Minot State University
Campus Climate
Assessment
Results of Report
May 7, 2007
North Dakota University System
Campus Climate Assessment Project
1
Background
Commissioned by the Chancellor’s Office of
the NDUS System in 2005 to:
Evaluate the climate at each of the system’s
campuses
Present findings in a report to each campus
Present findings in an aggregate report
1all
work in collaboration with the NDUS Diversity Council
Climate In Higher Education
Climate on University campuses not only affects the
creation of knowledge, but also has a significant impact on
members of the academic community who, in turn,
contribute to the creation of the campus environment
Bensimon, E. (2005), Hurtado, 2003; Milem, J., Chang, M.,
& Antonio, A. (2005) 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 1999,
2003, 2006; Smith, 1999; Tierney, 1990).
Preserving a climate that offers equal learning opportunities
for all students and academic freedom for all faculty – an
environment free from discrimination – is one of the primary
responsibilities of educational institutions.
North Dakota University System
Commitment to Diversity
1999 Diversity Council established
Members appointed by respective campus
President
The Council serves to provide a collaborative
working relationship between all campuses to
improve cultural sensitivity regarding diversity
and human relations.
The Council also serves to provide proactive
guidance for the improvement of retention
rates and academic achievements of diverse
student populations (e.g., Tribal Relations
Report, 2005).
Institutional Transformation Model:
Maximizing Equity©
Access
Retention
Assessment
Research
University
Policies/Service
Scholarship
Baseline
Organizational
Challenges
Current
Campus
Climate
Local / Sate /
Regional
Environments
Systems
Analysis
Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
Advanced
Organizational
Challenges
Consultant
Recommendations
Access
Symbolic
Actions
Retention
Research
Transformation
Educational
via
Actions
Intervention
Administrative
Actions
© 2001
Fiscal
Actions
University
Polices/Service
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Scholarship
Transformed
Campus
Climate
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
Proposed Phases in
Transformational Process
Assessment
Strategic Planning
Implementation & Accountability
Process to Date
October 2005
 Presented proposal to NDUS Diversity Council
 Reviewed sample survey tool
November 2005-January 2006
 Survey developed, reviewed, and revised with continued
input from NDUS Diversity Council (6 drafts)
 Both on-line and paper/pencil forms created
 Campuses developed marketing/communication plan to
prepare campus constituents to participate in the survey
 System IRB approved
Process to Date
February 2005 - May 2006
 Survey made available to all members of each
campus community through an invitation from
the President
 MSU survey distributed February 13-March 3
July 10, 2006
 Meeting with NDUS Diversity Council
 Provide update on the progress of the project to
date
 Review process forward and next steps
Process to Date
August-December 2006
 Campus report drafts forwarded to respective campuses
 Final reports forwarded to respective campuses
December 2006
 Aggregate report draft forwarded to K. Nettell & R.
Schauer
January 2007
 Final aggregate report forwarded to all campuses
Survey Instrument
Final instrument


62 questions and additional space for respondents to provide
commentary
On-line survey
Sample = Population

All members of the MSU community were invited to participate
Results include information regarding:




Respondents’ personal experiences at MSU
Respondents’ perceptions of climate at MSU
Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions
Respondents’ input into recommendations for change
Who are the respondents?
654 people responded to the
call to participate
11% of respondents
contributed comments via
the open-ended questions
Limitations
Self-selection bias
Overall 22% response rate
Caution in generalizing the results due to
significantly low response rates for
undergraduate students
Faculty Response Rates
Faculty = 41% (n=75)
Instructor/Lecturer/Adjunct (n=21)
Assistant Professor (n=30)
Associate Professor (n=13)
Professor (n=11)
Staff Response Rates
Staff = 48% (n=99)
Classified staff (n=76)
Non-Classified Staff (n=12)
Academic Staff (n=11)
Administrator = 63% (n=12)
Student Response Rates
Undergraduate Students = 16% (n=400)
Graduate Students = 37% (n=41)
Post-Baccalaureate Student (n=10)
Masters/Doctoral Degree Candidates (n=31)
Respondents by
MSU Status (n)
Undergraduate Student
Graduate Student
Faculty
Staff
Administrator
Other
Declined to respond
400
75
99
41
12
11
7
Respondents by Gender &
MSU Position (n)
Women
324
Men
116
83
49
Students
25
Faculty
16
Staff
4
8
Admin
Respondents by Sexual Orientation
& MSU Status (n)
425
Heterosexual
LGBQ
93
67
14
Students
2
4
Faculty
Staff
12
0
Admin
Respondents by
Age and Position(n)
Students
120
Faculty
Staff
Administrator
95
74
72
49
29
19
0 0 0
0 00
19 or
under
20-21
0
22-24
19 20
7
3
2
0
20 24
22 20
5
5
0
25-32
33-42
43-51
52-60
5
7
1
4
0
61-69
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity
Duplicated Total (n)1
Caucasian/White (non-Hispanic)
Native American/American Indian
Latino(a)/Chicano(a)/Hispanic
African American
Black
Other
Asian
Asian American
African
Alaskan Native
Pacific Islander/Filipino
586
31
1Inclusive
12
26
6
4
of multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic
9
4
2
2
3
Native American/American Indian by
Tribal Affiliation (n)1
Tribal Affiliation
n
Assinoboine Sioux
1
Cheroke
3
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
1
Chippewa
3
Cree
1
Hidasta/Crow
1
Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Chippewa
1
Sissetion--Wahpeton--Oxate
1
Spirit Lake Tribe
1
Standing Rock Sioux
1
Three affiliated tribes
1
Turtle mountain Chippewa
5
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity
Unduplicated Total (n)
599
53
People of Color
White People
1
2
4
8
1
5
LD
th S
e
er
r
ic Met an
an
ho
Tr
d
ad ist
iti
on
al
Pe Pa
g
nt
an
Pr eco
st
es
by al
te
ria
n
Sp Ro
Q
m
iri
u
tu a n ak
er
a
C
U
a
ni l, n
ot t ho
ta
ria
li
a
n/ ffil c
i
U
ni ate
ve
d
rs
al
is
t
N Wic
o
c
A
ffi an
lia
tio
n
O
th
er
3
Lu
2
m
9
A
12
at
iv
e
9
N
A
th
ei
ss
s
A
em gn t
bl ost
y
i
of c
G
od
B
ap
tis
C
t
om
B
ah
m
un Bu a'I
ity dd
of his
t
C
E. hri
st
O
rt
ho
Ev
Ep do
an
is x
ge co
lic pa
l
al
Je
Fr
ho
ee
va
H
h'
in
s
W du
itn
es
Je s
w
is
h
A
Respondents by
Spiritual Affiliation (n)
192
163
28
27
1
9
36
6
1
11 14
1
40 40
4
8
Respondents1
by Time at MSU (n)
1 yr. or less
2-4 yrs.
5-10 yrs.
11-19 yrs.
20-29 yrs.
+ 30 yrs.
209
117
55
50
42
22 31
22
36 30
7
8
Students
1Employees
include all faculty and staff
Employees
Respondents with Conditions that Substantially
Affect a Major Life Activity (n)
Learning disability
Orthopedic
Visual
Hearing
Psychological
ADHD/ADD
Health related
TBI
Speech
Other
27
24
13
12 13
8
7
6
4
1
Students
10
9
8
3
3
4
3 2
0 0
Employees
Citizenship Status by Position
Students
Employees
n
%
n
%
U.S. citizen—born in the United
States
371
83.6
180
93.3
U.S. citizen—naturalized
11
2.5
3
1.6
Permanent resident (immigrant)
5
1.1
6
3.1
International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B,
or other visa)
57
12.8
4
2.1
Citizenship status
Income by MSU Student Status (n)
133
111
107
40
29
$19,
999
$20K
$40K
$70K
$100
K or
- $39
- $69
- $99
or b e
abo v
,999
,999
,999
low
e
Parental Education by
Undergraduate Student Status (n)
No Formal Education
No High School
High School
Some College
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Graduate Degree
Other Professional Degree
126
77
137
79
76
70
49
30
27
14
22
8
2
Parent/Guardian 1
27
11
3
Parent/Guardian 2
Students
Primary Location/Avenue
for Taking Courses
Location
n
%
365
83.9
Satellite Campus
2
0.5
Distance learning
33
7.6
Both Campus classes & Distance learning
35
8.0
Main Campus
Students’ Residence
Students’ Residences
n
%
Family housing
24
5.5
Residence hall/Apartment style housing
90
20.7
Off campus apartment/house
181
41.6
Off campus with partner/spouse/children
93
21.4
Off campus with parent(s)/family/relative(s)
39
9.0
Other
8
1.8
Attended Diversity Program at MSU in Past Year
Attended Program within Past Year
n
%
Residence hall diversity program1
55
61.1
Campus sponsored multicultural program
198
30.3
Academic unit sponsored diversity event
128
19.6
Other cultural events (e.g., Powwow, Black
History month event, Cultural speakers)
294
45.0
Other
19
2.9
I have not attended any multi-cultural/diversity
programs/events
234
35.8
Findings
Aggregate Findings
 80% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate at MSU.
 81% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate in their academic
department/program of study
 84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate in their classes/work
area/unit
Aggregate Findings
 83% of respondents have not personally experienced any
conduct that has interfered with their ability to work, learn, or
participate in any activity on campus.
 82% of respondents have not observed or personally been
made aware of any conduct that has created an offensive,
intimidating, of hostile working or learning environment
 67% of students feel that the classroom climate is welcoming
for people from underrepresented groups.
 61% of employees feel that the workplace climate is
welcoming for people from underrepresented groups.
Challenges and
Opportunities
Personally Experienced Offensive,
Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct at MSU
Experienced
n
%
Yes
106
16.2
No
545
83.3
Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
MSU Status (n=40)
Age (n=32)
Gender identity (n=26)
Educational level (n=25)
Other (n=23)
Political Views (n=21)
Religion (n=16)
Race (n=12)
Socioeconomic class (n=12)
38
30
25
24
22
20
15
11
11
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct
the Percent due to MSU Status
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to position²
78
43
20
28
19
13
0
Students
Faculty
(n=59)¹
(n=12)²
(n=21)¹
(n=9)²
0
Staff
Admin
(n=19)¹
(n=15)²
(n=0)¹
(n=0)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct
the Percent due to Race by Race
Percent experienced conduct¹
55
Experienced conduct due to
ethnicity²
21
16
5
People of Color
(n=11)¹
(n=6)²
White
(n=94)¹
(n=5)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct
the Percent due to Gender Identity by Gender
Percent experienced conduct¹
28
Experienced conduct due to
gender²
18
11
6
Women
(n=86)¹
(n=24)²
Men
(n=18)¹
(n=1)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due
to Sexual Orientation
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to
sexual orientation²
38
38
16
3
Heterosexual
(n=96)¹
(n=3)²
LGB and Uncertain
(n=8)¹
(n=3)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due
to Spiritual Affiliation
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to
religion²
25
23
14
NonChristian
(n=30)¹
(n=7)²
12
Christian
(n=68)¹
(n=8)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
Form of Offensive, Hostile,
or Intimidating Conduct
Form of Personal Experience
%
n
Felt intimidated/bullied
50.0
53
Deliberately ignored or excluded
34.0
36
Derogatory remarks
30.2
32
Felt bullied
30.2
32
Other
24.5
26
Isolated or left out when work was required in groups
16.0
17
Stares
16.0
17
Feared getting a poor grade due to hostile classroom environment
15.0
16
Feared for my physical safety
6.6
7
Source of Conduct by MSU Status (n)
Source = Student
Source = Faculty
Source = Staff
Source = Administrator
Source = Supervisor
46
63
52
38
37
37
24
16
16
9
3
5
Student Respondents
5
5
0
Faculty Respondents
Staff Respondents
Where did the
conduct occur?








While working at a University job (40%)
In a class (27%)
Meeting with a group (24%)
Meeting with one person (16%)
Walking on campus (19%)
Campus office (16%)
Public space on campus (15%)
Faculty office (15%)
What did you







1
do?
Felt embarrassed (43%)
Told a friend (43%)
Avoided the harasser (38%)
Ignored it (26%)
23% made a complaint to an MSU official
16% didn’t know who to go to
23% did not report the incident for fear of retaliation
1Respondents
could mark more than one response
Victim of Sexual Assault While at MSU?
Yes
n
%
10
1.5
All victims were women
6 were undergraduate students; 3 were employees
Victims of Sexual Assault
Where did it occur?
On-Campus (n=7)
Off-campus (n=3)
Who was the offender?
Professor (n=4)
Co-worker (n=3)
Acquaintance (n=2)
Victims of Sexual Assault
What did you do1?
Told a friend (n=6)
Told a family member (n=5)
Sought medical services (n=2)
Sought support from an MSU resource (n=3)
Sought support from a campus faculty member (n=3)
Sought information on-line (n=2)
Nothing (n=2)
1Respondents
could mark more than one response
Comfortable Being “Out”
on Campus (%)
LGBU (Total n=21)
Heterosexual (Total n=603)
People of Color (n=50)
White People (n=582)
43
42
36
28 28 27
29
24
19
14
14
16
14
10
8
2
Never
2
3 4 4
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often
Perceptions of Campus Climate
 80% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate at MSU.
 81% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate in their academic
department/program of study
 84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate in their classes/work
area/unit
Comfort with Overall Campus Climate
by Race (%)
People of Color
White
63
56
23
21
14
9
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Unsure
6
3
Uncomfortable
4
2
Very Uncomfortable
Comfort with Climate in Academic Dept/Program
or Administrative Dept by Race (%)
People of Color
White
68
52
32
16
14
9
2
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Unsure
5
Uncomfortable
0
2
Very
Uncomfortable
Observed Harassment
Observed
Yes
%
17.9
n
117
No
81.5
553
Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating
Conduct by Race/Ethnicity
26
17
White People (n=103)
People of Color (n=14)
Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating
Conduct by Gender
19
17
Female (n=82)
Male (n=33)
Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating
Conduct by MSU Status
Students (n=61)
Faculty (n=23)
Staff (n=25)
Administrators (n=2)
31
25
17
14
Form of Observed Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct (%)
Form of Observed Harassment
n
%
Deliberately ignored or excluded
53
45.3
Stares
46
39.3
Derogatory remarks
42
35.9
Target of racial/ethnic profiling
35
29.9
Intimidated/bullied
33
28.2
Receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment
25
21.4
Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their
identity
18
15.4
Isolated or left out when work was required in groups
18
15.4
Singled out as “resident authority” due to their identity
17
14.5
Source of Observed Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct (%)





Students (55%)
Faculty (35%)
Administrators (18%)
Staff (18%)
Department chair/program director (15%)
Perceived Discriminatory
Behavior or Employment Practices
Yes
n
47
%
24.1
Based on:
Position Status (40%, n=19)
Gender Identity (28%, n=13)
Educational Level (26%, n=12)
Age (26%, n=12)
MSU Addresses Issues
of Ethnicity by Race (%)
50
51
People of Color (n=52)
White (n=583)
27
25
17
14
8
4
2
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
2
Strongly
Disagree
MSU Addresses Issues of Gender Identity
by Gender (%)
Female (n=466)
48
Male (n=170)
40
34
28
12 4.0
25.0
6
Strongly agree
5
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
2
Strongly
Disagree
MSU Addresses Issues
of Sexual Orientation by Sexual Orientation (%)
LGBU (n=20)
45
32
Heterosexual (n=611)
15
30
20
10
13
7
Strongly agree
10
4
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
MSU Addresses Issues
of Employee Status by Position (%)
83
Students (n=438)
Faculty (n=74)
Staff (n=98)
Administrators (n=12)
49
40 41
40 35
25
9 10 9 8
8
9
12
15
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
2 3 2 0
Strongly
Disagree
President’s Office Visibly
Fosters Diversity (%)
83
Agree*
Disagree**
75
72
53
10
7
4
Students
Faculty
0
Staff
Administrator
President’s Office Visibly
Fosters Diversity by Race and Sexual Orientation (%)
Agree*
60
Disagree**
59
52
48
17
8
People of Color
White People
9
5
LGBU
Heterosexual
Dean of Students Office Visibly
Fosters Diversity (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
44
44
37
29
16
8
Student of Color
White Student
7
LGBU Student
9
Heterosexual Student
My Academic Dean/Unit Head
Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
58
55
48
50
47
40
39
16
8
of
Pe
rs
on
BU
5
LG
al
e
Fe
m
Co
lo
r
6
St
af
f
St
ud
en
t
es
po
nd
en
ts
R
Al
l
9
Fa
cu
lty
9
8
My Supervisor
Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
71
65
55
59
53
48
40
of
rs
on
5
LG
B
U
e
m
al
af
Pe
Fe
f
8
St
ty
cu
l
Fa
en
t
ud
St
nd
en
R
es
po
A
ll
6
C
ol
or
8
ts
8
16
10
Student Government Visibly
Fosters Diversity (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
51
49
52
50
40
35 33
29
21
12
St
e
m
al
Fe
M
al
e
St
ud
ud
e
en
t
nt
en
t
ud
St
ud
en
ua
l
er
os
ex
H
et
St
ud
en
t
of
St
ud
St
hi
te
W
t
C
ol
or
en
t
s
nt
ud
e
St
A
ll
12
11
10
LG
B
U
12
Course Content
Inclusive of Difference (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
72
64
61
55
8
Students
5
Faculty
9
People of Color
7
White People
Course Content
Inclusive of Difference (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
62
60
61
57
10
8
Female
5
Male
LGBU
7
Heterosexual
Employee Perceptions of Welcoming
Workplace Climate (%)
Agree*
Do Not Agree or Disagree
Disagree**
83
64
61
61
50
33
23
17
14
24
21
17
14
15
0
All Respondents
People of Color
White People
LGBU
Heterosexual
Student Perceptions of Welcoming
Classroom Climate (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
71
68
70
68
69
57
49
27
21
11
All Students
9
Students of
Color
White Students
12
10
7
Female
Male
LGBU
Heterosexual
Student Perceptions of Welcoming
Classroom Climate (%)
Agree*
Disagree**
71
68
70
68
69
57
49
27
21
11
All Students
9
Students of
Color
White Students
12
10
7
Female
Male
LGBU
Heterosexual
Workshops/Programs Would Positively
Affect Campus Climate
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Do not Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Age (52%)
86
13.1
253
38.7
240
36.7
40
6.1
3
0.5
Country of origin (58%)
102
15.6
278
42.5
204
31.2
33
5.0
3
0.5
Ethnicity (65%)
123
18.8
300
45.9
170
26.0
26
4.0
3
0.5
Race (63%)
116
17.7
297
45.4
177
27.1
22
3.4
4
0.6
English as a second language status (57%)
98
15.0
275
42.0
210
32.1
30
4.6
6
0.9
Psychological disability status (58%)
86
13.1
296
45.3
218
33.3
18
2.8
2
0.3
Learning disability status (61%)
95
14.5
306
46.8
202
30.9
20
3.1
2
0.3
Physical disability status (61%)
96
14.7
305
46.6
197
30.1
23
3.5
2
0.3
Physical characteristics (51%)
71
10.9
259
39.6
249
38.1
36
5.5
6
0.9
Sexual orientation (54%)
95
14.5
260
39.8
219
33.5
35
5.4
14
2.1
Gender identity (53%)
91
13.9
254
38.8
226
34.6
36
5.5
13
2.0
Gender expression (51%)
92
14.1
240
36.7
232
35.5
41
6.3
15
2.3
Religion (52%)
89
13.6
250
38.2
239
36.5
35
5.4
8
1.2
Socioeconomic class (53%)
85
13.0
262
40.1
242
37.0
27
4.1
5
0.8
Veterans/Active military (51%)
79
12.1
252
38.5
246
37.6
33
5.0
9
1.4
Questions..?
Other Ideas..?
Next Steps…
Transformational Change
A change in the institution’s:
 Shape – how the institution
looks which allows it to
function effectively in the
dynamic world in which it
operates.
 Structure – the basic parts of
the institution that are
responsible for its character.
 Nature – values, beliefs ,
reward systems, ownership,
patterns, etc.
Institutional Prerequisites
for Change
1
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Commitment of top leaders
Written description of the changed institution
Conditions that foster positive change
Likelihood of a critical mass of support
Awareness of resistance and the need to honor it
1Adpated
from Beckhard (1992)
Institutional Prerequisites
for Change
6) A medium to long range perspective
7) Awareness of the need for education
8) The conviction that the change must be
undertaken
9) Willingness to use resources
10) Commitment to maintaining the flow of
information
NDUS Diversity Council Retreat
April 20-21, 2007
Objectives
Review Vision NDUS Diversity Council Vision
Develop NDUS Diversity Council Goals for
System
Create 1-2 actions per goal that cross campuses
Create additional actions for each campus to best
address their respective challenges and contexts
Vision
Vision without action is a daydream and
action without vision is a nightmare.
-- Japanese proverb
Vision 2007
A Community of Difference where, through
education & awareness, all are accepted,
respected, & celebrated.
Development of Strategic Plan
Areas for consideration




Access/Retention
Research/Scholarship
Curriculum/Pedagogy
Inter-group/Intra-group
Relations
 University
Policies/Service
 External Relations
Access
Retention
Research
University
Polices/Service
Scholarship
Transformed
Campus Climate
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
Access
Development of Strategic Plan
Action areas
Retention
Research
University
Polices/Service
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Scholarship
Transformed
Campus
Climate
 Symbolic actions
 Fiscal actions
 Administrative actions
 Educational actions
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
Symbolic
Actions
Educational
Actions
Transformation
via
Intervention
Administrative
Actions
Fiscal
Actions
What thoughts do you have?
Additional
questions/comments
on results?
Thoughts on process?
Suggested actions?
Contact Dr. Rankin at sue@rankin-consulting.com
Last Thoughts
“Resistance begins with people confronting
pain, whether it’s theirs or somebody else’s,
and wanting to do something to change it”
--- bell hooks,“Yearning”