1
2012 Diversity Action Committee (DAC) Campus Climate Survey
Quantitative Executive Summary
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Prepared by the DAC Assessment Sub-Committee:
Rick Brown (DAC co-chair), Erick Castellanos (Assessment Sub-Committee co-chair), Naseem
Choudhury (DAC co-chair), Dee Foreman, Kristin Kenneavy, Missy Long, Asha Mehta, Caitlin
O’Toole, Leah Warner (Assessment Sub-Committee co-chair), Melissa Van Der Wall
Accompanying Documents:
(all located on the DAC website: http://www.ramapo.edu/news/events/dac/)
1. Diversity Climate Factors Disaggregated by Sex, Sexuality, and Race
2. Full EBI Report: Faculty and Staff Survey
3. Full EBI Report: Student Survey
4. Comparison between 2005 and 2012 Campus Climate Surveys
2
Summary Overview
In keeping with its vision to assist Ramapo College in promoting and celebrating diversity, the
Diversity Action Committee (DAC) initiated an effort in the spring of 2012 to empirically assess
the current campus climate. In order to minimize internal bias, DAC commissioned an outside
survey company, Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI), to conduct a survey consisting of 179
questions to all students, faculty, and staff with a “@ramapo.edu” email address. Two versions
of the survey were administered; (1) questions tailored to students’ experiences at Ramapo
College; (2),questions tailored to the faculty and staff’s experiences at the College. There were
two types of questions; (1) quantitative, scale-based questions, and (2) qualitative, open-ended
questions. EBI has provided DAC with full reports of faculty/ staff and student responses to the
quantitative survey questions, which is available on the DAC website. EBI’s report ranks
Ramapo College’s performance over a series of 20 factors, or different diversity-related themes,
and also compares the College’s performance to other, equivalent institutions. 1
The purpose of this summary is to highlight Ramapo College’s key strengths and weaknesses
with respect to Ramapo’s campus climate.
This summary is separated into six sections: First, a brief summary of results is provided in
bullet points. Second, the report contains a review of the response rate from the faculty/staff
survey and a review of the top five strengths and weaknesses for faculty and staff climate. Third,
the report contains a review of the response rate stemming from the student survey and a review
of the five strengths and weaknesses for student climate. Fourth, the report provides a
comparison between the findings from this set of surveys with those from the College’s 2005
campus climate survey. Fifth, the report provides information on the limitations of the survey
instrument. Finally, the conclusion contains recommendations for the areas of campus climate in
which Ramapo College may wish to invest money, time, and people-power in order to help the
institution reach its diversity ideals.
Summary Results in Brief
The results from the 2012 Campus Climate survey suggest strengths and weaknesses with
respect to diversity climate for faculty, staff and students.
Ramapo College’s Strengths, Faculty and Staff Climate:
● Faculty and staff report that that employees as a whole are treated equally with respect to
social group membership, and performance is not devalued based on social group
membership.
● Faculty and staff report that they do not hear supervisors or other employees make
disparaging remarks based on a social group membership.
1
We are compared both to institutions within our Carnagie class and 6 institutions that match Ramapo College’s
features.
3
Ramapo College’s Weaknesses, Faculty and Staff Climate:
● Faculty and staff report that Ramapo College leadership, such as administrators and
supervisors, are only somewhat committed to diversity.
● Faculty and staff report that their commitment to diversity is a minor component in their
overall performance evaluation. Further, they believe that their work experiences at the
College have only somewhat taught them how to better interact with people from diverse
backgrounds.
● Additionally, EBI recommends that the College would get the biggest return on
investments if diversity efforts focused specifically on improving the extent to which the
College publicly recognizes its commitment to diversity. Additionally the College should
focus on diversity issues concerning immediate supervisors, such as supervisors
encouraging and offering more performance feedback and more clearly communicating
expectations.
Ramapo College’s Strengths, Student Climate:
● Students report that they believe that students as a whole are treated equally with respect
to social group membership, and performance is not devalued based on social group
membership.
● Students report that faculty make an in inclusive environment in the classroom for
multiple perspectives, and also they do not hear college employees make disparaging
remarks based on a social group membership.
Ramapo College’s Weaknesses, Student Climate:
● Students report that experiences at the College have only somewhat helped them to work
more effectively with people of differing social group memberships, and they report that
they are only somewhat accepted by their peers.
● Averaged across subgroups, students report that they believe they have not received
special consideration (e.g., in admissions) based on social group membership, and they
report negative evaluations of these considerations. Women and students of color report
more positive evaluations of these considerations compared to men and white students.
● Additionally, EBI recommends that the College would get the biggest return on
investments if diversity efforts focused specifically on improving the degree to which
students feel accepted by other students and improving camaraderie among racial/ethnic
groups.
Faculty and Staff Climate
Out of the 1017 faculty and staff that were contacted, 350 responded, which is a response rate of
34.4%. The response rate was higher for full-time (293, 42%) than part-time individuals (52,
16%) and was equally distributed amongst faculty (137, 32%) and staff (204, 35%). More
women responded than men (Males = 132, 28%; Females = 212; 39%; Other < 10), and Whites
4
(275, 37%) responded more than all other races (69, 29%) and those who did not identify race
(race unknown < 10). 2 The majority of respondents identified as heterosexual (294) relative to
gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or preferred not to answer (43) . 3
Based on the report from EBI, DAC identified five strengths with respect to diversity, defined as
those factors that received the highest scores in terms of quality of campus climate, and five
weaknesses, defined as those factors that received the lowest scores in terms of quality of
campus climate. EBI anchored all questions on a 1 to 7 scale with a score of 1 indicating the
worst campus climate and 7 indicating the best campus climate; EBI labeled factors for which
participants responded with an average of 5.25 or higher to be “good” with respect to campus
climate (labeled a 75% performance or higher), factors for which participants responded and
average of 4.97-5.18 as “needs work” (a 71%-74% performance), and factors for which
participants responded lower than 4.97 (70% performance or below) as “issues” that needs to be
addressed. All campus climate strengths for faculty and staff fell into the “good” category, and
all campus climate weaknesses fell into the “issue” category. It is important to note that the
following summary of climate strengths and weaknesses is based on overall faculty and staff
responses; please see the Appendix entitled “Diversity Climate Factors Disaggregated by Sex,
Sexuality, and Race” to see how responses vary depending on those characteristics.
The Top Five Campus Climate Strengths for Faculty and Staff:
The first factor, “Work Environment: Value of Contributions,” measures the degree to which
faculty and staff believe their contributions to Ramapo College are devalued due to their social
group memberships (i.e., race, gender, age, religious identifications, sexual orientations,
political/social ideologies, disabilities, and financial standing), where a score of “1” indicates
“Extremely” and “7” indicates “Not at all.” Across faculty and staff, respondents gave an
average answer of 6.48 (S.D. 4 = 1.03), well within the “good” category at 91.3% performance.
In other words, most faculty and staff believe that their contributions are not devalued based on
their social group memberships. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with the
performance of some of the equivalent institutions and lower than the other institutions.
The second factor, “Work Environment: Represent Others,” measures the degree to which
faculty and staff believe they are expected to speak on behalf of other people of their different
social group memberships, where a score of “1” indicates “Extremely” and “7” indicates “Not at
all.” Across faculty and staff, respondents gave an average answer of 6.59 (S.D. = 0.91), well
within the “good” category at 93.2% performance. In other words, most faculty and staff believe
that they are not expected to speak on behalf of other people. Ramapo College’s performance is
consistent with performance of the equivalent institutions.
The third factor, “Equal treatment of diverse faculty and staff,” measures the degree to which
faculty and staff believe they are treated equally within Ramapo College regardless of their
2
To protect individuals’ identities, results are collapsed across the relatively low number of respondents who
identify as Black or African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino of any race, or two or
more races.
3
Ramapo College does not collect information based on sexual orientation, and thus the response rate is unknown.
4
S.D. abbreviates “standard deviation.”
5
different social group memberships, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at all” and “7” indicates
“Extremely.” Across faculty and staff, respondents gave an average answer of 6.28 (S.D. = 1.27),
well within the “good” category at 88.0% performance. In other words, most faculty and staff
believe that they are treated equally within Ramapo College regardless of their different social
group memberships. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with the performance of some
of the equivalent institutions and lower than the other institutions.
The fourth factor, “Expressions of insensitivity and prejudice: Supervisors,” measures the degree
to which faculty and staff reported hearing supervisors (with whom they work with) make
insensitive remarks regarding people of differing social group memberships, where a score of
“1” indicates “Always” and “7” indicates “Never.” Across faculty and staff, respondents gave an
average answer of 6.55 (S.D. = 0.99), well within the “good” category at 92.5% performance. In
other words, most faculty and staff report that they have not heard supervisors make insensitive
remarks. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent
institutions.
The fifth factor, “Expressions of insensitivity and prejudice, fellow employees,” measures the
degree to which faculty and staff reported hearing other employees (non-supervisors) state
insensitive remarks regarding people of diverse backgrounds, where a score of “1” indicates
“Always” and “7” indicates “Never.” Across faculty and staff, respondents gave an average
answer of 6.32 (S.D. = 1.10) well within the “good” category at 88.7% performance. In other
words, most faculty and staff report that they have not heard other employees make insensitive
remarks. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent
institutions.
The Top Five Campus Climate Weaknesses for Faculty and Staff:
The first factor, “Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity,”
measures the degree to which faculty and staff’s commitment to diversity is included in their
overall performance evaluation and the degree to which faculty and staff are encouraged to
provide feedback regarding diversity, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at All” and “7”
indicates “Extremely.” Across faculty and staff, respondents gave an average answer of 3.83
(S.D. = 1.93), well within the “issue” category at 48.8% performance. In other words, most
faculty and staff report that diversity is only somewhat included in their overall performance
evaluation. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent
institutions.
The second factor, “Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity,”
measures the extent to which faculty and staff perceive leadership (such as managers and
supervisors) to be committed to diversity, including such actions as the extent to which
leadership commits resources to enhance diversity, regularly communicate the importance of
diversity, provide diversity training, and including diverse people on committees and teams,
where a score of “1” indicates “Not at All” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across faculty and
staff, respondents gave an average answer of 4.57 (S.D. = 1.70), well within the “issue” category
at 59.5% performance. In other words, most faculty and staff report that leadership is only
6
somewhat committed to diversity. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with
performance of the equivalent institutions.
The third factor, “Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others,”
measures the extent to which faculty and staff perceive that their experiences within their work
environment helped them work more effectively with people of different social group
memberships, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at All” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across
faculty and staff, respondents gave an average answer of 4.89 (S.D. = 1.96), well within the
“issue” category at 64.8% performance. In other words, most faculty and staff report that their
experiences within their work environment only somewhat helped them work more effectively
with people of diverse backgrounds. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with
performance of the equivalent institutions.
The fourth factor, “Impacts of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others,”
measures the extent to which faculty and staff perceive that their attitudes towards different
social groups have changed since becoming an employee at Ramapo College, where a score of
“1” indicates “Not at All” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across faculty and staff, respondents
gave an average answer of 5.07 (S.D. = 1.29), within the “issue” category at 67.8% performance.
In other words, most faculty and staff report that their attitudes towards different social groups
has only somewhat changed since becoming an employee at Ramapo College. Ramapo College’s
performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent institutions.
The fifth factor, “Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility,” specifically concerns
faculty and staff who self-identify as having a disability, and it measures perceived accessibility
in training programs, documentation/manuals, websites, audiovisual presentations, and physical
accessibility, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at All” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across
faculty and staff, respondents gave an average answer of 4.90 (S.D. = 2.13), well within the
“issue” category at 65.0% performance. In other words, faculty and staff who self-identify as
having a disability report that Ramapo College only somewhat provides accessible resources.
Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent institutions.
Student Climate
Out of the 5617 students that were contacted, 657 responded, which is a response rate of 11.7%.
Undergraduate students responded at approximately equal rates as graduate students
(Undergraduates = 637, 11.7%; Graduates = 18, 9.9%). More women responded than men
(Males = 179, 7.7%; Females = 473; 14.4%; Other < 10), and Whites (466, 11.5%) responded
less than all other races (185, 14.4%) and those who did not identify race (race unknown < 10). 5
The majority of respondents identified as heterosexual (579) relative to gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender, questioning, or those who preferred not to answer (72) . 6
5
To protect individuals’ identities, results are collapsed across the relatively low number of respondents who
identify as Black or African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino of any race, or two or
more races.
6
Ramapo College does not collect information based on sexual orientation, and thus the response rate is unknown.
7
Based on the report from EBI, DAC identified five strengths with respect to diversity, defined as
those factors that received the highest scores in terms of quality of campus climate, and five
weaknesses, defined as those factors that received the lowest scores in terms of quality of
campus climate. As with the faculty and staff survey, EBI anchored all questions for the student
version on a 1 to 7 scale where a score of 1 indicates the worst campus climate and 7 indicates
the best campus climate; EBI labeled factors for respondents on an average of 5.25 or higher to
be “good” with respect to campus climate (labeled a 75% performance or higher), factors for
which participants respond and average of 4.97-5.18 as “needs work” (a 71%-74% performance),
and factors for which participants respond lower than 4.97 (70% performance or below) as an
“issue” that needs to be addressed. All campus climate strengths for students fell into the “good”
category, and all campus climate weaknesses fell into the “issue” category. It is important to note
that the summary of campus climate strengths and weaknesses below is based on overall student
responses; please see the Appendix entitled “Diversity Climate Factors Disaggregated by Sex,
Sexuality, and Race” to see how responses vary depending on those characteristics.
The Top Five Campus Climate Strengths for Students:
The first factor, “Expressions of insensitivity and prejudice, faculty and staff,” measures the
degree to which students indicated that faculty and staff make insensitive or disparaging remarks
regarding people of differing social group memberships (i.e., race/ethnicities, genders, religious
identifications, sexual orientations, political/social ideologies, disabilities, ages, financial
standings), where a score of “1” indicates “Always” and “7” indicates “Never.” Across students,
respondents gave an average answer of 6.41 (S.D. = 0.96), which falls well within the “good”
category at 90.2% performance. In other words, most students have not heard faculty and staff
make insensitive or disparaging remarks regarding people of diverse backgrounds. Ramapo
College’s performance is higher than the performance of some equivalent institutions and
consistent with other institutions.
The second factor, “Classroom Environment: Value of Contributions,” measures the degree to
which students believe their contributions to class discussions are devalued due to their different
social group memberships, where a score of “1” indicates “Extremely” and “7” indicates “Not at
all.” Across students, respondents gave an average answer of 6.31 (S.D. = 1.13), which falls well
within the “good” category at 88.5% performance. In other words, most students do not believe
that their contributions to class discussions are devalued due to their different social group
memberships. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent
institutions.
The third factor, “Classroom Environment: Represent Others,” measures the degree to which
students believe they have been expected to speak in the classroom on behalf of other people of
their different social group memberships, where a score of “1” indicates “Extremely” and “7”
indicates “Not at all.” Across students, respondents gave an average answer of 5.93 (S.D. =
1.22), which falls within the “good” category at 82.2% performance. In other words, most
students do not report feeling expected to speak on behalf of other people within their social
group memberships. Ramapo College’s performance is lower than performance of the equivalent
institutions.
8
The fourth factor, “Classroom Environment: Inclusive Environment,” measures the degree to
which students believe instructors present an inclusive environment in the classroom, such as
making students welcome and encouraging different views and perspectives in class, where a
score of “1” indicates “Not at all” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across students, respondents
gave an average answer of 5.71 (S.D. = 1.00), which falls within the “good” category at 78.3%
performance. In other words, most students believe instructors present an inclusive environment
in the classroom. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the
equivalent institutions.
The fifth factor, “Equal Treatment,” measures the degree to which students believe people are
treated equally at Ramapo College, regardless of their different social group memberships, where
a score of “1” indicates “Not at all” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across students, respondents
gave an average answer of 5.67 (S.D. = 1.20), which falls within the “good” category at 77.8%
performance. In other words, most students believe people are treated equally at Ramapo
College. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with the performance of some of the
equivalent institutions and lower than the other institutions.
The Top Five Campus Climate Weaknesses for Students:
The first factor, “Diversity Programs and Policies: Student Received Special Consideration,”
measures the degree to which students believed they received special consideration regarding
admissions, financial aid, additional academic support on campus, and on campus employment
opportunities, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at all” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across
students, respondents gave an average answer of 2.48 (S.D. = 1.60), well within the “issue”
category at 24.7% performance. In other words, most students do not believe that they have
received special consideration regarding admissions. Ramapo College’s performance is higher
than some equivalent institutions and consistent with other institutions.
The second factor, “Diversity Programs and Policies: Special Consideration for Minorities,”
measures how positive students feel about special consideration for minority populations
regarding admissions, financial aid, additional academic support on campus, and on campus
employment opportunities, where a score of “1” indicates “Highly Resentful” and “7” indicates
“Highly Support.” Across students, respondents gave an average answer of 2.48 (S.D. = 1.60),
well within the “issue” category at 53.5% performance. In other words, most students feel
negatively about minority populations receiving special consideration regarding admissions and
campus resources. However, as is explained in more detail in the “Diversity Climate Factors
Disaggregated by Sex, Sexuality, and Race” document, women and students of color report more
positive evaluations of these considerations compared to men and white students. Ramapo
College’s performance is lower than performance of equivalent institutions.
The third factor, “Diversity Experiences Impacted: Ability to Work Effectively with Others,”
measures the degree to which students believe their experiences at Ramapo College helped them
work more effectively with people who differ from them based on differing social group
memberships, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at all” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across
students, respondents gave an average answer of 4.78 (S.D. = 1.57), well within the “issue”
category at 63.0% performance. In other words, most students report that their experiences at
9
Ramapo College only somewhat helped them work more effectively with people of diverse
backgrounds. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with performance of the equivalent
institutions.
The fourth factor, “Diversity Experiences Impacted: Learning and Development,” measures the
degree to which students believe that, since attending Ramapo College, their attitudes have
changed about people of differing social group memberships, where a score of “1” indicates
“Not at all” and “7” indicates “Extremely.” Across students, respondents gave an average answer
of 4.93 (S.D. = 1.18), well within the “issue” category at 65.5% performance. In other words,
students report that their attitudes have only somewhat changed regarding people of differing
social group memberships. Ramapo College’s performance is consistent with that of the
equivalent institutions.
The fifth factor, “Peer Relationships,” measures the degree to which students feel accepted by
students at Ramapo College, where a score of “1” indicates “Not at all” and “7” indicates
“Extremely.” Across students, respondents gave an average answer of 4.96 (S.D. = 1.47), well
within the “issue” category at 65.5% performance. In other words, students report that they feel
only somewhat accepted by other students at Ramapo College. Ramapo College’s performance is
lower than performance of equivalent institutions
Comparisons to 2005 Campus Climate Survey
The present campus climate survey is largely distinct from the survey conducted in 2005.
However, the DAC Assessment Subcommittee was able to add some institution-specific
questions to EBI’s survey, which allowed us to ask some of the questions from the 2005 surveys.
While the two surveys cannot be compared in a statistically significant way, because they were
conducted by different outside providers, it is possible to make broad comparisons between the
findings from 2005 and those from 2012. We provide a more detailed comparison in the
“Comparison between 2005 and 2012 Campus Climate Surveys” appendix, which is located on
the DAC website. We summarize the major conclusions here.
The response rate was significantly lower in 2012 both among employees and students. The
faculty and staff response rates dropped from 54% to 34% and the student response rate dropped
from 27.9% to 11.7%. Respondents were asked questions about their overall perception of the
campus climate at Ramapo, as well as specific questions about hiring and firing practices,
representations of diverse perspectives, and perceptions of classroom vs. workplace climate.
Responses from the 2005 survey were combined across faculty, staff, and students, and thus we
are unable to report student- and faculty/staff-specific changes across surveys.
Tables and graphs in the comparison report show that students, faculty, and staff are
“comfortable and very comfortable” with the climate at Ramapo at about the same level in 2012
as in 2005 (80% or higher). However, a larger percent of employees choose “very comfortable,”
the most positive rating, instead of “comfortable,” the second most positive rating, in 2012 than
in 2005. Student ratings of “very comfortable” stayed the same for the 2012 survey.
10
Table 1. Comparisons between 2005 and 2012 Overall Climate Ratings
2012 - Faculty and
Staff
2012 -Students
2005 (Faculty, Staff,
and Students)
Very comfortable with
climate at Ramapo:
40.0%
25.2%
23.9%
Very comfortable with
climate at academic school
or admin division:
42.0%
32.5%
27.9%
Very comfort
able with climate at
department /work area:
49.6%
31.1%
29.3%
However, compared with 2005, faculty and staff in the 2012 survey observed several decreases
in campus climate, such as more hiring discrimination (2012: 18.8% vs. 2005: 14.0%) , more
firing discrimination (2012: 6.4% vs. 2005: 4.4%), and more promotion discrimination (2012:
19.3% vs. 2005: 11.0%).
Limitations of the Survey Instrument
While the EBI campus climate survey was largely informative, the sub-committee found several
limitations to the instrument with respect to what it could speak to about the College’s campus
climate.
First, in some cases, the sub-committee could not make meaning of the factors. In particular, the
student version has a variety of factors measuring prior experiences with diversity, such as the
extent to which students shared gender, religious identification, political/social ideology,
financial standing, and race/ethnicity with others in their community prior to entering Ramapo
College. These factors were not represented in a way that helped the sub-committee understand
the College’s campus climate. Specifically, EBI did not provide an explanation of what sort of
demographic distribution in a student’s home community would constitute a “good” campus
climate for Ramapo College. As a result, the sub-committee left these factors out of
consideration when compiling the executive summary.
Second, for some factors, additional information needed to have been included in the assessment
for the factor to indicate a strength or weakness. For example, some factors measure the extent to
which faculty, staff, and students’ attitude about social groups have changed since attending
Ramapo College. A low score indicates little change, but there is no measurement taken that
indicates how positive their attitudes were when they joined the College, and thus we do not
know if change was needed.
11
Third, at times the language and terms of the survey did not match Ramapo College’s
organizational structure. For example, language like “department” does not map onto the
College’s convening group, school, and college structure.
Fourth, several categories collapsed across groups whose experiences may vary. For example,
the fact that EBI aggregated faculty and staff responses makes it difficult to discern any differing
issues facing these two groups. In addition, responses from all sexual minorities and all racial
minorities were combined, even though experiences may vary greatly within these groupings.
The sub-committee plans to address these limitations in future campus climate assessment
efforts, such as focus groups and assessing whether to continue with EBI for future survey
iterations.
Preliminary Recommendations Report
In this section we provide preliminary recommendations for the areas of campus climate in
which Ramapo College may wish to invest money, time, and people-power in order to help us
reach our diversity ideals. EBI identified “top priority” factors, described as those that are not
necessarily the lowest-scoring, but rather are those that will bring the college the biggest return
on investments. This section will describe these factors and provide initial suggestions for how
the College may choose to address them. The sub-committee will refine these recommendations
with feedback from faculty, staff, and students, including responses derived from focus groups
that are planned for the spring of 2013.
EBI identified two top priority factors from the faculty and staff survey.
The first factor is Management/Supervisor, which represents the degree to which Ramapo
College faculty and staff perceive their immediate manager/supervisor (i.e., the person they
directly report to) to encourage them to offer feedback, provide performance feedback, recognize
their contributions to the organization, care about them as people, and help them resolve
problems. Ramapo College may want to address these issues by providing diversity-related
workshops and orientations for supervisors, managers, and administrators to increase the extent
to which they are sensitive to the particular needs of employees.
The second factor is Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create
Celebrations, which represents faculty and staff perceptions of the extent to which Ramapo
College publically recognizes its commitment to diversity through celebrations and
communicates expectations regarding appropriate behaviors in support of diversity. The College
may want to consider providing more opportunities for staff, especially support staff, to be able
to attend diversity-related events on campus during the workday. Also, as suggested by both the
Ramapo College Strategic Planning Task Force and DAC, a recognized diversity office would
help centralize and coordinate events in order to better develop and publicize diversity events on
campus.
EBI identified four top priority factors from the student survey.
12
The first two factors are related: Peer Relationships, the degree to which students feel accepted
by students at Ramapo College, and Camaraderie among Racial/Ethnic Groups, the degree to
which students perceive there to be respect and friendships between students of different
racial/ethnic backgrounds. The campus may want to address these issues by increasing
community and team building efforts amongst students in both social and academic contexts.
The third factor, Diversity Experiences Impacted: Learning and Development, concerns the
degree to which students believe that, since attending Ramapo College, their attitudes have
changed about people of differing social group memberships. As mentioned in the limitations
section, a low score indicates little change, but there is no measurement taken that indicates how
positive their attitudes were when they joined Ramapo College, and thus we do not know if
change was needed. The sub-committee will investigate this issue further in focus groups.
The fourth factor, Academic Achievement and Personal Development, concerns students’
general perception of the extent to which Ramapo College improves their intellectual abilities
and as providing them with skills to enter the job market/graduate school. The sub-committee
perceives this factor to be less directly related to diversity initiatives, and thus do not have
specific recommendations.