years, 21% (n = 385) of respondents believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (harassing behavior) that has interfered with their ability to work or learn

35

at UW-Stout (Table B32). Respondents suggested these experiences were based most often on their university status (26%, n = 101), gender (23%, n = 87), age

(21%, n = 81), and educational level (14%, n = 54) (Table 9). The percentage of respondents experiencing harassment at UW-Stout is slightly lower than the percentage of respondents who experienced harassment in studies of other institutions.

36

33

All tables are provided in Appendix B. Several pertinent tables and graphs are included in the body of the narrative to illustrate salient points.

34

The percentages presented in this section of the report are valid percentages (i.e., percentages are derived from the total number of respondents who answered an individual item).

35

Under the United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1, harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose" ( http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html

). In higher education institutions, legal issues discussions define harassment as any conduct that unreasonably interferes with one’s ability to work or learn on campus. The questions used in this survey to uncover participants’ personal and observed experiences with harassment were designed using these definitions.

36

Rankin’s (2003) national assessment of climate for underrepresented groups where 25% (n = 3767) of respondents indicated personally experiencing harassment based mostly on their race (31%), their gender (55%), or their ethnicity (16%).

32




Table 9. Percent of Respondents Provided the

Following as Bases for the Conduct They Experienced n %

My institutional status

My gender

My age

My educational level

My ethnicity

My physical characteristics

My religious/spiritual status

My political views

My race

My sexual orientation

My country of origin

My psychological disability

My socioeconomic status

My English language proficiency/accent

My gender expression

My gender identity

My parental status (e.g., having children)

My learning disability

My physical disability

My immigrant status

101

87

81

54

32

31

30

27

26

21

20

19

14

12

9

8

6

19

18

15

My military/veteran status 3

Other 151

Note: Only answered by respondents reporting experience of harassment (n = 385).

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

26.2

22.6

21.0

14.0

8.3

8.1

7.8

7.0

6.8

5.5

5.2

4.9

3.6

3.1

2.3

2.1

4.9

4.7

3.9

1.6

0.8

39.2

33




The following figures depict the responses by the demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, status) of individuals who responded “yes” to the question,

“Within the past two years, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct that has interfered unreasonably with your ability to work or learn at your institution?”

When reviewing these results in terms of race (Figure 15), 31% (n = 54) of Respondents of Color and 19% (n = 313) of White respondents believed they had experienced this conduct. Of those respondents who believed they had experienced the conduct, 41% (n =

22) of Respondents of Color said it was based on their race, while only one percent (n =

3) of White respondents thought the conduct was based on race.

Figure 15

Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or

Intimidating Conduct Due to Race (by Race) (%)

Overall experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to race²

41

31

19

People of Color

(n=54)¹

(n=22)²

White

(n=313)¹

(n=3)²

1

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.

34




When reviewing the data by gender (Figure 16), a similar percentage of men and women respondents (22%, n = 238 and 18%, n = 140 respectively) believed they had experienced offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct. Thirty-one percent (n = 73) of women who believed they had experienced this conduct – in comparison with 10% (n =

14) of men – said it was based on gender.

Figure 16


Intimidating Conduct Due to Gender (by Gender) (%)

Overall experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to gender²

31

22

18

10

Women

(n=238)¹

(n=73)²

Men

(n=140)¹

(n=14)²



35




A greater percentage of faculty respondents (41%, n = 103) believed they had been harassed than did other respondents; however, 41% (n = 23) of classified staff who believed they were harassed said the conduct was based on their status at UW-Stout

(Figure 17).

Figure 17


Intimidating Conduct Due to University Status (%)

(n=161)¹

(n=26)²

(n=103)¹

(n=33)²

(n=54)¹

(n=16)²

(n=56)¹

(n=23)²



36




Figure 18 illustrates that a higher percentage of sexual minorities (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer persons) than heterosexual respondents (30%, n = 32 vs. 19%, n =

318) believed they had experienced this conduct. Of those that believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 47% (n = 15) of sexual minorities versus one percent (n

= 4) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation.

Figure 18


Intimidating Conduct Due to Sexual Orientation (%)

(n=32)¹

(n=15)²

(n=318)¹

(n=4)²



37




Within the past two years, 18% of respondents with no disabilities believed they experienced harassment.

Higher percentages of people who reported having mobility impairments (34%, n = 35), sensory impairments (27%, n = 9), mental health conditions

(47%, n = 9), or learning disabilities (32%, n = 15) that substantially affects a major life activity than self-identified, non-disabled people believed they had experienced offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct (Figure 19). Thirty-seven percent (n = 13) of those respondents with mental health conditions who believed they had experienced harassment said the conduct was based on their disability.

Figure 19


Intimidating Conduct Due to Disability (by Disability)(%)

(n=35)¹

(n=13)²

(n=9)¹

(n=2)²

(n=9)¹

(n=1)²

(n=15)¹

(n=3)²



38




Table 10 illustrates the manners in which individuals perceived that the experienced this conduct. Forty-six percent (n = 177) felt deliberately ignored or excluded, 37% (n = 141) felt intimidated and bullied, 18% (n = 68) saw others staring at them, and 16% (n = 60) were the targets of derogatory remarks.

Thirty-four percent (n = 131) said they experienced the harassing behavior while working at a campus job (Table B35). Twenty-six percent (n = 102) said it happened in class, and

25% (n = 96) said they believed they were harassed in a meeting with a group of people.

37

Other places this type of behavior occurred included: in campus offices (20%, n

= 75), in university residence halls (14%, n = 54), in meetings with one other person

(14%, n =54), and while walking on campus (13%, n = 48).

37

For complete listings of where harassment occurred, see the data tables in Appendix B.

39

Table 10. Form of Experienced Harassment



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 n %

I was deliberately ignored or excluded

Intimidation/bullying

Stares

Target of derogatory remarks

I felt isolated or left out when working in groups

Derogatory written comments

I received a low performance evaluation

I feared for my physical safety

I felt isolated or left out because of my identity

177

141

68

60

60

46

43

37

35

46.0

36.6

17.7

15.6

15.6

11.9

11.2

9.6

9.1

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mail, text message, Facebook post, Twitter post

I feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment

Assumption that I was admitted/hired/ promoted due to my identity

I was singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity

Derogatory phone calls

32

28

19

8.3

7.3

4.9

Threats of physical violence

Graffiti/vandalism

Victim of a crime

Target of physical violence

16

15

15

11

10

8

4.2

3.9

3.9

2.9

2.6

2.1

I feared for my family’s safety 8 2.1

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 7 1.8

Other 84 21.8

Note: Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced harassment (n = 385).


40




People of Color most often believed they had experienced harassment in the form of being deliberately ignored and excluded (57%, n = 31), someone staring at them (37%, n

= 20), feeling intimidated or bullied (37%, n = 20), and being left out when working in groups (33%, n = 18) (Table 11).

41




Table 11. Form of Experienced Harassment by Race

Form

Target of racial/ethnic profiling

Graffiti




Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails


Stares

Deliberately ignored or excluded

Derogatory remarks

Felt intimidated/bullied

Feared for my physical safety

Feared for my family’s safety

Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity

Victim of a crime

Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment

Received a low performance evaluation

Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity

Isolated or left out when working in groups

Isolated or left out because of my identity

White

Respondents n = 313 n %

2

9

39

13

13

31

8

46

143

52

116

29

6

10

8

20

35

8

40

0.6

2.9

12.5

4.2

4.2

9.9

2.6

14.7

45.7

16.6

37.1

9.3

1.9

3.2

2.6

6.4

11.2

2.6

12.8

26 8.3



Respondents of

Color n = 54 n %

5

2

4

1

2

1

0

20

31

6

20

7

2

9

0

7

6

8

18

9

9.3

3.7

7.4

1.9

3.7

1.9

0.0

37.0

57.4

11.1

37.0

13.0

3.7

16.7

0.0

13.0

11.1

14.8

33.3

16.7

42




Sexual minority respondents most often believed they had experienced harassment in the form of feeling ignored or excluded (47%, n= 15), receiving derogatory remarks (28%, n= 9), being intimidated or bullied (28%, n = 9), and noticing someone staring at them

(25%, n = 8) (Table 12).

43




Table 12. Form of Experienced Harassment by Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual

Respondents n = 318

Form n %


Graffiti




Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails,…


Stares


Derogatory remarks





Victim of a crime






7

8

38

12

11

26

6

52

147

44

120

33

8

17

6

23

34

15

48

2.2

2.5

11.9

3.8

3.5

8.2

1.9

16.4

46.2

13.8

37.7

10.4

2.5

5.3

1.9

7.2

10.7

4.7

15.1

28 8.8



LGBQ

Respondents n = 32 n %

0

1

4

2

2

5

1

8

15

9

9

3

0

2

1

1

4

0

7

5

0.0

3.1

12.5

6.3

6.3

15.6

3.1

25.0

46.9

28.1

28.1

9.4

0.0

6.3

3.1

3.1

12.5

0.0

21.9

15.6

44




The most common forms of perceived harassment that was experienced by people with disabilities were being deliberately ignored or excluded (57%, n = 47) and being intimidated or bullied (34%, n =28) (Table 13).

45




Table 13. Form of Experienced Harassment by Disability

Form n

No Disability n = 286

%

Respondents with

Disabilities n = 82 n %


Graffiti




Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails, …


Stares


Derogatory remarks





Victim of a crime






7

6

29

11

13

22

8

47

121

39

106

30

6

16

5

16

27

10

41

2.4

2.1

10.1

3.8

4.5

7.7

2.8

16.4

42.3

13.6

37.1

10.5

2.1

5.6

1.7

5.6

9.4

3.5

14.3

0

5

15

4

2

8

0

18

47

18

28

7

2

3

5

11

12

5

18

26 9.1 9



0.0

6.1

18.3

4.9

2.4

9.8

0.0

22.0

57.3

22.0

34.1

8.5

2.4

3.7

6.1

13.4

14.6

6.1

22.0

11.0

46




Twenty-nine percent (n = 111) of the respondents identified as faculty members the perceived sources of the conduct. Twenty-six percent (n = 98) identified undergraduate students, and 25% (n = 96) identified colleagues as the sources (Table 14). “Other” responses include “a clique in class,” “chancellor,” “friends,” management in general,”

“office director,” union rep,” etc.

47




Table 14. People Identified by Respondents as

Source of Experienced Harassment n %

Faculty member

Undergraduate student

Colleague

Staff member

Administrator

Academic administrator (dean, associate dean, assistant dean, etc.)

Supervisor

Department chair

Don’t know source

Community member

Campus media

Center director

Campus visitor(s)

Faculty advisor

111

98

96

62

57

41

34

29

17

13

12

12

11

11

28.8

25.5

24.9

16.1

14.8

Person that I supervise

Graduate student

Campus security

Teaching assistant

11

8

6

4

2.9

2.1

1.6

1.0

Research assistant 0 0.0

Other 43 11.2



10.6

8.8

7.5

4.4

3.4

3.1

3.1

2.9

2.9

48




Figure 20 reviews the source of perceived harassment by status. Interestingly, but not unique, the greatest source of perceived harassment was generally within each cohort

(e.g., student against student, faculty against faculty).

Figure 20

Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (n)

In response to this conduct, 55% (n = 212) of respondents were angry, 39% (n = 149) of respondents felt embarrassed, 37% (n = 141) avoided the harasser and 36% (n = 137) or told a friend (Table 15). While 21% (n = 79) of participants made complaints to campus officials, 18% (n = 68) did not know whom to go to, 17% (n = 64) did not report the incident for fear of retaliation, and 12% (n = 46) did not report it for fear their complaints would not be taken seriously.

49

Table 15. Reactions to Experienced Harassment

Reactions

Was angry

Felt embarrassed

Avoided the harasser

Told a friend

Ignored it

Made an official complaint to a campus employee/official



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 n

212

149

141

137

103

79

%

55.1

38.7

36.6

35.6

26.8

20.5

Was afraid

Didn’t know who to go to

Didn’t report it for fear of retaliation

Confronted the harasser at the time

70

68

64

55

18.2

17.7

16.6

14.3

Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously

46

11.9

Felt somehow responsible

Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be

44

11.4

42

10.9 taken seriously

Left the situation immediately 36

9.4

Confronted the harasser later 29

7.5

Sought support from counseling/advocacy services

Didn’t affect me at the time

21

14

5.5

3.6

Other 41 10.6



50




Experiences – Sexual Misconduct

One section of the questionnaire asked respondents about whether they believed they had experienced various forms of sexual misconduct (e.g., sexual harassment,

38

sexual assault

39

) during their time at UW-Stout. Eight percent (n = 146) of all respondents indicated that they believed they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful at UW-Stout during their time at the institution (Table 16).

Table 16. Respondents That Believed They Had Been Touched in a Sexual Manner That Made Them Feel Uncomfortable or Fearful n %

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very often

1725

113

28

4

1

92.2

6.0

1.5

0.2

0.1

38

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, exclusionary, or offensive work or classroom environment.”

39

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.”

51




Four percent (n = 71) of all respondents indicated that they “sometimes”, “often” or “very often” felt that there were times when they were fearful of being sexually harassed at

UW-Stout (Table 17). When reviewing the data by gender, women indicated that they were more likely to fear being sexually harassed than men.

Table 17. Respondents That Were Fearful of Being Sexually Harassed at UW-Stout by Gender

Men Women n % n %

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very often

721

40

7

0

1

93.8

5.2

<1

<1

<1

852

168

56

3

2

78.8

15.5

5.2

<1

<1

52




Respondents most often feared being sexually harassed by students (50%, n = 140), strangers (36%, n = 102), acquaintances (11%, n = 32), and friends (10%, n = 29) (Table

18).

Table 18. People Who Respondents Feared Would Sexually Harass Them n %

Student

Stranger

Acquaintance

Friend

Co-worker

Faculty member

Staff member

Administrator

Department chair

Teaching Assistant

Partner/spouse

Supervisor

Academic advisor


140

102

32

29

23

18

18

12

5

4

3

3

2

2

49.8

36.3

11.4

10.3

8.2

6.4

6.4

4.3

1.8

1.4

1.1

1.1

0.7

0.7

Faculty advisor

Post-doctoral researcher/fellow

1

1

0.4

0.4

Research assistant 1 0.4

Note: Only answered by respondents that feared sexual harassment (n = 281).


53




Thirty-three people (2%) believed they had been the victims of sexual assault while at

UW-Stout (Table B41). Analyses of the data suggest that women (3%, n = 29), bisexual people (6%, n = 3), White respondents (2%, n = 31), and students (4%, n = 26) were more likely than their counterparts to believe they had experienced sexual assault.

Figures 21 through 26 indicate the percentage of respondents who believe they have suffered a sexual assault while at UW-Stout.

Figure 21

Perceived Sexual Assault by Gender (%)

n=29 n=4 n=0

54




Figure 22

Perceived Sexual Assault by Sexual Orientation (%)

n=1 n=0 n=3 n=0 n=28

Figure 23

Perceived Sexual Assault by Race (%)

n=1 n=31

55




Figure 24

Perceived Sexual Assault by Ability/Disability (%)

n=27 n=5

56




Figure 25

Perceived Sexual Assault by

Position Status & Gender (%)

(n=26) (n=4) (n=2) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0)

57




Figure 26

Women Students Who Believed They Had Been

Sexually Assaulted by Class Standing (%)

(n=1) (n=7) (n=8) (n=7) (n=3) (n=0)

Fifty-five percent (n = 18) of those who believed they had been sexually assaulted believed they were assaulted off-campus and 30% (n = 10) believed they were assaulted on-campus (Table B43). Of those who believed they were assaulted off-campus, several indicated that the locations were at off-campus houses, at parties, at fraternity houses, in their homes or apartments, and in bars. Of those who believed they were assaulted oncampus, respondents said the assaults occurred in specific buildings or places (e.g.,

CKTO, Harvey Hill, North Campus, South Hall) or while walking on campus, and seven respondents believed that they had been assaulted in residence halls or dorm rooms.

As indicated in Table 19, the alleged perpetrators of sexual assaults against students were most often other students (n = 14, 42%), strangers (n = 11, 33%), acquaintances (n = 5,

15%), or friends (n = 6, 18%).

58




Table 19. Alleged Perpetrator of Sexual Assault

Students n

Academic advisor

Acquaintance

Administrator

Department chair

Co-worker

Faculty advisor

Faculty member

Friend

Partner/spouse


Research assistant

Staff member

Stranger

Student

Supervisor

Teaching Assistant

Other

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

6

2

0

0

0

11

13

0

0

3

Employees n

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Note: Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced sexual assault (n = 33).


59




Those respondents who believed they had been sexually assaulted most often told a friend (61%, n = 20), did nothing (27%, n = 9), or told a family member (21%, n = 7)

(Table 20). Only 15% (n = 5) sought medical services, 15% (n = 5) contacted local law enforcement officials, and six percent (n = 2) contacted Campus Police/Security.

Table 20. Responses to Alleged Sexual Assault

Told a friend

Did nothing

Told a family member

Sought support from a campus resource/counseling center(s)

Sought medical services

Contacted my local law enforcement official

Sought support from off-campus hotline/advocacy service

Sought support from a faculty member

Sought information on-line

Contacted Campus Police/Security

Sought support from a staff person

Sought support from a spiritual advisor

Contacted my Union n

20

9

7

5

5

5

3

3

3

2

2

1

%

60.6

27.3

21.2

15.2

15.2

15.2

9.1

9.1

9.1

6.1

6.1

3.0

0 0.0

Reported the incident and it was ignored

Other

0

1

0.0

3.0

Note: Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced sexual assault (n = 33).


The respondents who believed they had been sexually assaulted but chose not to report the assault were asked why they chose not to report it. Several commented that they were too embarrassed or did not want others to know the assault occurred. They were afraid of being cited for underage drinking and/or they felt ashamed. Others said they thought they

60



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 would not be believed or dreaded reporting the assault. Some lacked confidence that reporting the assault would have any positive outcomes. One person did not report the incident because she “did not want them to get in trouble.” Others seemed to blame themselves for the assaults indicating that they had put themselves in a hazardous situation or that they were drinking alcohol.

Four respondents answered the question, “If you did report the sexual assault to a campus official or staff member, did you feel that it was responded to appropriately?” Two respondents indicated that their complaints were responded to appropriately. One of the other respondents wrote, “No. Nothing happened.” The other person indicated s/he now

“has depression.”

Summary

As noted earlier, 21% (n = 385) of respondents across UW-Stout believed they had personally experienced at least subtle forms of conduct that had interfered with their ability to work or learn on campus. The findings showed that members of historically underrepresented groups were more likely to believe they had experienced various forms of harassment and discrimination than those in the majority. That is, this type of alleged conduct was most often directed at women, People of Color, people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and people with disabilities.

National statistics suggest that more than 80% of all respondents that experienced harassment, regardless of minority group status, were subject to derogatory remarks. In contrast, respondents in this study suggest that they experienced covert forms of harassment (e.g., feeling ignored and feeling excluded) as well as overt forms of harassment (e.g., derogatory comments and intimidation/bullying).

In addition, 33 respondents (2%) believed they had been sexually assaulted during the time that they were enrolled or employed at UW-Stout. One hundred forty-six (146, 8%) respondents believed they had been touched in a way that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful at UW-Stout.

61




Satisfaction with UW-Stout

Seventy-five percent (n = 441) of UW-Stout employees were “highly satisfied” or

“satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Stout (Table 21). Sixty-three percent (n = 360) were

“highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Stout.

Table 21. Employee Satisfaction

Highly satisfied n %

Your job at UW-Stout

The way your career has progressed at UW-Stout

146

117

24.9

20.3

Satisfied n

295

243

%

50.3

42.2

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied n

59

93

%

10.1

16.1 n

71

92

%

12.1

16.0

Highly dissatisfied n

16

31

%

2.7

5.4


62




When examining the results by various demographic categories, the reader will note that

Employees of Color were less satisfied and LGBQ employees were more satisfied with their jobs at UW-Stout than were other employee groups (Figure 27).

Figure 27

Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)

* Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category.

** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

63




Academic staff members were more satisfied with their jobs than were faculty members and classified staff (Figure 28).

Figure 28

Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by Position Status (%)



64




Employees of Color were less satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at

UW-Stout than were other groups (Figure 29).

Figure 29

Employee Satisfaction with the Way

Their Careers Have Progressed by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



65




Figure 30 indicates that classified staff members were much less satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Stout than were faculty and academic staff.

Figure 30

Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers

Have Progressed by Position Status (%)



Employees who were satisfied with the way their careers have progressed had been promoted, received recognition from their colleagues and supervisors, experienced flexibility in the department, worked in jobs that use their skills, enjoyed autonomy or variety in their jobs, and liked working with students and their peers. One respondent’s comments articulated the views of many who indicated their supervisors “provide timely and constructive feedback in a respectful manner [and] empower and encourage me to

66



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 succeed and provide me with the tools necessary….” Several people said they were thankful to have jobs and grateful to work at the University.

Those respondents who were dissatisfied cited “salary compression”/poor salary/pay decreases, increased workload demands, administration’s unrealistic expectations, furloughs, lack of opportunities for career advancement, reduced resources, unchallenging work, “administrative interference,” and supervisors’ lack of appreciation as some of the reasons for their dissatisfaction.

Eighty-four percent (n = 1,046) of students were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-Stout (Table 22).

Table 22. Student Satisfaction

Highly satisfied n %

Satisfied n %

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied n % n %

Your education at UW-Stout 223 17.9 823 65.9 143 11.5 56


4.5

Highly dissatisfied n %

3 0.2

67




When broken down by demographic categories, slightly lower percentages of Students of

Color were satisfied with their educations at UW-Stout than were other students (Figure

31).

Figure 31

Student Satisfaction with their Education by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



68




Students who were satisfied with their education at UW-Stout said they enjoyed challenging coursework and small class sizes, learned from engaged and supportive faculty, made peer friendships, learned valuable and transferable skills, Dissatisfied students said they had “lousy” professors, felt their coursework was unchallenging and/or not applicable to their intended career path, felt disappointed by other students’ “laissezfare attitudes”, and Stout’s “poor academic standards.”

Forty-eight percent (n = 888) of all respondents have seriously considered leaving UW-

Stout. Thirty-eight percent of students, 71% of faculty, 69% of academic staff, and 62% of classified staff have seriously considered leaving UW-Stout. Among employees, 72%

(n = 179) of men and 65% (n = 202) of women thought of leaving the institution.

Seventy-five percent (n = 43) of Employees of Color, in comparison with 66% (n = 326) of White employees, have seriously considered leaving UW-Stout. Additionally, 79% of sexual minority employees (n = 23), compared to 67% of heterosexual employees (n =

334), have seriously thought of leaving the institution.

Many employees who considered leaving did so due to advancement opportunities elsewhere, tense working conditions, salary freezes and reductions, “campus politics,” unsupportive supervisors and colleagues, high teaching loads, perceived chilly “climate for gays,” and unrealistic workload expectations. Several employee respondents indicated they stayed because they were close to family and friends, job offers never materialized, they enjoy their co-workers and their jobs, and tense work situations resolved.

Among students, 38% of women and 38% of men considered leaving the University.

Forty-six percent of Students of Color and 37% of White students thought of leaving

UW-Stout, as did 38% of LGBQ students and 38% of heterosexual students.

Many of the students who considered leaving did so because of poor teachers, tension with certain faculty members, homesickness, desire to pursue a major not offered at UW-

Stout, perception of Stout’s lack of academic rigor, desire to attend a larger school/be

69



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 closer to home/in a city, and lack of close friendships at Stout. Those students who decided to stay did so because they “have made many friends,” they were near graduation, found UW-Stout to affordable, lacked the initiative to transfer to another school, and became involved in campus organizations.

Summary

The results from this section suggest that the majority of the campus community were satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Stout. A significant number of respondents were satisfied with their jobs and many reported a high degree of satisfaction with their education at UW-Stout.

70




Perceptions of Campus Climate

Campus climate is not only a function of what one has personally experienced, but also is influenced by how one perceives the manners in which other members within the academy are treated on campus. Table 23 illustrates that 74% (n = 1,393) of the survey respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at UW-Stout.

Seventy-three percent (n = 1,365) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate for diversity in their department or work unit, and 81% (n = 1,201) of faculty and students were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in their classes.

Table 23. Respondents’ Comfort with Climate

Comfort with Climate at UW-Stout n %

Very Comfortable

Comfortable

383 20.4

1010 53.9

Neither Comfortable nor

Uncomfortable 298 15.9

Uncomfortable 146 7.8

Very Uncomfortable 38 2.0

Note: Only answered by faculty and students (n = 1,491).

Comfort with Climate in Department/

Work Unit

Comfort with Climate in Classes* n

521

844

238

112

49

%

27.9

45.2

12.7

6.0

2.6 n

365

836

202

58

10

%

24.6

56.3

13.6

3.9

0.7

When comparing the data by the demographic categories of “People of Color” and

“Caucasian/White”; however, People of Color were less comfortable than White people with the overall climate for diversity at UW-Stout, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes (Figures 32-34).

71




Figure 32

Comfort with Overall Campus Climate by Race (%)

Figure 33

Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit by Race (%)

72




Figure 34

Comfort with Climate in Classes* by Race (%)

*

Note: Faculty and student responses only.

73




Women were about as comfortable as men at UW-Stout, in their departments and work areas, and classes (Figures 35-37).

Figure 35

Comfort with Overall Campus Climate by Gender (%)

74




Figure 36

Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit by Gender (%)

* Note: Faculty and student responses only.

Figure 37

Comfort with Climate in Classes* by Gender (%)

75




With respect to sexual orientation, heterosexual respondents were more comfortable with the climate than were sexual minority respondents (Figures 38-40).

Figure 38

Comfort with Overall Campus Climate by Sexual Orientation (%)

76




Figure 39

Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit by Sexual Orientation (%)

Figure 40

Comfort with Climate in Classes* by Sexual Orientation (%)

*Note: Faculty and student responses only.

77




Respondents’ observations of others being harassed also contribute to their perceptions of campus climate. Thirty percent of the participants (n = 552) reported observing or being personally made aware of conduct on campus that created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or or hostile (harassing) working or learning environment within the past two years (Table B48). Most of the observed harassment was based on sexual orientation (47%, n = 259), race (32%, n = 175), ethnicity (28%, n =

156), gender (27%, n = 147), gender expression (21%, n = 115), and gender identity

(19%, n = 103).

Figures 41 through 44 separate by demographic categories (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and status) the responses of those individuals who observed or were made aware of harassment.

A higher percentage of People of Color than White people believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct on campus (Figure 41).

Figure 41

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating

Conduct by Race/Ethnicity (%)

78




In terms of gender, a slightly higher percentage of women than men believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct (Figure 42).

Figure 42


Conduct by Gender (%)

79




Almost twice the percentage of sexual minority respondents (53%, n = 56) believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did heterosexual respondents (28%, n = 470) (Figure 43).

Figure 43


Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)

53

LGBQ (n=56)

Heterosexual (n=464)

28

80




The results also indicate that a higher percentage of faculty members believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did other respondents (Figure 44).

Figure 44


Conduct by Position Status (%)

Table 24 illustrates that respondents most often believed they had observed or were made aware of this conduct in the form of someone subjected to derogatory remarks (33%, n =

183) or stares (26%, n = 141), and someone being deliberately ignored or excluded (30%, n = 167) or being racially/ethnically profiled (26%, n = 141).

81

Table 24. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,

Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 n %

Derogatory remarks


Racial/ethnic profiling

Stares

Intimidation/bullying


Someone isolated or left out because of their identity

Graffiti


Someone receiving a low performance evaluation

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails, text message, Facebook post, Twitter post

Someone fearing for their physical safety

Someone isolated or left out when working in groups

Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity

Physical violence

Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity


Someone receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment

Victim of a crime

Someone isolated or left out because of their socioeconomic status

Someone fearing for their family’s safety

183

167

141

141

140

136

107

101

92

81

75

66

65

59

56

51

43

40

37

33.2

30.3

25.5

25.5

25.4

24.6

19.4

18.3

16.7

14.7

13.6

12.0

11.8

10.7

10.1

9.2

7.8

7.2

6.7

32

7

5.8

1.3

Other 39

Note: Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed harassment (n = 552).


7.1

Of those respondents who witnessed people making derogatory remarks, most said it happened in University housing residence hall (53%, n = 72) or while walking on campus

(20%, n = 27) (Table B53). Of the respondents who observed people being deliberately

82



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 ignored or excluded, some said it occurred in a class (40%, n = 66), while working at a campus job (27%, n = 45), or in a meeting with a group of people (23%, n = 38) (Table

B59).

The majority of respondents observed undergraduate students as the source of perceived offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct (45%, n = 247) (Table B73).

This finding parallels other investigations. Other respondents identified sources as faculty members (16%, n = 90), colleagues (15%, n = 83), staff members (11%, n = 63), and administrators (10%, n = 55). Eighteen percent (n = 97) said they did not know the source of the harassment they observed.

Table 25 illustrates participants’ reactions to this behavior. Respondents most often felt angry (37%, n = 204) or embarrassed when encountering this behavior (31%, n = 173).

Twenty-four percent (n = 130) told a friend, and 17% (n = 94) ignored the conduct. Ten percent (n = 53) made a complaint to a campus employee/official, while 10% (n = 56) did not know whom to go to, and eight percent (n = 43) did not report it out of fear of retaliation.

83




Table 25. Reactions to Perceiving Offensive,

Hostile, Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct n %

Was angry

Felt embarrassed

Told a friend

Avoided the person who engaged in the inappropriate conduct

Ignored it

Confronted the person who engaged in the inappropriate conduct at the time

Didn’t know who to go to

Made a complaint to a campus employee/official

Left the situation immediately

Didn’t affect me at the time

Was afraid

Didn’t report it for fear of retaliation

Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously

Confronted the person who engaged in the inappropriate conduct later

Felt somehow responsible

Sought support from counseling/advocacy services

Other

204

173

130

101

94

79

56

53

52

49

48

43

41

40

29

9

37.0

31.3

23.6

18.3

17.0

14.3

10.1

9.6

9.4

8.9

8.7

7.8

7.4

10.7

5.3

1.6

57 10.3

Note: Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed harassment (n = 552).


Fifty-two percent (n = 898) of the respondents indicated that the overall campus climate was “very respectful” of Caucasians/Whites (Table 26). Readers will note that substantial percentages of respondents were unaware of how respectful the climate at UW-Stout was for most racial/ethnic groups.

84




Table 26. Reported Perceptions of Overall Campus Climate for Various Races/Ethnicities

Race/Ethnicity

Very

Respectful n %

Moderately

Respectful n %

Somewhat

Respectful n %

Not at All

Disrespectful Don’t Know n % n %

African

African

American/Black

Alaskan Native

Asian American

Asian

Southeast Asian

544

545

527

589

570

541

31.6

31.7

30.7

34.3

33.2

31.7

557

573

465

579

583

560

32.3

33.4

27.1

33.8

33.9

32.8

216

212

134

195

212

198

12.5

12.3

7.8

11.4

12.3

11.6

41

54

10

20

27

24

Caribbean/West Indian 523 30.7 507 29.8 160 9.4

Caucasian/White 898 52.4 482 28.1 91 5.3

Indian subcontinent

17

16

525 30.7 532 31.1 173 10.1 23

Latino(a)/Hispanic

Middle Eastern

Multiracial, multiethnic, or multicultural persons

Native American

Indian

Pacific

Islanders/Hawaiian

Natives

539

479

533

525

538

31.5

28.0

31.2

30.8

31.5

560

525

561

543

503

32.8

30.7

32.9

31.8

29.5

204

231

177

172

147

11.9

13.5

10.4

10.1

8.6

26

61

18

25

14

2.4

3.1

0.6

1.2

1.6

1.4

1.0

0.9

1.3

1.5

3.6

1.1

1.5

0.8

364

334

580

332

326

384

496

226

457

380

414

418

440

504

21.1

19.4

33.8

19.4

19.0

22.5

29.1

13.2

26.7

22.2

24.2

24.5

25.8

29.5

Table 27 indicates that the majority of respondents thought that the overall campus climate was respectful of all campus groups listed in the table. Again, readers will note the percentages of respondents were unaware of how respectful the climate at UW-Stout was for most groups.

85




Table 27. Reported Perceptions of Overall Campus Climate for Various Campus Groups

Group

Very

Respectful n %

Moderately

Respectful n %

Somewhat

Respectful n %

Not at All

Disrespectful Don’t Know n % n %

From religious affiliations other than

Christian

From Christian affiliations

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender

Immigrants

International students, staff, or faculty

Learning disabled

Men

Affected by mental health disorder

Non-native English speakers

People with children

People who provide care for other than a child

Physically disabled

Returning/nontraditional students

Socioeconomically disadvantaged

Women

Veterans/active military

527 31.4 566 33.8 219 13.1 40

732 43.8 517 30.9 131 7.8

765 45.8 506 30.3 119 7.1

21

411 24.5 565 33.7 344 20.5 69

462 27.7 535 32.1 260 15.6 37

553 33.1 575 34.4 241 14.4 29

530 31.8 573 34.4 223 13.4 26

806 48.2 512 30.6 117 7.0 16

460 27.5 555 33.2 226 13.5 48

452 27.1 524 31.4 296 17.7 81

618 37.0 595 35.7 155 9.3 13

872 34.3 531 31.8 148 8.9 20

544 32.6 575 34.4 229 13.7 22

636 38.0 587 35.0 183 10.9 20

515 30.9 588 35.3 212 12.7 32

673 40.3 605 36.2 178 10.7 18

9

2.4 325 19.4

1.3 270 16.2

4.1 287 17.1

2.2 373 22.4

1.7 272 16.3

1.6 316 18.9

1.0 221 13.2

2.9 384 23.0

4.9 315 18.9

0.8 288 17.3

1.2 398 23.8

1.3 300 18.0

1.2 249 14.9

1.9 318 19.1

1.1 197 11.8

0.5 270 16.2

With regard to campus accessibility for people with disabilities, respondents considered elevators (61%, n = 1,084), the University website (58%, n = 1,015), D2L (57%, n =

1,015), in-class instruction (53%, n = 935), on-line and hybrid courses (53%, n =932), and walkways and pedestrian paths (52%, n = 919) the most accessible (rated “fully accessible”) areas of campus (Table 28).

86




Table 28. Ratings of Campus Accessibility

Accessible with

Assistance

Group

Fully

Accessible n % or

Intervention n %

Not

Accessible Don’t Know n % n %

Physical Accessibility

Bathroom in general

Doors and entrances

Elevators

Footbridge

Parking

81 45.3 602 33.7 78

867 48.5 589 32.9 73

1084 60.6 379 21.2 61

4.1 259 14.5

3.4 264 14.8

837 47.2 312 17.6 44 2.5 581 32.8

852 48.0 471 26.5 105 5.9 347 19.5

Walkways and pedestrian paths

Classroom labs and studios

Computer labs

UW-Stout Website

UW-Stout

Website

919

686 38.7 508 28.7 75

730 41.2 393 22.2 51

D2L 1015 57.1 273 15.4 17

Course instruction/materials

In-class instruction

Online and hybrid courses

935

932

52.9

52.6

366

299

20.7

46.9

23

19

1015

51.9

57.5

474

282

26.8

16.0

77

34

4.4

4.3

4.2

2.9

1.0

1.3

1.1

1.9

297

301

502

596

472

442

521

433

16.6

17.0

28.3

33.7

26.6

25.0

29.4

24.5

87




Employees’ Attitudes and Experiences

Several questions were asked of employees only. These items addressed employees’ experiences at UW-Stout, their satisfaction with their careers at the University, and their attitudes about the climate for diversity and work-life issues at UW-Stout.

Question 53 asked employees to rank on a five-point Likert scale (“strongly agree” to

“strongly disagree”) the degree to which they agreed with the statements that can be found in the first column of Table 29. Table 29 depicts the responses of all employees, and splits the analyses by gender and race/ethnicity. The majority of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that they were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations (73%, n = 431). Thirty-four percent (n = 198) of respondents were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision, and 36% (n = 213) believe there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units. Forty-four percent (n = 258) of faculty thought their research interests were valued by their colleagues.

Many of the rest of the statements listed in Table 29 were negatively worded statements, and thus, few respondents strongly agreed/agreed. For example, 22% (n = 128) of respondents constantly felt under the scrutiny by their colleagues, and 28% (n = 167) felt they have to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate.

88




Table 29. Employee Attitudes about Climate for Diversity and Work-Related Issues by Gender and

Race/Ethnicity

Strongly agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Strongly disagree

Issues n %

Agree n % n %

Disagree n % n %

I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that it will affect my performance evaluation or tenure decision

Women

Men

White

78 13.2 120 20.3 97 16.4 140 23.7 131 22.2

44 13.4 72 21.9 58 17.6 69 21.0 72 21.9

33 12.6 46 17.6 41 15.6 71 27.1 59 22.5

60 11.6 102 19.7 87 16.8 125 24.1 125 24.1

14 23.3 12 20.0 11 18.3 14 23.3 3 5.0 People of Color

I am comfortable asking questions about performance expectations

Women

135 22.8 296 50.1 77 13.0 42

67 20.3 176 53.3 36 10.9 29

7.1

8.8

31

15

5.2

4.5

Men

White

69 26.3 122 46.6 40 15.3 10

124 23.9 260 50.1 61 11.8 38

9 15.0 33 55.0 10 16.7 3

3.8

7.3

5.0

16 6.1

25 4.8

4 6.7

People of Color

My colleagues expect me to represent “the point of view” of my identity

Women

Men

White

26 4.4

15 4.6

13 5.0

21 4.1

7

92

55

36

72

15.6

16.7

13.8

14.0

227

124

103

201

38.6

37.7

39.6

39.0

11.7 15 25.0 21 35.0

91

54

37

82

9

15.5

16.4

14.2

15.9

15.0

78

46

31

71

5

13.3

14.0

11.9

13.8

8.3

People of Color

My colleagues have lower expectations of me than of other employees

Women

Men

White

7

7

0

3

4

1.2

2.1

0.0

0.6

6.7

30

18

12

24

6

5.1 131 22.2 187 31.7 212 25.9

5.4 71 21.5 101 30.5 120 36.3

4.6 60 23.0 86 33.0 92 35.2

4.6 115 22.2 165 31.8 191 36.8

10.0 15 25.0 17 28.3 15 25.0

People of Color

My colleagues have higher expectations of me than of other employees

Women

Men

46 7.8 136 23.2 175 29.8 135 23.0 73 12.4

29 8.8 68 20.6 102 30.9 78 23.6 41 12.4

19 7.3 67 25.9 74 28.6 56 21.6 31 12.0

White 40 7.8 115 22.3 156 30.2 119 23.1 65 12.6

7 11.7 17 28.3 16 26.7 13 21.7 5 8.3 People of Color

I constantly feel under scrutiny by my colleagues

Women

43 7.3

32 9.7

85

46

14.4

14.0

136

68

23.1

20.7

186

109

31.6

33.1

123

65

20.9

19.8

Men

White

People of Color

13 5.0

33 6.4

11 18.3

36 13.8 67 25.7 78 29.9 58 22.2

70 13.5 116 22.4 169 32.7 113 21.9

8 13.3 17 28.3 17 28.3 6 10.0

89





Strongly agree n %

Agree n %

Neither agree nor disagree n %

Disagree n %

Strongly disagree n %

My research interests are valued by my colleagues*

Women Faculty

46 7.8 212 36.1 128 21.8 72 12.3 37

5 4.2 42 35.3 32 26.9 23 19.3 13

6.3

10.9

17 13.0 54 41.2 27 20.6 16 12.2 12 9.2

Men Faculty

White Faculty

Faculty of Color

I feel pressured to change my research agenda to make tenure/be promoted*

19 9.2

1 2.9

78

13

37.7

38.2

48

10

23.2

29.4

32

5

15.5

14.7

22

4

10.6

11.8

Women Faculty

21 3.6

14 11.9

45 7.7

18 15.3

99 16.9 75 12.8 62 10.6

24 20.3 26 22.0 13 11.0

Men Faculty

White Faculty

6 4.6

18 8.7

3 9.1

20 15.3 28 21.4 24 18.3 26 19.8

29 14.0 45 21.7 42 20.3 31 15.0

8 24.2 6 18.2 6 18.2 6 18.2

Faculty of Color

I am reluctant to take family leave that I am entitled to for fear that it may affect my career

Women

Men

White

18 3.1

12 3.6

5 1.9

14 2.7

4 6.7

78 13.3 110 18.8 131 22.4 109 18.6

54 16.4 55 16.7 68 20.7 60 18.2

23 8.9 56 21.7 63 24.4 49 19.0

67 13.0 95 18.5 116 22.6 95 18.5

6 10.0 14 23.3 15 25.0 11 18.3

People of Color

I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate

Women

Men

White

56 9.5 111 18.8 129 21.9 149 25.3 122 20.7

37 11.1 67 20.2 64 19.3 85 25.6 66 19.9

19 7.3

41 7.9

44

93

16.9

17.9

65

112

25.0

21.6

63

136

24.2

26.2

14 23.3 14 23.3 14 23.3 11 18.3

57

115

5

21.9

22.2

8.3

People of Color

There are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in my work unit

Women

Men

White

82 13.9 131 22.2 140 23.7 132 22.3 82 13.9

50 15.1 69 20.8 82 24.7 73 22.0 43 13.0

31 11.9 62 23.8 57 21.8 61 23.4 39 14.9

69 13.3 105 20.2 124 23.8 121 23.3 77 14.8

12 20.0 17 28.3 16 26.7 10 16.7 3 5.0

People of Color

Others seem to find it easier than I do to “fit in”

Women

Men

26 4.4

19 5.7

6 2.3

19 3.7

93 15.7 126 21.3 183 31.0 142 24.0

50 15.1 74 22.4 106 32.0 72 21.8

41 15.6 51 19.5 78 29.8 72 27.5

73 14.0 106 20.4 166 31.9 135 26.0

White

People of Color

I feel pressured to change my methods of teaching to achieve tenure/be promoted*

7 11.7 17 28.3 16 26.7 14 23.3 4 6.7

Women Faculty

31 5.3

13 10.9

36 6.1

20 16.8

87 14.7 80 13.6 71 12.0

29 24.4 30 25.2 15 12.6

Men Faculty

White Faculty

10 7.6

14 6.8

8 23.5

14 10.7 25 19.1 29 22.1 31 23.7

29 14.0 45 21.7 48 23.2 42 20.3

5 14.7 7 20.6 9 26.5 3 8.8

Faculty of Color

Note: Table reports employee responses only (n = 665). * Faculty responses only (n = 598).

90




With respect to work-life issues, 63% (n = 373) of employees were usually satisfied with the way in which they were able to balance their professional and personal lives, and 39%

(n = 232) found UW-Stout supportive of family leave (Table 30). Thirty-three percent (n

= 196) have had to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities. Sixteen percent (n = 96) felt that employees who have children were considered less committed to their careers, and16% (n = 97) felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities.

Seven percent (n = 39) believed the institution was unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, co-parenting partners. Seventeen percent (n = 102) thought they had equitable access to domestic partner benefits, and 15% (n = 91) believed they had equitable access to tuition reimbursement. Table 29 indicates employees’ responses to these items by gender and sexual orientation.

Table 30. Employee Attitudes about Work-Life Issues

Strongly agree

Issues n %

Agree n %

I am usually satisfied with the way in which I am able to balance my professional and personal life.

Women

Men

I find that the institution is supportive of my family leave.

Women

74

38

39 14.8 122 46.2 37 14.0 46 17.4 15 5.7

51

28

12.4

11.4

8.7

8.5

299

174

181

105

50.3

52.3

30.7

31.7


62

23

124

64

10.4

6.9

21.1

19.3

Disagree n %

96

51

38

26

16.1

15.3

6.5

7.9

25 9.6 75 28.7 59 22.6 13 5.0


56

40

20

13

7

9.4

12.0

3.4

3.9

2.7 Men

I have to miss out on important things in my personal life because of professional responsibilities.

Women

Men

I feel that faculty/staff who have children are considered less committed to their careers.

Women

Men

46

23

23

20

15

6

7.7

6.9

8.7

3.4

4.5

2.3

150

81

69

76

42

32

25.2

24.3

26.1

12.9

12.7

12.2

117

61

57

126

66

60

19.7

18.3

21.6

21.3

19.9

22.8

188

108

80

206

110

97

31.6

32.4

30.3

34.9

33.2

36.9

71

47

22

119

66

52

11.9

14.1

8.3

20.1

19.9

19.8

91





I feel that faculty/staff who do not have children are often burdened with work responsibilities

Women

Men

I find the institution unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, coparenting families.

LGBQ Employees


30

20

10

5.1

6.0

3.8

Agree n %

67

38

28

11.3

11.4

10.7


159

85

75

26.9

25.6

28.7

Disagree n %

188

105

81

31.8

31.6

31.0


97

50

47

16.4

15.1

18.0

Heterosexual Employees

I have equitable access to domestic partner benefits.

LGBQ Employees


I have equitable access to tuition reimbursement.

LGBQ Employees


14 2.4 25 4.2 182 30.8 109 18.5 121 20.5

3 9.1 3 9.1 11 33.3 4 12.1 8 24.2

8 1.5 21 4.0 164 30.9 97 18.3 110 20.8

33

3

25

5.6

9.1

4.7

69

9

58

11.7

27.3

10.9

107

3

98

18.2

9.1

18.5

8

2

6

1.4

6.1

1.1

11

4

7

1.9

12.1

1.3

20 3.4 71 12.0 135 22.9 55 9.3 81 13.7

1 3.0 6 18.2 3 9.1 5 15.2 5 15.2

16 3.0 64 12.1 128 24.1 46 8.7 72 13.6


More than half of all employees believed that they had colleagues or peers at UW-Stout who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it (72%, n = 420), support from decision makers/colleagues who supported their career advancement (60%, n = 349), and equipment and supplies they needed to adequately perform their work (71%, n = 417)

(Table 31). Similarly, most employees felt they received regular maintenance/upgrades of their equipment (53%, n = 309), had equitable work space in terms of quantity and quality (70%, n = 412), and had equitable access to shared space (72%, n = 421). Eightytwo percent (n = 473) believed they had equitable access to health benefits. Thirty-two percent (n = 185) thought their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience, and about one-quarter (26%, n = 151) thought their supervisors were receptive to accommodating a telecommuting arrangement. Table 31 includes selected analyses by gender and race/ethnicity.

92




Table 31. Employees’ Perceptions of Resources Available at UW-Stout

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Resources n % n % n %

Disagree n %


I have colleagues or peers who give me career advice or guidance when I need it

I have support from decision makers/colleagues who support my career advancement

106 18.1 314 53.6 71 12.1 39 6.7 15 2.6

Women

Men

White

94 16.1 255 43.7 89 15.3 63 10.8 31 5.3

50 15.3 136 41.7 60 18.4 30 9.2 16 4.9

45 17.5 118 45.9 30 11.7 30 11.7 13 5.1

82 16.0 230 44.9 80 15.6 48 9.4 22 4.3

8 13.8 20 34.5 8 13.8 12 20.7 7 12.1

People of Color

I have the equipment and supplies I need to adequately perform my work

I receive regular maintenance/upgrades of my equipment compared to my colleagues

I have equitable work space in terms of quantity and quality as compared to my colleagues

I have equitable laboratory space in terms of quantity and quality as compared to my colleagues

I have equitable access to shared space as my colleagues

I have equitable access to shared equipment/technology for research support as my colleagues

I have equitable teaching support (e.g., materials, technology, TAs)

I feel that my compensation is equitable to my peers with a similar level of experience

111

83

114

28

103

72

39

18.9

14.2

19.5

4.8

17.6

12.3

6.7

306

226

298

135

318

204

166

52.2

38.6

50.9

23.0

54.3

34.9

28.5

49

140

68

68

61

75

61

8.4

23.9

11.6

11.6

10.4

12.8

10.5

75

67

55

30

29

26

37

12.8

11.4

9.4

5.1

4.9

4.5

6.4

35

35

29

21

19

17

24

6.0

6.0

5.0

3.6

3.2

2.9

4.1

Women

26 4.5 159 27.4 80 13.8 122 21.0 143 24.6

14 4.3 95 29.2 36 11.1 65 20.0 78 24.0

Men

White

12 4.7 63 24.6 44 17.2 55 21.5 63 24.6

22 4.3 139 27.3 69 13.5 104 20.4 126 24.7

2 3.4 17 29.3 8 13.8 12 20.7 13 22.4

People of Color

I have equitable access to health benefits

I feel that my supervisor/manager is receptive to accommodating a telecommuting arrangement

179

36


30.9

6.2

294

115

50.7

19.7

48

94

8.3

16.1

15

62

2.6

10.6

9

64

1.6

10.9

Regarding respondents’ observations of discriminatory employment practices, 27% (n =

156) of all employees (25% of faculty, 25% of academic staff, and 33% of classified staff) believed they observed discriminatory hiring (e.g., hiring supervisor bias, search committee bias, limited recruiting pool, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) at

UW-Stout (Table 32). Women were equally likely as men to believe they had observed

93



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 discriminatory hiring practices (26% vs. 27%, respectively). Forty percent of Employees of Color and 25% of White respondents believed they observed hiring bias. Forty-one percent of sexual minority respondents and 25% of heterosexual respondents believed they had observed discriminatory hiring practices. Of those who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, 23% (n = 36) said it was based on gender, 14% (n = 22) on age, 14% (n = 22) on ethnicity, 12% (n = 18) on race, 11% (n = 17) on country of origin, and 11% (n = 17) on UW-Stout status (Table B76).

Seventeen percent (n = 102) of respondents believed they had observed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions in UW-Stout, up to and including dismissal. Of those individuals, 20% (n = 20) said they believed the discrimination was based on gender, 18% (n = 18) on ethnicity, 12% (n = 12) on educational level, 12% (n =

12) on race, 11% (n = 11) on age, and 11% (n = 11) on country of origin (Table B78).

Eighteen percent of women and 16% of men believed they had observed discriminatory practices. Twenty-four percent of sexual minorities and 16% of heterosexual respondents witnessed discriminatory disciplinary actions. While 37% of Employees of Color witnessed such disciplinary actions, 15% of White respondents did. Additionally, classified staff members (22%) were more likely than faculty members (20%) and academic staff members (11%) to believe they had observed discriminatory disciplinary actions.

Twenty-five percent (n = 146) of all employees believed they had observed discriminatory practices related to promotion at UW-Stout (Table 32), and believed it was based on gender (27%, n = 40), educational level (16%, n = 23), age (14%, n = 20), and race (12%, n = 18) (Table B80). Twenty-six percent of women and 23% of men witnessed discriminatory promotion, as did 23% of heterosexual respondents and 29% of

LGBQ respondents. A lower percentage of White respondents (23%) than Respondents of Color (37%) witnessed such conduct. And, classified staff members (30%) were more likely than faculty members (26%) or academic staff (20%) to believe they had observed unfair promotion.

94




Table 32. Employee Respondents Who Believed They Had Observed Unfair, Unjust, or

Discriminatory Employment Practices at UW-Stout

Employment-Related Procedures or Practices

Hiring Practices Disciplinary Actions Related to Promotion n % n % n %

Yes

No

156

426

26.8

73.2

102

487

17.3

82.7

146

439

25.0

75.0


Students’ Attitudes and Experiences

The survey asked students about the perceptions they held about the UW-Stout climate before they enrolled on campus (Table 33). Before they enrolled at UW-Stout, more than half of all student respondents thought the climate was welcoming for all 18 groups listed in Table 33.

95




Table 33. Students’ Pre-enrollment Perceptions of Welcoming Campus Climate

Group

Strongly

Agree n % n

Agree

%

Neither Agree nor Disagree n %

Disagree n %

Strongly

Disagree n %


Christian


411

478

35.3

41.2

505

478

43.3

41.2

220

188

18.9

16.2

25

13

2.1

1.1

4

2

0.3

0.2


Immigrants

340 29.3 478 41.2 288 24.8 45

342 29.5 511 44.1 271 23.4 31


Learning disabled

Men




398

384

519

350

334

390

34.3

33.1

44.6

30.4

28.8

33.7

522

516

470

517

497

506

45.0

44.5

40.4

44.8

42.8

43.7

216

244

166

260

286

243

18.6

21.0

14.3

22.5

24.6

21.0

21

13

4

22

38

15


Physically challenged

392

376

33.8

32.4

488

533

42.1

46.0

264

231

22.8

19.9

9

15

3.9

2.7

1.8

1.1

0.3

1.9

3.3

1.3

0.8

1.3

2.2

8

5

4

3

5

4

6

4

6

4

6

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5 Racial/ethnic minority 397 34.3 496 42.8 234 20.2 26

Returning/nontraditional students 428 36.9 507 43.7 200 17.2 20


Women

392

506

33.9

43.7

520

476

45.0

41.1

228

166

19.7

14.3

11

7

Veterans/active military 497 42.9 473 40.8 80 15.5


5

1.7

1.0

0.6

0.4

5

5

4

4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

96




When comparing students' pre-enrollment perceptions of how welcoming the campus climate would be for various groups with their current perceptions of the overall campus climate for parallel groups (Table 33a), their pre-enrollment perceptions were more positive for all groups listed than their current perceptions.

Table 33a. Students’ Current Perceptions of Overall Campus Climate for Various Campus Groups

Group

Very

Respectful n %

Moderately

Respectful n %

Somewhat

Respectful n %

Not at All

Respectful n %

Don’t Know n %


Christian



Immigrants


Learning disabled

Men





527 31.4 566 33.8 219 13.1 40

732 43.8 517 30.9 131 7.8 21

411 24.5 565 33.7 344 20.5 69

462 27.7 535 32.1 260 15.6 37

553 33.1 575 34.4 241 14.4 29

530 31.8 573 34.4 223 13.4 26

806 48.2 512 30.6 117 7.0 16

460 27.5 555 33.2 226 13.5 48

452 27.1 524 31.4 296 17.7 81

618 37.0 595 35.7 155 9.3 13

2.4 325 19.4

1.3 270 16.2

4.1 287 17.1

2.2 373 22.4

1.7 272 16.3

1.6 316 18.9

1.0 221 13.2

2.9 384 23.0

4.9 315 18.9

0.8 288 17.3

872 34.3 531 31.8 148 8.9 20 1.2 398 23.8

Physically disabled

Returning/nontraditional students


Women

544 32.6 575 34.4 229 13.7 22

636 38.0 587 35.0 183 10.9 20

515 30.9 588 35.3 212 12.7 32

673 40.3 605 36.2 178 10.7 18

1.3 300 18.0

1.2 249 14.9

1.9 318 19.1

1.1 197 11.8

Veterans/active military 765 45.8 506 30.3 119 7.1 9 0.5 270 16.2

Note: Table reports student responses only (n = 1,256). Racial/ethnic minority response was missing in the data set.

97




Forty percent (n = 489) of student respondents said lack of financial aid compromised their access to college (Table 34). Fifty-three percent (n = 636) of student respondents were concerned about their financial debt upon graduation, and 53% (n = 642) indicated that their tuition increases were not met by corresponding increases in financial aid.

Table 34. Students’ Access to College is Being Compromised by…

Strongly agree

Resources n %

Agree n %

Lack of available financial aid

Concerns regarding financial debt upon graduation

Tuition increases that are not met by corresponding increases in financial aid

Other

235

296

309

76

19.4

24.5

25.5

30.4

254

340

333

33

21.0

28.2

27.4

13.2


347

281

336

114

28.6

23.3

27.7

45.6

Disagree n %

239

178

147

9

19.7

14.8

12.1

3.6


137

111

89

18

11.3

9.2

7.3

7.2


Summary

Campus climate for diversity is not only a function of one’s personal experiences, but also is influenced by perceptions of how the campus community treats all of its members.

The majority of respondents indicated that they are “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate for diversity at UW-Stout, the climate in their college/unit, and the climate in their departments. Respondents from underrepresented groups were less likely to feel comfortable than majority respondents. Additionally, the analyses revealed that the various employee groups at times felt differently about the degree to which the institution and their colleagues support their employment and well-being.

While some respondents believed they had experienced conduct that interfered with their ability to work or learn on campus (21%, n = 385 of respondents), many more people

(30%, n = 552 of respondents) believed they had witnessed conduct on campus that they felt created an offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating working or learning

98



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 environment. This phenomenon may be a function of one’s comfort level, which is to say that respondents may have felt more comfortable reporting having observed this conduct, rather than reporting that they had experienced the conduct themselves . Or, it could be a function of more than one person having witnessed the same incidence of harassment.

99




Institutional Actions

Respondents’ perceptions of the degree their leadership fosters diversity or inclusion is a factor that also influences campus climate. More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the faculty (71%, n = 1,263), senior administration (61%, n =

1,076), students (59%, n = 1,047), support staff (59%, n = 1,042), and the UW System

(62%, n = 1,088) provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community (Table 35).

Table 35. Visible Leadership to Foster Diversity/Inclusion from

Neither

Strongly agree nor agree disagree

Office/ Agree

Individual n % n % n %

Disagree n %



Faculty

Senior administration

Students

Support staff

538 30.3 725 40.9 254 14.3 77 4.3

459 25.9 617 34.9 309 17.5 109 6.2

383 21.6 664 37.5 392 22.1 128 7.2

407 23.1 635 36.1 380 21.6 76 4.3

25

61

29

26

1.4 154 8.7

3.4 214 12.1

1.6 175 9.9

1.5 237 13.5

UW System 443 25.2 645 36.7 334 19.0 75 4.3 38 2.2 224 12.7

Sixty-one percent (n = 1,076) of all respondents believed there is visible leadership to foster diversity from the senior administration, while faculty and Respondents of Color were slightly less apt to agree. When reviewing the data by the demographic categories, differing opinions emerged (Figures 45-46).

100




Figure 45

Senior Administration Visibly

Fosters Diversity by Position Status (%)

* Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category.

** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category.

Figure 46

Senior Administration Visibly Fosters Diversity by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



101




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 13 of the 15 characteristics listed in Table 36. The exceptions included mental health status and sexual orientation.

Table 36. Students and Faculty Who Believed the Courses they Took/Taught Included Materials,

Perspectives, and/or Experiences of People Based on Certain Characteristics

Characteristics


Agree n %


Disagree n %

Country of origin

Culture

Ethnicity

320

348

24.8

27.0

496

536

38.5

41.6

246

213

19.1

16.5

60

41

328 25.5 494 38.4 252 19.6 54

Mental health status 250 19.5 376 29.4 339 26.5 104

Gender 319 24.9 489 38.1 248 19.3 59

Gender identity

Gender expression

Immigrant status

Learning disability

274

265

241

21.4

20.7

18.9

371

379

411

29.0

29.6

32.2

319

316

318

25.0

24.7

24.9

100

105

94

255 20.0 378 29.7 325 25.5 106 status

Physical characteristics

Physical disability status

Race

Religion/spiritual status

Sexual orientation

Socioeconomic status

Veterans/active military status

250

257

307

269

252

274

239

19.6

20.1

24.1

21.1

19.8

21.5

18.9

398

397

471

423

374

438

397

31.1

31.1

36.9

33.1

29.4

34.3

31.4

335

320

255

294

324

301

314

26.2

25.1

20.0

23.0

25.4

23.6

24.8

89

93

64

83

102

69

101

4.7

3.2

4.2

8.1

4.6

7.8

8.2

7.4

8.3

7.0

7.3

5.0

6.5

8.0

5.4

8.0


26

22

23

42

29

45

48

43

41

37

41

27

42

48

37

Note: Table includes responses only from those who indicated they were students or faculty (n = 1,491).

48

2.0

1.7

1.8

3.3

2.3

3.5

3.7

3.4

3.2

2.9

3.2

2.1

3.3

3.8

2.9

3.8

One survey question asked respondents to consider the factors that influence their attendance at diversity initiatives on campus (i.e., cultural training, presentations, and

102



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 performances). More than half of all respondents believed that diversity initiatives were relevant to their work (56%, n = 916), that diversity events at UW-Stout were well advertised (55%, n = 888), that they felt welcome at these events (58%, n = 935), and that their school/work load prevented them from attending (54%, n = 873) (Table 37). While

54% (n = 865) felt they learned from these events, only 41% (n = 668) of respondents thought diversity events at UW- Stout fit into their schedules, and 33% (n = 540) believed they were expected to attend diversity events. Forty-seven percent (n = 754) said they received a personal invitation to attend from a member of the institutional leadership, and 29% (n = 463) thought diversity initiatives were not relevant to their roles on campus.

103




Table 37. Factors that Influence Respondents’ Attendance at Diversity Initiatives at UW-Stout

Factor

Diversity initiatives are relevant to my work.

Diversity events are well advertised.

Diversity events fit into my schedule.

I am expected to attend these events.

I feel that I am welcome at these events.

I learn from these events.

My work/school load prevents me from attending.

Personal invitation from institutional leadership

Diversity initiatives are not relevant to my role on campus

Other


Agree n %

Neither Agree nor Disagree n %

Disagree n %

358 22.0 558 34.3 524 32.2 120

262 16.1 626 38.5 521 32.1 167 10.3

256 15.8 412 25.4 636 39.2 250 15.4


67

49

70

212 13.1 328 20.2 577 35.6 365 22.5 139

350 21.5 585 36.0 554 34.1

315 19.5 550 34.0 641 39.6

163 10.1 300 18.6 577 35.7 339 21.0 236 14.6

55 15.4 66 18.4 205 57.3

93

64

312 19.3 561 34.6 536 33.1 156

3

7.4

5.7

4.0

9.6

234 14.5 520 32.2 580 35.9 197 12.2

0.8

43

49

55

86

29

4.1

3.0

4.3

8.6

2.6

3.0

3.4

5.3

8.1

104




When reviewing some of these items by demographic categories, differences emerged.

Figure 47 illustrates that sexual minority respondents and Respondents of Color and sexual minority respondents felt most welcome at diversity events on campus.

Figure 47

I Feel Welcome at Diversity Events by

Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



105




More than other employee groups, women thought that diversity initiatives were relevant to their work (Figure 48).

Figure 48

Diversity Initiatives are Relevant to My Work by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



106




The majority of faculty and academic staff believed that diversity initiatives were relevant to their roles on campus (Figure 49).

Figure 49

Diversity Initiatives are Not Relevant to My

Role on Campus by Position Status (%)



More than half of all student and faculty respondents felt that the classroom climate was welcoming for students based on all of the characteristics listed in Table 38. Seventyeight percent of women students and 76% of men students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on gender. Only 49% of Students of Color – in comparison with

72% of White students – thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race.

Likewise, 59% of LGBQ students and 64% of heterosexual students thought the climate was welcoming for students based on sexual orientation.

107




Table 38. Classroom Climate is Welcoming for Students Based on Demographic Characteristics

Characteristic


Agree n %


Disagree n %



Age 506 34.7 628 43.1 208 14.3 62 4.3

Country of origin 392 26.9 630 43.3 290 19.9 63 4.3

Ethnicity

Mental health status

392 26.9 617 42.4 306 21.0 71 4.9

290 20.0 514 35.5 418 28.9 102 7.0

492 34.0 631 43.5 219 15.1 48 3.3 Gender

Gender identity 332 22.9 580 40.0 334 23.0 93 6.4

Gender expression 318 21.9 554 38.2 356 24.5 105 7.2

Immigrant status

Learning disability status

337 23.3 546 37.7 382 26.4 68 4.7

368 25.4 592 40.9 310 21.4 68 4.7

Marital/partner status

Parental status

456 31.5 590 40.7 287 19.8 31 2.1

439 30.3 597 41.3 281 19.4 46 3.2



376 26.0 591 40.8 317 21.9 86 5.9

360 24.8 591 40.8 344 23.7 61 4.2

350 24.2 550 38.1 351 34.3 88 6.1 Political views

Race


384 26.6 592 41.0 295 20.4 97 6.7

Religious/spiritual views 370 25.6 576 39.9 340 23.5 67 4.6

Sexual orientation 321 22.3 574 39.8 322 22.3 110 7.6

370 25.7 601 41.7 328 22.8 52 3.6

13 0.9

14 1.0

18 1.2

21 1.4

31 2.1

22 1.5

72

74

55

40

67

52

25 1.7

14 1.0

27 1.9

32 2.2

98

45

84

86

6.8

3.1

5.8

5.9

10 0.7 104 7.2

21 1.5

11 0.8

14 1.0

18 1.2

23 1.6

40 2.8

88

74

70

60

68

74

2.7

4.6

3.6

6.1

5.1

4.8

4.1

4.7

5.1

21 1.5 68 4.7

Military/veteran status 522 36.1 579 40.1 238 16.5 27 1.9

Note: Table includes faculty and student respondents only (n = 1,491).

11 0.8 67

More than half of all employee respondents thought the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on the following characteristics listed in Table 39: age,

4.6

5.0

5.1

3.8

108



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 country of origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, immigrant status, marital/partner status, parental status, physical characteristics, physical disability, political views, race, religion/spiritual status, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and veteran/military status. Mental health status and learning disability status were the two exceptions. The reader will note that a number of respondents chose the neutral response (“neither agree nor disagree”) for this survey item.

109




Table 39. Workplace Climate is Welcoming for Employees Based on Demographic Characteristics

Characteristic


Agree n %


Disagree n %



Age

Country of origin

Ethnicity

100 17.6 284 49.9 109 19.2 53 9.3 10 1.8 13 2.3

93 16.3 265 46.5 139 24.4 31 5.4

98 17.2 264 46.3 136 23.9 42 7.4

6

7

1.1

1.2

36

23

6.3

4.0

Mental health status 60 10.6 173 30.5 195 34.3 51 9.0 12 2.1 77 13.6

Gender 105 18.5 261 46.0 128 22.5 38 6.7 16 2.8 20 3.5

Gender identity

Gender expression

84

80

14.8

14.1

208

201

36.7

35.5

155

159

27.3

28.1

39

38

6.9

6.7

82 14.4 225 39.5 148 26.0 33 5.8

9

12

6

1.6

2.1

72

76

12.7

13.4

1.1 75 13.2 Immigrant status

Learning disability status 81 14.3 194 34.3 167 29.6 29 5.1 7 1.2 87 15.4

Marital/partner status

Parental status



Political views

Race

Religious/spiritual views

Sexual orientation


100

100

91

86 15.2 235 41.7 162 28.7 28 5.0 3 0.5 50 8.9

73 12.9 207 36.6 176 31.2 49 8.7 21 3.7 39 6.9

97 17.2 252 44.6 134 23.7 47 8.3 11 1.9 24 4.2

81

86

88

17.7

17.7

16.1

14.3

15.2

15.5

255

262

244

228

224

229

45.1

46.3

43.1

40.3

39.5

40.3

148

142

157

167

146

157

26.1

25.1

27.7

29.5

25.7

27.6

20

24

31

41

45

36

3.5

4.2

5.5

7.2

7.9

6.3

8

11

9

9

8

12

1.4

1.9

1.6

1.6

1.4

2.1

35

27

34

40

58

46

6.2

4.8

6.0

7.1

10.2

8.1

Military/veteran status 112 20.0 248 44.3 131 23.4 12 2.1

Note: Table includes employee respondents only (n = 598).

3 0.5 54 9.6

110




When analyzed by demographic characteristics, the data reveal that Respondents of Color and sexual minority respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender (Figure 50).

Figure 50

Employee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate based on Gender, by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



111




While 62% (n = 1,164) of all respondents thought the workplace climate was welcoming based on race, about 44% (n = 77) of Respondents of Color and 55% (n = 67) of sexual minority respondents agreed (Figure 51).

Figure 51

Employee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate based on Race, by Select Demographic Characteristics (%)



112




Vastly different from the responses of other employees, 40% (n = 70) of Respondents of

Color believed the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation (Figure

52).

Figure 52

Employee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace

Climate based on Sexual Orientation, by Select

Demographic Characteristics (%)



113




Recommendations to Improve the Climate

The survey asked employees to rate how strongly they agreed that the suggestions listed in Tables 40 and 40a would positively affect the climate at the UW-Stout campus. Forty percent (n = 225) of employee respondents thought providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion and tenure for faculty/staff with families would positively affect the climate. Sixty-eight percent (n = 377) thought it would be a good idea to train mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior and 55% (n =

304) thought offering diversity training/programs as community outreach would positively affect the climate.

Employees also thought the following immersion experiences would positively affect the climate: for faculty/staff/students to learn a second language (52%, n = 288), for faculty/staff/students in service-learning projects with lower socioeconomic populations

(54%, n = 294), and for faculty/staff/students to work with underrepresented/underserved populations (53%, n = 288).

Less than half of all employees thought providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course objectives throughout the curriculum (40%, n =221) and rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity training (38%, n = 208) would positively affect the climate.

114




Table 40. Employees’ Perceptions that Initiatives Would Positively Affect the Climate at UW-Stout

Initiative


Agree n %


Disagree n %


Providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion/tenure for faculty/staff with families

Providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course objectives across the curriculum.

Requiring all writing emphasis classes to involve at least one assignment that focuses on issues, research and perspective that involve diverse populations.

Training mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior.

Offering diversity training/programs as community outreach for members of the public/community.

Rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity training.

Providing immersion experiences for faculty/staff/students to learn a second language.

Providing immersion experiences for faculty/staff/students in service learning projects with lower socioeconomic populations.

Providing immersion experiences for faculty/staff/students with underrepresented/underserved populations.

88

65

68

151

91

67

105

102

105

15.8

11.7

12.3

27.3

16.5

12.3

19.1

18.6

19.3

137

156

153

226

213

141

183

192

183

24.6

28.1

27.7

40.8

38.7

25.8

33.3

35.0

33.6

94

122

109

94

132

157

136

141

149

16.9

21.9

19.7

17.0

24.0

28.8

24.7

25.7

27.3

19

55

62

21

31

49

34

24

20

3.4

9.9

11.2

3.8

5.6

9.0

6.2

4.4

3.7

12

29

31

12

20

33

22

14

18

2.2

5.2

5.6

2.2

3.6

6.0

4.0

2.6

3.3

Sixty-six percent (n = 364) of employees felt providing on-campus child care services would positively affect the climate, and 53% (n = 289) thought providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities also would positively affect the climate (Table 40a).

More than half of all employees thought the following initiatives would also positively affect the climate on campus: providing, improving, and promoting access to quality services for those individuals who experience sexual abuse (71%, n = 386), providing mentors for minority faculty/students/staff new to campus (72%, n = 390), providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents at the campus level (81%, n = 444) and departmental level (79%, n = 433). Less than half thought reallocating resources to support inclusive climate changes on campus (46%, n = 248), requiring diversity and

115



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 equity training for every search and screen committee (45%, n = 247), and including diversity related activities as one of the criteria for hiring and/or evaluation of staff, faculty, and administrators (33%, n = 177) would positively affect the climate.

Table 40a. Employees’ Perceptions that Initiatives Would Positively Affect the Climate at UW-Stout

Initiative


Agree n %


Disagree n %


Providing on-campus child-care services.

Providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities.

Provide, promote and improve access to quality counseling available to faculty/staff/students who experience sexual abuse on campus or in the community.

Provide mentors for minority faculty/staff/students new to campus.

Providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents process on campus.

Providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents process at the departmental level.

Reallocating resources to support an inclusive climate changes on campus.

Including diversity related activities as one of the criteria for hiring and/or evaluation of staff/faculty and administrators.

Requiring diversity and equity training to every search and screen committee including faculty, staff, and administrators.

150

110

169

165

243

236

98

75

81

27.2

20.0

30.9

30.3

44.3

43.2

18.0

13.8

14.9

214

179

217

225

201

197

150

102

166

38.8

32.6

39.7

41.4

36.7

36.1

27.6

18.8

30.5

89

146

82

79

50

60

156

166

146

16.2

26.6

15.0

14.5

9.1

11.0

28.7

30.6

26.8

12

14

7

10

7

7

40

66

46

2.2

2.6

1.3

1.8

1.3

1.3

7.4

12.2

8.4

18

17

9

11

9

8

35

75

54

3.3

3.1

1.6

2.0

1.6

1.5

6.4

13.8

9.9

Summary

In addition to campus constituents’ personal experiences and perceptions of the campus climate, diversity-related actions taken by the institution, or not taken, as the case may be, may be perceived either as promoting a positive campus climate or impeding it. As the above data suggest, respondents hold divergent opinions about the degree to which UW-

Stout does, and should, promote diversity to shape campus climate.

116




Next Steps

Institutions of higher education seek to create an environment characterized by equal access for all students, faculty, and staff regardless of cultural, political, or philosophical differences; where individuals are not just tolerated but valued. Creating and maintaining a community environment that respects individual needs, abilities, and potential is one of the most critical initiatives that universities and colleges undertake. A welcoming and inclusive climate is grounded in respect, nurtured by dialogue, and evidenced by a pattern of civil interaction.

That stated, what do the results of this study suggest? At minimum, they add additional empirical data to the current knowledge base and provide more information on the experiences and perceptions for several sub-populations in the campus community. The findings parallel those from similar investigations. A more interesting question is, given that there is some structure in place to address diversity issues on campus, how effective have the campus’s efforts been in positively shaping and directing campus climate with respect to diversity?

Following this premise, the campus climate assessment, beginning in 2011, was a proactive initiative by UW-Stout to review the campus climate. It was the intention of the

Diversity Leadership Committee that the results be used to identify specific strategies to address the challenges facing their community and to support positive initiatives on campus. The recommended next steps include the Diversity Leadership Committee and other campus constituent groups using the results of the internal assessment to help to lay the groundwork for future initiatives.

Summary of Strengths and Potential Challenges

Two strengths/successes emerged from the quantitative data analysis. These findings should be noted and credited. First, more than half of employees were highly satisfied or satisfied with their jobs at UW-Stout (75%, n = 441) and how their careers have

117



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 progressed (63%, n = 360). Additionally, high percentages of students were highly satisfied and satisfied with their education at UW-Stout (84%, n = 1,046).

Second, 74% (n = 1,393) of employees and students reported that they were very comfortable and comfortable with the climate at UW-Stout, and 73% (n = 1,365) with their department or work unit. Eighty-one percent (n = 1,201) of faculty and students were very comfortable and comfortable with the classroom climate. These quantitative results were also supported by various voices offered in response to the open-ended questions. The respondent’s voices echoed their positive experiences with the UW-Stout’ campus climate. However, disparities existed where respondents from underrepresented groups typically reported less satisfaction and comfort with the overall campus climate, their department/work unit climate, and their classroom climate at UW-Stout then their majority counterpart respondents. These underrepresented groups include People of

Color, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, and classified staff.

Four potential challenges were also revealed in the assessment. The first challenge relates to racial tension. Significantly more Respondents of Color (31%, n = 87) reported personally experiencing exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (harassing behavior) that has interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-Stout when compared to their White counterparts (19%, n = 313). Fortyone percent (n = 22) of Respondents of Color said the harassment was based on their race, while only one percent (n = 3) of White respondents indicated the basis as race.

People of Color were also more likely to indicate racial profiling, graffiti, stares, feeling deliberately ignored or excluded, fearing for one’s safety and for their family’s safety, someone assuming they were admitted or hired because of their identity, fearing getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment, being singled out as the “resident authority” regarding identity, feeling isolated or left out when working in groups and because of identity as the form of experienced harassment when compared with their

White counterparts. White respondents were more likely to indicate receiving derogatory written comments, phone calls, emails, and remarks, as well as higher rates of threats of physical violence, target of physical violence, and victim of a crime.

118




Respondents’ observations of others being harassed also contributed to their perceptions of campus climate. People of Color were also more likely than White people to observe offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct. Of all respondents who observed harassment, 32% (n = 175) believed it was based on race, second to sexual orientation and followed by ethnicity (28%, n = 156).

People of Color were less comfortable than White respondents with the overall climate for diversity at UW-Stout, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes, with the largest difference with the overall climate. A further evaluation of the classroom climate indicates that while 72% of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race, only 49% of Students of Color agreed. Disparities also existed between Employees of Color and White employees when they were asked to rank the degree to which they agreed with certain statements. Of the 15 questions evaluated by race because of significant discrepancies, White employees, when compared to Employees of Color, were more likely to report support from decision makers/colleagues who support their career advancement, feel comfortable asking questions about performance expectations, and feel that their research interests are valued by colleagues. Employees of Color were more likely than White faculty and staff to report that others seem to find it easier to “fit in”, that they have to work harder than colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate, that colleagues expect them to represent “the point of view” of their identity, and Faculty of Color feel pressured to change their teaching methods to achieve tenure/promotion, among other questions.

While 62% of all respondents felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on race, about 44% of Respondents of Color agreed. Employees of Color were also more likely than White employees to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices, discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion at UW-Stout.

The experiences shared by LGBQ respondents’ calls attention to the second challenge at

UW-Stout: homophobia and heterosexism. LGBQ respondents were 11% more likely than heterosexual respondents to believe that they had experienced harassment. Of those

119



UW-Stout Final Report - July 2011 who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 47% (n =15) of LGBQ respondents versus one percent (n = 4) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation. Almost twice the percentage of sexual minority respondents believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did heterosexual respondents (53% compared with 28%), and of all respondents who observed misconduct, most believed it was based on sexual orientation

(47%, n = 259).

Heterosexual respondents were more comfortable than LGBQ respondents with the overall climate for diversity at UW-Stout, the climate in their departments/work units

(only slightly more comfortable), and the climate in their classes, with the largest difference in the classrooms. LGBQ employee respondents were less likely than heterosexual respondents to believe the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation. Finally, 79% of sexual minority employees, compared to 66% of heterosexual respondents, have seriously thought of leaving the institution, with LGBQ students and heterosexual students reported the same rate (38%) of consideration.

A third challenge is gender disparities experienced or perceived between women and men. Gender was the most observed reason for employment discrimination and at much higher rates than all other reported reasons. Of the respondents who believed they had observed discriminatory employment practices, 23% felt discriminatory hiring was based on gender, 20% indicated employment-related disciplinary actions were based on gender, and 27% reported gender as the basis for discriminatory practices related to promotion.

Gender was reported as the second highest reported reason (23%, n = 87) for personal experiences of offensive, hostile, exclusionary, and/or intimidating conduct that interfered unreasonably with one’s ability to work or learn at UW-Stout. Slightly higher rates of women (22%) versus men (18%) reported personal mistreatment, but significantly more women (31%) than men (10%) believed that the mistreatment was based on their gender. Gender was the fourth most reported basis for those who observed harassment (27%, n = 147).

120




The final challenge relates to differential treatment by university status at UW-Stout.

Of all respondents (21%) who experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct, university status (26%, n = 101) was most often cited as the basis for the mistreatment. Of the 36% (n = 56) classified staff respondents who reported personally experiencing misconduct, 41% (n = 23) said the conduct was based on their status at UW-

Stout, higher than any other employee group.

Classified staff reported observing discriminatory hiring, discriminatory employmentrelated disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion, more than any other employee group. Over 10% of all respondents indicated University status as the reason for unfair and unjust hiring practices. A closer evaluation of employee groups revealed that classified staff shared differential treatment from that of their academic staff counterparts. For example, 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.

121




References

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (1995). The drama of diversity and democracy . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Bartz, A. E. (1988). Basic statistical concepts.

New York: Macmillan.

Bauer, K. (1998). Campus climate: Understanding the critical components of today’s colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research , No.98. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E. (2005). Equality as a fact, equality as a result: A matter of institutional accountability . Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community . Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Harper, S. & S. Hurtado. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, no.120, p7-

24.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher educations . ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no.8. Washington, DC:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Ingle, G. (2005). Will your campus diversity initiative work. Academe, 91 (5), 6-10

Kuh, G., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities . ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 1. Washington, DC:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Milem, J., Chang, M., & antonio, A. (2005).

Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Peterson, M., & Spencer, M. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In W.

Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures . San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

122




Rankin, S. (2006). Campus climate for sexual minority students: Challenges and best practices. In J. Jackson & M. Terrell (Eds.), Toward administrative reawakening:

Creating and maintaining safe college campuses.

Herndon, VA: Stylus.

Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2005). Differing perceptions: How Students of Color and white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of

College Student Development, 46 (1), 43-61 .

Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people: A legal perspective. Focus on Law Studies, 19 (1), 10-17.

Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for LGBT people: A national perspective.

New York:

NGLTF Policy Institute.

Smith, D. G., Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore, L. C.,

Merchant, P. A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit.

Washington, DC: Association of

American Colleges and Universities.

Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures . San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base ( 2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:

Atomic Dog.

123

Appendix A – Comments Analysis

Appendix B – Data Tables

Appendix C – Survey

Appendices




124