GEC GENDER CLIMATE SURVEY
ADMINISTERED SPRING 2012
CONTENTS
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0
Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Areas of Progress ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Student Awareness of Gender Equity .................................................................................................................... 2
Improved faculty ratios ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Areas in need of improvement ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Retention ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Staff Ratios ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Discrimination................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Other Concerns .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Other notes: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Faculty Requirments .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Harrassment .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Insider/Outsider ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix I: Faculty ratios over time ............................................................................................................................... 8
0
SUMMARY
The Gender Equity Committee (GEC) was established as a standing committee under the office of the
Provost, with the intention that it should “function as an agent of the college in the development and
maintenance of a genuinely equitable community for women and men. It shall review, promote, and
evaluate policies and procedures at all levels of college life in order to ensure that Calvin becomes and
remains an educational community in which the gifts of men and women are equally recognized and
celebrated” (Committee mandate, 1998). GEC grew out of the Gender Concerns Task Force Report,
which emphasized that Calvin College has long been committed to working “toward the biblical ideal of
mutually respectful partnership between men and women” (Task Force Report, 1991). “Our specific
goals, as described in the report and passed by the faculty, include: Developing an equitable gender
balance in faculty, administration, and staff; Teaching and advising in such a way as to effectively
develop both women and men; and Providing a work environment that recognizes and supports the
varying needs of employees in balancing work and family responsibilities” (Beversluis, 1999). In order
to achieve these goals, it is necessary every now and again for GEC to assess the “climate” in the
community regarding issues of gender. In 2001, Calvin College commissioned Ann Selzer, of Selzer and
Company, Des Moines, IA, to conduct an extensive gender study of faculty. (Selzer and Company is the
official pollster of Bloomberg News, the Des Moines Register and recently, the Detroit Free Press.) As it
had been 9 years since that survey was taken, the 2010-2011 Gender Equity Committee (GEC) along with
its previous chairpersons (Deb Haarsma and Brian Ingraffia, respectively) believed that it was time to
conduct another assessment as climate surveys can often address attitudes and concerns that help an
organization to work with constituents to instill positive change. With the 2012 survey it was the goal of
GEC to assess the climate of the broader Calvin community, including faculty, staff, and students. What
follows is a brief summary report of the data. Complete survey data is available upon request.
INTRODUCTION
A campus climate survey is typically designed to capture the perceptions of the community regarding
their workplace: what they like, what they dislike, what is important to their daily life, and what enhances
or impedes productivity. Recognizing the existing strengths and limitations of the workplace environment
(climate) will help the College develop a cohesive plan to benefit the entire community. With this goal, in
2010, GEC contacted Neil Carlson from the Calvin Center for Social Research (CSR) regarding survey
procedures, costs, and implementation. The online survey instruments typically conducted by CSR utilize
both qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to survey the entire campus community to
determine what proportion of the population has certain attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge related to
gender equity issues. The GEC submitted a request of $2500 to $3000 to the Provost’s Office for the
services of CSR. These services included creating a structured questionnaire that contained a mix of
closed-ended, or forced-choice questions, as well as qualitative (open-ended) questions for analysis.
0
The resulting survey was created based on historical data. Previous assessments (2001 Selzer and
Company Faculty Gender Climate Survey, 2004 HERI survey, and 2004 Life Path Study student survey)
were taken into account when creating this instrument and GEC committee members met with various
constituencies across campus for additional input. (Note: this survey report is written using the two
traditional gender categories, female and male. Although the survey did offer “transgender” as a selfidentifier, the committee felt that since discussions of the issues concerning the transgender community
are just beginning on this campus, and there is little information and no official policy at this time, the
decision was made to not divide responses by way of the transgender category in this report. That data is
available in the overall data and CSR could code by those responses for interested individuals or groups
on campus. It is GEC’s recommendation that the next gender climate survey include all appropriate
gender classifications.)
The Center for Social Research conducted the analysis and presented the findings to the committee. The
overall response rate was low which could be contributed to the fact that the committee did not have a
budget for incentives or it could be attributed to the fact that some faculty/staff confused the Gender
Equity Survey with the Safer Spaces Survey.
As of April 17, 2012, a total of 1069 people responded overall.
Staff: 43.65% responded.
Faculty: 42.42% responded.
Students: 19.12% responded.
Overall: 23.64% responded.
Despite the low response rate, the committee did glean important findings related to gender equity.
RESULTS
SUMMARY
Across the campus community there are areas where we have made progress, and areas where
there is still progress to be made with regards to gender equity. The overall satisfaction of gender
related issues for staff and students is good, but this is offset by the perspective of faculty. There is
a sense of equality in terms of expectations for faculty and staff, and respect between employees on
campus. The Calvin environment is considered generally supportive of individual family
responsibilities and has made progress on faculty gender ratios, but there are concerns regarding
retention, staff gender ratios and subtle gender discrimination.
AREAS OF PROGRESS
Across the college, we rate ourselves high in awareness of gender equity issues (Q3, Q86-69). We
perceive that we have made progress over the past 10 years (Q13) and indeed we see an improved
gender balance in both faculty and staff (Q8-10, also see Faculty Ratio section). We believe we
appropriately confront sexual harassment cases though we are not always sure how to report
1
incidents, nor do we believe incidents are necessarily handled well in the situations that are
reported (Q4, Q 18-21) 1. We generally appreciate our family friendly workplace (Q15).
Male and female respondents noted the following positive factors:
•
•
•
Faculty report fair opportunities for scholarly pursuits, fairness of research awards,
satisfaction with the tenure/promotion process, committee work, attitudes and behaviors
of colleagues, research/study/lecture opportunities and participation (Q51-53, 92-101).
Staff report job security, opportunities to develop new ideas, satisfactory working
conditions, and opportunities for professional development (Q55-59).
Students report satisfaction with the balance between academics and personal life, peer
attitudes and behaviors towards gender equity on campus and report very high satisfaction
with the ways that faculty and staff handle issues of gender equity (Q97-101).
In addition, below are several areas where Calvin is effectively pursuing gender equity on campus:
•
•
•
•
Expectations of female and male faculty and staff to do well at Calvin are generally the
same (Q23, 24). Male and female faculty and staff are treated with equal respect from other
faculty and staff and administration. (Q23, 24).
Overall satisfaction with Calvin College for all groups was above 95%. Students most
strongly satisfied, faculty least strongly satisfied; 50% of students, 41% of staff and 31% of
faculty report ‘very satisfied’ (Q112). If ‘mostly satisfied’ is included the numbers jump to
89%, 87% and 73% respectively. (Although not directly a gender equity question, this
overall satisfaction rating is an important related issue and tied to issues of gender equity.)
Respect for individuals who need to adjust their schedules for family responsibilities was
consistent across genders (Q30) 2,3.
Satisfaction with the balance between work and life was generally good. 86% of faculty
members report that they are very or mostly satisfied, while 91% of staff are very or mostly
satisfied with the balance. Interestingly, female staff are the most highly satisfied with the
balance between work and personal life, followed by male staff, then male faculty, with
female faculty reporting the most dissatisfaction with the balance (Q 90).
Two additional areas merit special note: student awareness and faculty ratios.
STUDENT AWARENESS OF GENDER EQUITY
Students are more conscious of gender equity issues because of their time at Calvin (Q87). It
appears that the longer students are at Calvin, the more aware and engaged they become: more are
1
Staff report greater confidence in reporting and Calvin’s ability to respond appropriately (Q1821).
2 In the 2001 Faculty Gender Climate Survey 42% of the faculty thought that Calvin was less
supportive of the family responsibilities of husbands and fathers than of wives and mothers.
3 For reference, of respondents: 31% of staff have taken time off for maternity/paternity leave, 17%
of faculty; of those who have taken leave, 73% of staff think policies support leave, 50% of faculty
think policies support leave(Q. 81, 82).
2
having conversations about gender issues, and they are increasingly likely to attend lectures
outside of class where the content is focused on gender issues. Some of the most encouraging points
of awareness and engagement are represented in the chart below (Q85-89).
Because of my time at Calvin I am...
first year
sophomore
…better able to counter gender
inequity in all its forms.
junior
senior
…more likely to read or do
research on matters of gender
inequity.
…more conscious of gender
equity issues.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Most students (65%+) have read on gender related topics at least once in the last school year, about
half have done written assignments addressing gender-related issues within their discipline; fewer
have been presented with experiential assignments or attended events addressing gender equity
concerns for extra credit (Q108-111).
IMPROVED FACULTY RATIOS
Faculty ratios are becoming steadily more balanced (details since 1998 are available in Appendix I).
While discrepancies still exist – 47% of faculty are tenured males, whereas 19% of the faculty are
tenured female – there has been steady improvement in the last 14 years.
Since 1998, the total percent of the faculty that are female has increased 10%. Percentages of male
and female faculty that are tenured have also increased over that time. The percentage of male
faculty with tenure has increased from 59% to 72% while the percentage of female faculty with
tenure has almost doubled from 29% to 54%. The percentage of male faculty with terminal degrees
has remained steady in the upper 80% range, and the percentage of female faculty with terminal
degrees has increased from 58% to 76%.
3
Percentage of total faculty by year
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Male
Male, Tenured
Female
12-13
11-12
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
05-06
04-05
03-04
02-03
01-02
00-01
99-00
98-99
0%
Female, Tenured
AREAS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT
RETENTION
Retention of students, faculty and staff was noted as an area of concern. The data are insufficient to
determine the role of gender inequity issues in retention for students (Q114), but there is some
data indicating that for about 30% of faculty and staff gender inequity issues had an influence on
their decision to leave Calvin (Q116).
This has implications in terms of employee expectations regarding their future with Calvin: More
males plan to stay until retirement, while more females plan to stay for at least 5 years (Q115). It is
difficult to surmise the cause of this disparity but it is important to note that it does exist. Further,
we are aware that experiences for women of color and other minority groups on campus are very
different than those of the majority culture; the influence of these factors on retention must be
explored further.
Additionally, from the comments it is clear that there is a perception that experienced female
faculty members are leaving Calvin. The reasons for these departures are unclear. Are cultural or
gender issues contributing factors? The GEC recommends that exit interviews continue to occur
with these questions in mind, and that appropriate information from these interviews be tracked by
Human Resources or the Provost’s office for further evaluation and action, if needed.
One reason for departures that did become apparent from the survey is financial considerations.
When asked ‘Have you seriously considered or are you aware of any of your peers that have
4
seriously considered leaving Calvin College for any of the following reasons?’ faculty, staff and
students all listed financial reasons as being highly relevant (Q117-118). Further, faculty indicated
that the faculty church membership and Christian day school requirements were of highest concern
followed closely by lack of diversity and feeling socially isolated (Q 118). However, it is important
to note that these data may be skewed since the question included an ‘awareness of peers who have
considered these factors’ instead of including only personal experience.
STAFF RATIOS
Out of 150 female staff responding to the survey, 24% disagree to some extent that ‘male and
female faculty/staff who are equal in degree and experience earn comparable salaries or hourly
rates’ (Q63). Further, 22% of female staff disagree to some extent that ‘male and female
faculty/staff are promoted in equal percentages’ (Q65). While we have seen an improvement in
faculty ratios, these observations of female staff, combined with qualitative, freeform comments
(Q24, 41 in particular) caused the GEC to seek further information on this matter.
Members of the GEC met with the Director of Human Resources to try to obtain staff rank and level
by gender. At the time we met (December 2012), HR did not have a good way to report this data.
They were working toward developing a reporting structure, and encouraged the GEC to re-address
this question in 2-3 years. Even without current data, HR reported that there are difficulties in fully
addressing this concern: there are several instances where female staff have turned down
promotions to maintain family/work balance, and there are more females who join Calvin in
administrative support roles where there are not ample opportunities for advancement. Further, it
would be difficult to assess the upward mobility of staff (for example, to determine if staff members
pursue or apply for promotions, or turn down opportunities).
Human Resources reported that they hope that their renewed commitment to annual reviews along
with the college’s response to the Best Practices in Christian Workplaces survey of 2012 will
increase transparency and trust. HR is committed to examining areas of potential inequality and to
determine if there are cultural influences at the college that should be examined and addressed
causing females to turn down promotions.
DISCRIMINATION
Encouragingly, there is very little blatant gender discrimination at Calvin. However, female faculty,
staff and students report experiencing subtle discrimination in significantly higher numbers than
males (Q80). 55% of female faculty experienced some form of discrimination, 41% of female staff
and 35% of female students – compared with 12%, 8%, and 19% of males, respectively. 43% of
faculty and 31% of staff indicated disagreement with the statement ’Calvin is able to counter gender
inequity in all of its forms’ (Q 5). Some possible areas of subtle discrimination are reflected in
survey questions regarding the perceptions that females are more likely to be interrupted on
committees or in class, males are more likely to receive credit for their ideas on committees, males
are more likely to insist that their ideas are correct even if they are wrong, and males are more
likely to be addressed as ‘Dr.’ if they have achieved a terminal degree (Q 25-31). 20% of female
faculty (vs. 7% of males) report that they need to ‘minimize various aspects of gender identity (such
as dress and language) in order to ‘fit in’ with the culture’ (Q73, 74).
5
Students report equal treatment from faculty and staff (Q38-40), but faculty do not sense equal
respect from students. Just over 50% of faculty reported that, to some extent, students do not treat
male and female faculty with the same respect (Q 33). Discouragingly, with respect to gender,
almost a quarter of students and faculty indicate that students do not treat other students with
equal levels of respect (Q 37).
OTHER CONCERNS
In addition to the numeric data collected, comments were solicited through the survey. What
follows is a list of repeated concerns:
•
•
•
•
There was a great deal of interest in the possibility of an on-campus daycare, so the Gender
Equity Committee spent time looking into the history of this issue. After considering the
history and current (financial) landscape, it was determined that Calvin should not pursue
an on-campus daycare at this time. Factors that currently prohibit moving forward include:
o Budget constraints -- on-site daycare facilities often run at a financial deficit, and
users would need to be willing to pay for actual costs which would likely be higher
than area averages;
o Calvin’s early childhood program has no current interest in using such a facility as a
lab/classroom setting. The program has established relationships with a broad and
diverse set of early childhood facilities that academically strengthen the field
experience for student teachers.
The Gender Equity Committee has also determined that this is no longer a gender equity
issue as male and female respondents equally express this need.
There is a lack of comfortable, reasonable space for new mothers to use a breast pump on
campus. Many comments mentioned the limited time available for this need, and that
finding a suitable space near their place of work is difficult.
There is concern that the issue of gender equity will be taken out of context. Commenters
mentioned the need to be aware of gender inequity, but also stressed that there are broader
cultural influences by which Calvin is impacted. Gender inequity should always be
considered within this broader context.
While recruiting female faculty is appreciated and desired, it is essential that a person is
hired for their credentials and strengths, not simply for their gender. Further, those making
the hiring decision must make the operable hiring criteria clear. One immediate
application of this recommendation applies to announcements of new hires: avoid themes
that distract and undermine the professional credentials of the new hire.
OTHER NOTES:
FACULTY REQUIRMENTS
6
52% of faculty report dissatisfaction with faculty church membership and Christian day school
requirements. Additionally, 23% of staff indicated dissatisfaction with these faculty requirements
(Q91).
HARRASSMENT
A significant proportion of Calvin students, staff and faculty do not know where to report sexual
harassment, are not comfortable reporting harassment and are not confident Calvin would respond
appropriately (Q18-21). Faculty disagree significantly more than students or staff that ‘Incidents of
sexual harassment and discrimination have generally been handled appropriately at Calvin.’
Notably, female faculty members are in highest disagreement with this statement (24% of female
faculty vs 17% of male faculty) (Q21).
INSIDER/OUTSIDER
While faculty report more outsider feelings than staff (28% versus 19%), feelings of ‘outsider’
decrease within an individual’s work/academic position (faculty reports drop to 14%) (Q75,76).
The relatively small overall numbers of those who feel like ‘outsiders’ are good to see, but the
comments (Q77) demonstrate significant feelings of being an ‘outsider’ from: intersex individuals,
‘multiple’ ethnicity or ‘black or African American’ individuals, individuals that are from a
denomination other than the CRC and individuals that do not attend church.
7
APPENDIX I: FACULTY RATIOS OVER TIME
Total Faculty
Male Total
Male Total
Female Total
Female Total
Male Terminal Degree
Female Terminal Degree
Minority
Minority
Male Tenured
Male Tenured
Female Tenured
Female Tenured
Male Prof (Tenured)
Female Prof (Tenured)
Male Assoc Prof (Tenured)
Female Assoc Prof (Tenured)
Male Regular
Male Regular
Female Regular
Female Regular
Male Prof (Reg)
Female Prof (Reg)
Male Assoc Prof (Reg)
Female Assoc Prof (Reg)
Male Asst Prof (Reg)
Female Asst Prof (Reg )
Male Instructor (Reg)
Female Instructor (Reg)
Male Term
Male Term
Female Term
Female Term
Male Prof (Term)
Female Prof (Term)
Male Assoc Prof (Term)
Female Assoc Prof (Term)
Male Asst Prof (Term)
Female Asst Prof (Term)
Male Instructor (Term)
Female Instructor (Term)
Male Part Time
Male Part Time
Female Part Time
Female Part Time
Tenured % of total male
faculty
Tenured % of total female
faculty
% of male faculty with
terminal degree
% of female faculty with
terminal degree
9899
296
194
66%
74
25%
167
43
12
4%
114
39%
21
7%
111
19
3
2
50
17%
31
10%
12
7
17
10
18
13
3
2
31
10%
21
7%
1
0
8
3
18
15
4
3
24
8%
29
10%
9900
282
195
69%
87
31%
168
57
13
5%
113
40%
24
9%
114
21
1
3
50
18%
38
13%
6
5
19
11
24
19
1
3
32
11%
25
9%
3
0
9
2
14
18
4
5
32
11%
24
9%
0001
284
200
70%
84
30%
175
58
15
5%
113
40%
24
8%
112
21
0
3
58
20%
38
13%
11
4
27
14
21
20
0
0
29
10%
22
8%
4
0
8
1
14
20
3
1
31
11%
34
12%
0102
284
194
68%
90
32%
173
63
15
5%
117
41%
21
7%
113
18
4
2
54
19%
42
15%
7
3
23
14
23
26
0
0
23
8%
27
10%
1
2
8
3
13
20
2
2
30
11%
39
14%
0203
291
199
68%
92
32%
175
64
19
7%
120
41%
21
7%
115
19
4
2
55
19%
46
16%
8
2
26
14
23
29
1
1
24
8%
25
9%
3
1
3
3
14
18
5
3
42
14%
41
14%
0304
305
213
70%
92
30%
188
65
21
7%
129
42%
27
9%
122
22
8
6
55
18%
41
13%
5
4
23
8
27
28
2
1
29
10%
24
8%
3
0
4
6
14
17
3
3
36
12%
41
13%
0405
307
216
70%
91
30%
186
65
20
7%
136
44%
33
11%
119
24
18
8
55
18%
37
12%
4
4
18
7
33
25
1
1
22
7%
21
7%
3
0
6
3
12
16
3
2
46
15%
44
14%
0506
309
220
71%
89
29%
191
61
22
7%
138
45%
41
13%
115
26
23
15
35
11%
37
12%
4
2
17
3
30
32
1
0
30
10%
11
4%
3
0
5
4
9
13
4
3
37
12%
52
17%
0607
311
213
68%
98
32%
189
72
23
7%
142
46%
46
15%
114
25
28
21
54
17%
32
10%
3
1
19
4
31
26
1
1
17
5%
20
6%
2
0
3
3
10
15
2
2
0%
0708
322
218
68%
104
32%
188
78
23
7%
137
43%
47
15%
109
24
28
23
58
18%
41
13%
5
1
17
7
36
32
0
1
23
7%
16
5%
1
0
5
1
14
14
3
1
44
14%
41
13%
0809
320
216
68%
104
33%
184
76
28
9%
141
44%
47
15%
113
26
28
21
49
15%
37
12%
3
0
11
6
33
31
2
0
27
8%
19
6%
28
0
5
1
16
16
4
2
48
15%
50
16%
0910
326
215
66%
111
34%
187
81
32
10%
139
43%
51
16%
109
30
30
21
48
15%
41
13%
2
0
10
5
34
35
2
1
28
9%
19
6%
4
0
5
1
15
15
4
2
33
10%
36
11%
1011
319
211
66%
108
34%
181
82
32
10%
142
45%
54
17%
115
34
27
20
46
14%
37
12%
1
0
14
3
29
33
2
1
23
7%
17
5%
2
0
4
3
16
12
1
2
29
9%
40
13%
1112
312
202
65%
110
35%
178
81
31
10%
144
46%
54
17%
114
38
30
16
36
12%
39
13%
0
0
10
3
24
31
2
2
23
7%
13
4%
2
0
5
2
14
10
2
4
31
10%
41
13%
1213
302
197
65%
105
35%
171
80
30
10%
141
47%
57
19%
108
38
33
19
35
12%
35
12%
1
0
9
3
24
32
1
0
21
7%
13
4%
2
0
4
2
15
8
0
3
36
12%
56
19%
59%
58%
57%
60%
60%
61%
63%
63%
67%
63%
65%
65%
67%
71%
72%
28%
28%
29%
23%
23%
29%
36%
46%
47%
45%
45%
46%
50%
49%
54%
86%
86%
88%
89%
88%
88%
86%
87%
89%
86%
85%
87%
86%
88%
87%
58%
66%
69%
70%
70%
71%
71%
69%
73%
75%
73%
73%
76%
74%
76%
0%
8
Percentage of faculty of each gender that are
tenured
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Percent of male faculty that are tenured
12-13
11-12
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
05-06
04-05
03-04
02-03
01-02
00-01
99-00
98-99
0%
Percent of female faculty that are tenured
9