University of Wisconsin Colleges
Campus Climate Assessment
Aggregate Report Results
November 18, 2008
Assessing College Climate
Why Assess Climate?
What was the Process?
Why conduct a climate
assessment?
To foster a caring campus
community that provides
leadership for constructive
participation in a diverse,
multicultural world.
To open the doors wider for
underrepresented groups is to
create a welcoming
environment.
To improve the environment
for working and learning on
campus.
Project
Objectives
Provide UW Colleges with
information, analysis, and
recommendations as they relate to
campus climate.
This information will be used in
conjunction with other data to
provide UW Colleges with an
inclusive view of its campuses
and a System wide review.
Projected Outcomes
UW Colleges campuses will add to their knowledge
base with regard to how constituent groups
currently feel about their particular campus climate
and how the community responds to them (e.g.,
pedagogy, curricular issues, professional
development, inter-group/intra-group relations,
respect issues).
UW Colleges campuses will use the results of the
assessment to inform current/on-going work
regarding diversity.
Setting the Context
Examine the Research
 Review work already completed
Preparation
 Readiness of the institution
Assessment
 Examine the climate
Follow-up
 Building on the successes and addressing the challenges
Research on Climate In Higher
Education
Campus climate not only affects creating knowledge, but
also impacts members of academic community who, in turn,
contribute to creating campus environment (Hurtado, 2003;
Milem, Chang, & antonio, 2005).
Preserving climate that offers equal learning opportunities
for all students and academic freedom for all faculty – an
environment free from discrimination – is a primary
responsibility of educational institutions.
Value of Campus Climate on
Enhancing Learning Outcomes
Numerous studies and publications have confirmed the pedagogical
value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning
outcomes.
Selected research references include:




Frank W. Hale, Jr. (2004). What Makes Racial Diversity Work in Higher Education,
Diversity Digest, Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Harper, S.R., & Quaye, S.J. (2004). Taking seriously the evidence regarding the
effects of diversity on student learning in the college classroom: A call for faculty
accountability. UrbanEd, 2(2), 43-47.
Harper, S.R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and
implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services,
120, 7-24.
Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report
to the U.S. Department of Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher
and Postsecondary Education.
Transformational Tapestry Model©
Access
Retention
Assessment
Research
University
Policies/Service
Baseline
Organizational
Challenges
Scholarship
Current
Campus
Climate
Local / Sate /
Regional
Environments
Systems
Analysis
Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment
Advanced
Organizational
Challenges
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Consultant
Recommendations
External
Relations
Access
Retention
Symbolic
Actions
Research
University
Policies/Service
Educational
Actions
Transformation
via
Intervention
Administrative
Actions
Fiscal
Actions
Scholarship
Transformed
Campus
Climate
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Intergroup &
Intragroup
Relations
External
Relations
© 2001
University of Wisconsin
System Mission
The mission of the system is to develop human resources, to discover and
disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the
boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate society by developing in
students heightened intellectual, cultural and humane sensitivities, scientific,
professional and technological expertise and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this
broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public
service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to
every purpose of the system is the search for truth.
UW Colleges
Goal Statement
To serve the needs of ethnically diverse
students, students with disabilities and
nontraditional students.
Process to Date
2004-2005
Academic Planner (C. Saulnier) made aware of bias
incidents at several campuses & began conversation
regarding systemwide campus climate project
Taskforce committee formed to investigate
consulting firms who conduct climate assessments
in higher education.
Rankin & Associates identified as leading expert in
multiple identity studies in higher education
Process to Date
2005-2006
Conversations at System level continued
Proposal presentation made to UW System
provosts and various constituent groups in
Madison in September 2006
Process to Date
2006-2007
UWS Administrators form Climate Study Working Group
(CSWG)
 Conducted in-depth interviews with other higher
education institutions who had contracted with R&A
resulting in very positive reviews
 In collaboration with R&A identified potential factfinding groups and developed protocol
 Identified “next steps” in process
Process to Date
2006-2007
President Reilly pledges support for the project and agrees
to finance 75% of the costs
Five UW System institutions volunteer to participate in
climate assessment in the first year
Participating institutions Provosts’ Teleconference with
R&A to discuss process, Scope of the Work, Projected
Time-line, Proposed Budget
At the request of R&A, the Provosts were invited to add
additional members to the CSWG to ensure institutional
representation
Process to Date
Participating Institutions
University of Wisconsin Colleges
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Process to Date
2006-2007
Project Co-Chairs and Project Coordinator named



Vicki Washington (Co-Chair, CSWG)
Interim Assistant Vice President of the Office of Academic
Development and Diversity, UW System Administration
Ed Burgess (Co-Chair, CSWG)
Department of Dance, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lisa Beckstrand (Project Coordinator)
Academic Planner, Director of Inclusivity Initiative, Office of
Academic & Student Services, UW System Administration
Process to Date
Phase I
September 28-29, 2007



Convened fact-finding groups
Inclusive of faculty, staff, and students from various constituent
groups
Climate Study Working Group (CSWG), Status of Women,
Women’s Studies, Multicultural Coordinators, Chief Student Affairs
Officers, LGBTQ students, LGBTQ faculty/staff, Multicultural
Students, Academic Staff Representatives, Equity Scorecard,
Faculty/Staff of Color, Faculty Representatives, Women students,
CSSD/ADA, Students with Disabilities, Student Representatives,
International Students
Process to Date
Phase I
February 12, 2008
Information from the Fact Finding Groups Used By CSWG:
 To identify baseline System-wide and institutional
challenges
 To assist in developing survey questions
PHASE II
Assessment Tool
Development and Implementation
Process to Date
Phase II
August – December 2007
 Bi-monthly meetings with CSWG to develop the
survey instrument
January - February 2008
 Development of Communication Plan
 IRB Proposal development/approval at each
participating institution
 UW Colleges approval – February, 2008
Process to Date
Phase II and III
April 2008
 Survey administration
May-August 2008
 Data Analysis
Process to Date
Phase IV
October-November 2008
 Draft reports for each campus reviewed by CSWG team
members
November 2008
 Final aggregate report forwarded to CSWG representatives
and Interim Provost Lampe from UW Colleges and to UW
System
 Presentation of survey results to the campus community
Assessment Methods
Research Model
Survey Instrument
Limitations
Research vs. Assessment
 Assessment is any effort to gather, analyze, and
interpret evidence which describes institutional,
departmental, divisional, or agency effectiveness


Guides good practice
Has implications for a single institution, department, etc.
 Research is any effort to gather evidence which
guides theory by testing hypotheses


Guides theory and tests concepts
Has broader implications for student affairs/higher
education
--Upcraft & Schuh, 2002
Survey Instrument
Final instrument


91 questions and additional space for respondents to provide
commentary
On-line or paper & pencil options
Sample = Population

All members of the UW Colleges community were invited to
participate
Results include information regarding:




Respondents’ personal experiences at UW Colleges
Respondents’ perceptions of climate at UW Colleges
Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions
Respondents’ input into recommendations for change
Survey Assessment
Limitations
Self-selection bias
Response rates
Caution in generalizing results for
constituent groups with significantly lower
response rates
Method Limitation
Data were not reported for groups of
fewer than 10 individuals so as not to
compromise identity.
Instead, small groups were combined to
eliminate possibility of identifying
individuals.
Results
Response Rates
Who are the respondents?
 2,870 people responded to
the call to participate (24%
response rate overall).
 Several respondents
contributed remarks to the
open-ended questions.
Faculty Response Rates
Faculty = 54% (n = 320)*
Instructional Academic Staff (42%, n = 139)
Assistant Professor (68%, n = 74)
Associate Professor (68%, n = 63)
Professor (66%, n = 44)
Adjunct Professor (n = 15)
*Does not include adjunct professor due to missing data.
Staff Response Rates
Academic Staff = 56% (n = 206)
Classified Staff Non-Exempt (47%, n = 94)
Classified Staff Exempt (n = 39)
Limited Term Employee (24%, n = 32)
Non-Instructional Academic Staff (64%, n = 121)
Limited Academic Staff (11%, n = 5)
Administrator (>100%, n = 48)
Student Response Rates
Students (23%, n = 2137)
Associate Degree Student = 14% (n = 1144)
Bachelor Degree Student = >100% (n = 395)
Master Degree Student = >100% (n = 21)
Doctoral Degree Student = >100% (n = 6)
Other Students = (54%, n = 571)
[Transfer, Dual Enrollment, Non-degree, Professional degree]
Student Response Rates
Students (n = 2137)
Students of Color = 20% (n = 204)
White Students = 17% (n = 1881)
Women Students = 21% (n = 1415)
Men Students = 12% (n = 702)
Results
Demographic Characteristics
Undergraduate Student Respondents
by Year (n)
First year
947
2nd yr
851
3rd yr
4th yr
5th yr or more
186
46
Students
39
Student Residence
50% of student respondents lived with
parent(s), family, or relative(s)
26% student respondents lived in offcampus houses and apartments
Income by Student Status (n)
Undergraduate - Independent
464
Undergraduate - Dependent
350
324
183
202
104
95
48
37
8
Belo
w
$29K
$30K
- $59
,9
$60K
99
- $99
,9
$100
99
K-$1
4
9K
$150
K or
ab ov
e
Employee Respondents by
Position Status (n)
Adjunt professor
Instructional academic staff
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Professor
Limited term employee
Classified staff non-exempt
Classified staff exempt
Non-instructional academic staff
Limited academic staff
Administrator
Other
139
121
74
94
63
44
15
32
48
39
5
59
Collapsed Employee Status (n)
Faculty
Academic Staff
335
Classified Staff
206
133
Respondents by
Gender (n)
1387
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
694
28
Classified Staff
171
162 151
101
55
8
Female
There were 9 respondents who identified as transgender
Male
32
Respondents by Sexual Orientation
& UW Colleges Status (n)
Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
1939
303
190
Heterosexual
126
121
10
14
LGB
6
Respondents by Racial Identity
(Duplicated Total)
African
African American/Black
Alaskan Native
Asian
Asian American
Southeast Asian
Caribbean/West Indian
Caucasian/White
Indian subcontinent
Latino(a)/Hispanic
Middle Eastern
Native American Indian
Pacific Islander
Other
2625
9
42
2
49
56
21
1
7
55
8
33
6
40
Respondents by Racial Identity
(Unduplicated Total)
2549
252
People of Color
White People
Respondents by
Spiritual Affiliation (n)
Animist
Anabaptist
Agnostic
Atheist
Baha’i
Baptist
Buddhist
Eastern Orthodox
Episcopalian
Hindu
Islam
Jehovah’s Witness
Jewish
LDS (Mormon)
Lutheran
Mennonite
Methodist
Moravian
Nondenominational Christian
Pagan
Pentecostal
Presbyterian
Quaker
Roman Catholic
Seventh Day Adventist
Shamanist
Unitarian Universalist
United Church of Christ
Wiccan
Spiritual, but no religious affiliation
Other
n
4
1
146
97
2
72
24
12
23
1
15
5
18
15
492
2
113
1
248
21
32
53
5
611
5
23
26
52
15
231
105
%
0.1
0.0
5.2
3.4
0.1
2.6
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.5
17.5
0.1
4.0
0.0
8.8
0.7
1.1
1.9
0.2
21.7
0.2
0.8
0.9
1.8
0.5
8.2
3.7
Respondents by
Spiritual Affiliation (n)
1732
Christian
Other than Christian
No Affiliation
Other
826
159
105
Respondents with Conditions that Substantially
Affect a Major Life Activity (n)
Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
88
67
63
9
8
14
0
Physical Disability
1
0
Learning Disability
2
2
3
Psychological Condition
Citizenship Status by Position
Students
Employees
n
%
n
%
2050
96.3
639
95.4
US citizen – naturalized
30
1.4
19
2.8
Dual citizenship
*
*
0
0.0
Permanent resident (immigrant)
21
1.0
7
1.0
Permanent resident (refugee)
7
0.3
*
*
International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or
other visa)
15
0.7
*
*
US citizen
* Data is missing due to n < 5
Findings
Aggregate Findings
87% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate at UW Colleges.
83% of respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate in their
department/work unit.
86% of student/faculty respondents were “very
comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in
their classes.
Aggregate Findings
86% of respondents have not personally experienced any
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct
that has interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW
Colleges.
83% percent of UW Colleges faculty and staff respondents
were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW
Colleges.
83% of student respondents were “highly satisfied” or
“satisfied” with their education at UW Colleges.
Challenges and
Opportunities
Personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with one’s
ability to work or learn at UW Colleges
Yes
n
%
394
14.0
Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
31
Institutional Status (n=120)
Gender (n=117)
Age (n=110)
Educational Level (n=69)
Psychological Disability (n=43)
Religion/Spiritual Status (n=42)
Physical Disability (n=38)
Ethnicity (n=28)
Sexual Orientation (n=26)
30
28
18
11
11
10
7
7
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct and of that
Conduct the Percent Due to Gender Identity (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to gender²
36
15
16
13
Female
Male
(n=271)¹
(n=122)¹
(n=98)²
(n=19)²
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.
Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that
Conduct, the Percent Due to Institutional Status (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to status²
55
48
39
23
18
37
21
10
Students
Faculty
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
(n=213)¹
(n=77)¹
(n=44)¹
(n=49)¹
(n=38)²
(n=30)²
(n=21)²
(n=27)²
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.
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct and of that
Conduct the Percent Due to Race (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to race²
30
16
13
2
People of Color
White
(n=40)¹
(n=341)¹
(n=12)²
(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 believed they had personally experienced this conduct.
Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that
Conduct, the Percent Due to Sexual Orientation (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²
57
19
13
1
LGB respondents
Heterosexual respondents
(n=30)¹
(n=343)¹
(n=17)²
(n=4)²
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.
Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that
Conduct, the Percent Due to Disability (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to disability²
35
33
23
34
20
15
13
No disability
Physical Disability
Learning Disability
Psychological condition
(n=327)¹
(n=23)¹
(n=10)¹
(n=32)¹
(n=8)²
(n=2)²
(n=11)²
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.
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct
n
%
Deliberately ignored or excluded
175
44.4
Felt intimidated/bullied
142
36.0
Stares
83
21.1
Derogatory remarks
75
19.0
Isolated or left out when working in groups
68
17.3
Received a low performance evaluation
54
13.7
Derogatory written comments
39
9.9
Isolated or left out because of my identity
33
8.4
Feared for my physical safety
29
7.4
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct
n
%
Derogatory/unsolicited emails
27
6.9
Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity
19
4.8
Threats of physical violence
18
4.6
Derogatory phone calls
15
3.8
Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity
15
3.8
Feared for my family safety
12
3.0
Target of racial/ethnic profiling
8
2.0
Victim of a crime
8
2.0
Graffiti
7
1.8
Target of physical violence
6
1.5
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct by
Demographic Characteristics (Race)
White
Respondents
n = 341
Respondents
of Color
n = 44
n
%
n
%
Isolated or left out because of my identity
22
6.5
10
25.0
Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity
8
2.3
7
17.5
Target of racial/ethnic profiling
<5
<1.0
6
15.0
Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment
29
8.5
9
22.5
Singled out as “resident authority” because of my identity
12
3.5
6
15.0
Received a low performance evaluation
43
12.6
9
22.5
Isolated or left out when working in groups
66
16.4
9
22.5
Felt intimidated/bullied
126
37.0
9
22.5
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct by
Demographic Characteristics (Sexual Orientation)
Heterosexual
Respondents
n = 274
LGB
Respondents
n = 28
n
%
n
%
Stares
64
18.7
14
46.7
Derogatory remarks
57
16.6
13
43.3
Isolated or left out because of my identity
26
7.6
7
23.3
Derogatory written comments
41
12.0
7
23.3
Isolated or left out when working in groups
58
16.9
8
26.7
Target of physical violence
3
0.9
<5
10.0
Feared for my physical safety
22
6.4
<5
13.3
Received a low performance evaluation
45
13.1
6
20.0
Threats of physical violence
15
4.4
<5
10.0
Where Did The Perceived
Conduct Occur?
Of the respondents who believed they had been deliberately ignored or
excluded:
• 38 percent (n = 67) said it happened while working at a campus job
• 32 percent (n = 56) said it happened in a class
Of the respondents who indicated that they were intimidated or
bullied:
• 39 percent (n = 55) said it happened while working at a campus job
• 30 percent (n = 43) said it happened in a class
Where Did The Perceived
Conduct Occur?
Of the respondents who believed they saw someone staring at them:
• 63 percent (n = 52) said it happened in a class
• 49 percent (n = 41) said it happened while walking on campus
Source of Perceived Conduct by
Position Status (n)
85
Source = Undergraduate
Source = Faculty
Source = Administrator
Source = Staff
Source = Supervisor
54
24
18
14
14
20
17
16
11
9
5
12
2
0
Student Respondents
Faculty Respondents
9
8
4
16 17
Academic Staff
Respondents
Classified Staff
Respondents
What did you
1
do?
Personal responses:





Was angry (56%)
Felt embarrassed (39%)
Avoided the harasser (35%)
Told a friend (35%)
Ignored it (29%)
Reporting responses:





Made a complaint to a UW Colleges employee/official (22%)
Did not report the incident for fear of retaliation (14%)
Did not know who to go to (13% )
Did not report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously (10%)
Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously (11%)
1Respondents
could mark more than one response
Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault
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, or
offensive work or classroom environment.”
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.”
Respondents Who Believed They Have Personally
Been a Victim of Sexual Harassment by Primary
Status
Students
Employees
n
%
n
%
16
0.8
3
<1.0
Respondents Who Believed That They Had
Been The Victim of Sexual Assault
While Enrolled at UW Colleges
Yes
n
%
19
1.0
12 of the 19 victims were women
16 were students
Respondents Who Believed That They Had Been
The Victim of Sexual Assault
Where did it occur?
“Other” locations (n = 16)
Off-campus (n = 6)
On-campus (n = <5)
Who were the offenders against students?*
Friends (n = 5)
What did you do1?
Did nothing (26%)
Told a friend (21%)
1Respondents
could mark more than one response
Satisfaction with UW Colleges
Employees
Students
Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs at
UW Colleges
 83% (n = 563) percent of UW Colleges faculty and staff
were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW
Colleges.
 Some differences were found between demographic
categories:
 Women respondents were least satisfied.
 Classified staff were less satisfied than academic staff
and faculty.
Faculty and Staff Members’
Satisfaction with Their Jobs (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
86
85
75
18
7
Faculty
10
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
Employee Satisfaction with The Way Their
Careers have Progressed at UW Colleges
 74% (n = 362) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with
the way their careers have progressed at UW Colleges.
 Employees of Color were less satisfied than White
Employees
 Classified Staff were less satisfied than academic
staff or faculty
Employee Satisfaction With The Way Their
Careers Have Progressed
By Position Status (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
78
67
56
15
Faculty
21
11
Academic Staff
Classified Staff
Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their
Careers Have Progressed by Selected
Demographic Categories (%)
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
67
16
74
72
70
68
68
16
16
14
15
5
Women
Men
People of Color
White
LGB
Heterosexual
Employee Comments With Regard To The Way
Their Careers Have Progressed
Employees who were satisfied with their jobs and the way their careers
have progressed attributed their successes to the flexibility of their work
environments, and opportunity to develop and grow professionally. Others
indicated that they loved their jobs, had supportive departments and
supervisors, and found teaching their students rewarding and fulfilling.
Those who were disappointed said the lack of opportunities for
advancement was disappointing to them. Many indicated their
dissatisfaction with low salaries and lack of tenure-track and full-time
teaching positions.
Student Satisfaction With Their Education
at UW Colleges
 83% (n = 1755) of students were “highly satisfied”
or “satisfied” with their education at UW Colleges.

Little difference found between demographic categories
with the exception of:

LGB student respondents were less satisfied with their education
than their majority counterparts.
Student Satisfaction With Their Education
at UW Colleges
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
85
80
84
83
80
73
4
Women
6
Men
7
People of Color
8
4
White
LGB
4
Heterosexual
Student Satisfaction With Their Academic
Careers at UW Colleges
 68% (n = 1437) were “highly satisfied” or
“satisfied” with the way their academic careers
have progressed at UW Colleges.



Students of Color were less satisfied than White Students
Men students were less satisfied than women students
LGB students were less satisfied than heterosexual
students
Student Satisfaction With Their Academic Careers at
UW Colleges by Selected Demographics
Satisfied*
Dissatisfied**
71
69
63
10
Women
69
59
13
Men
57
16
People of Color
20
11
White
11
LGB
Heterosexual
Student Respondents’ Comments in Regard
to Satisfaction
Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have
progressed said they established positive relationships with their
professors, advisors and tutors, felt challenged by the course work which
was described as relevant and applicable to real world situations, and
their expectations matched their experiences.
Dissatisfied students described their professors, courses and campus as a
whole as not being up to standards, experienced difficulties scheduling
required courses, found the application process to a four-year college or
university challenging and unsuccessful, did not receive enough
financial aid, and felt disappointed with themselves for not doing better
in their classes.
Have You Seriously Considered Leaving
UW Colleges?
60 percent of faculty respondents
Faculty women (62%); Faculty men (57%)
White faculty (60%); Faculty of Color (56%)
60 percent of academic staff and 67 percent of
classified staff respondents
Staff women (60%); Staff men (68%)
White Staff (62%); Staff of Color (47%)
Have You Seriously Considered Leaving
UW Colleges?
34 percent of Student Respondents



Men (35%); Women (33%)
Students of Color (30%); White students (34%)
LGB (37%); Heterosexual (34%)
Perceptions
Perceived or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That
Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive and/or
Hostile Working or Learning Environment
Yes
%
n
18.0
516
Perceived Offensive, Hostile, Exclusionary, or
Intimidating Conduct by Race (%)
White People (n=446)
People of Color (n=50)
18
20
Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Exclusionary,
Intimidating Conduct by Gender (%)
Women (n=351)
Men (n=163)
19
17
Perceived Offensive, Hostile, Exclusionary, or
Intimidating Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)
LGB (n=46)
Heterosexual (n=450)
29
18
Perceived Exclusionary, Offensive, Hostile, or
Intimidating Conduct by Position Status (%)
Students (n=267)
Faculty (n=116)
Academic Staff (n=71)
Classified Staff (n=54)
41
35
13
35
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct
Derogatory remarks
Deliberately ignored or excluded
Stares
Intimidation/bullying
Someone isolated or left out because of their identity
Racial/ethnic profiling
Derogatory written comments
Graffiti
Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of
their identity
Someone isolated or left out when working in groups
Someone receiving a low performance evaluation
Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their
identity
n
172
165
140
118
115
98
62
61
%
33.3
32.0
27.1
22.9
22.3
19.0
12.0
11.8
61
61
11.8
11.8
60
11.6
53
10.3
Source of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct (%)





Undergraduate Students (42%)
Faculty (22%)
Administrators (13%)
Colleagues (12%)
Staff Members (11%)
Perceived Discriminatory
Practices
Perceived Discriminatory Hiring (16%)

Due to gender (23%)

Due to institutional status (20%)

Due to age (15%)
Perceived Discriminatory Firing (11%)
 Due to gender (18%)
 Due to advanced experience level of the candidate (10%)
 Due to age (10%)
Perceived Discriminatory Promotion (16%)
 Due to ethnicity (10%)

Due to institutional status (28%)

Due to educational level (17%)

Due to age (16%)

Due to gender (12%)
Work-Life Issues
The majority of respondents expressed positive
attitudes about work-life issues.
Work-Life Issues
73% (n = 496) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were
comfortable asking questions about performance expectations.
33% (n = 219) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that there are many
unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with
colleagues in their work units.
29% (n = 199) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were
reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect
their performance evaluation or tenure decision.
Work-Life Issues
69% ( n = 463) of employees “strongly agree/agree” that they are able to
balance their professional and work lives.
38% (n = 252) find that UW Colleges is supportive of family leave.
31% (n = 208) of faculty and staff members have to miss out on important things
in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities.
16% (n = 104) of respondents felt that employees who do not have children were
often burdened with work responsibilities.
14% (n = 87) “strongly agree/agree” that they have equitable access to domestic
partner benefits.
Work-Life Issues
71% (n = 476) of employee respondents believe that they have
colleagues or peers at UW Colleges who give them career advice or
guidance when they need it.
63% (n = 423) of employee respondents believe that they have support
from decision makers/colleagues who support their career advancement.
36% (n = 239) of employee respondents reported that their compensation
was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience.
Institutional Actions
More than half of the respondents "strongly agreed or
"agreed" that the CEO/Campus Dean, other deans, Human
Resources, Lecture and Fine Arts coordinators, club
advisors, student club presidents or leaders, Student
Government Association, Faculty/IAS (classroom
instructors), academic staff, and the Office of Continuing
Education provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion
of diverse members of the campus community.
Inclusive Curriculum
 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
“difference.”
 The exceptions included psychological disability,
learning disability, physical disability, and
veteran/military status.
Welcoming Classroom Climate
The majority of students found the classroom
climate to be welcoming of “difference.” When
reviewed by selected demographics, the data
revealed:
 Gender Differences
 Women Students (82%); Men Students (77%)
 Racial
Differences
 White Students (76%); Students of Color (60%)
 Sexual
Orientation Differences
 Heterosexual (67%); LGB (50%)
Welcoming Workplace Climate
 More than half of all employees found the workplace
climate to be welcoming of “difference.”
 Women, Respondents of Color, and sexual minority
respondents were less likely to believe the workplace
climate was welcoming for employees based on gender, race
and sexual orientation than their men, White, and
heterosexual counterparts.
Summary
Strengths and Successes
Challenges and Opportunities
Summary of Findings
Strengths
 High percentages of employees and students at UW Colleges were highly
satisfied or satisfied with the way their jobs/educations (over 80%) and
the way their careers/academic careers (over 60%) have progressed.
 Institutional support for faculty and staff towards professional
development is a major strength of the UW Colleges and an important
reason why many employees felt satisfied with their jobs and the way
their careers have progressed.
 Many faculty were very complimentary about the quality of their students,
and many student respondents described their faculty as professional,
knowledgeable, and skilled.
 Over 80% of respondents reported that they were comfortable or very
comfortable with the overall climate for diversity, climate in their
department or work unit, and climate in their classes.
Summary of Findings
Opportunities and Challenges
 Challenge 1: Perceived Institutional Classism
 Challenge 2: Perceived Homophobia and Heterosexism
 Challenge 3: Perceived Sexism
 Challenge 4: Perceived Racism
Perceived Institutional Classism
 Staff respondents perceived that they had less status and
therefore less privilege within the institution than other
employees.
 Staff members in general were more likely than faculty and
student respondents to experience harassment, and more
than one-quarter identified the basis for the harassment as
institutional status.
 Classified staff were less satisfied with their jobs and with
the way their careers have progressed than academic staff
and faculty.
Perceived Homophobia and
Heterosexism
 Higher percentages of LGB respondents believed they had experienced
harassment, and more than half indicated that the harassment was based on
their sexual orientation.
 Both LGB employees and students reported higher rates of having seriously
considered leaving their campuses than their heterosexual counterparts.
 Fewer LGB respondents than heterosexual respondents were comfortable
with the climate in their departments, work areas, and classroom settings.
 LGB student respondents were less satisfied with their educations and the
way their academic careers have progressed than other demographic groups.
 LGB employee respondents strongly agreed/agreed that the institution is
unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, co-parenting families, and
disagreed/strongly disagreed that they have equitable access to domestic
partner benefits.
Perceived Sexism
 Slightly more women reported experiencing harassment than their male
counterparts.
 Of the thirteen percent of women who reported experiencing harassment,
thirty-six percent indicated the harassment was based on their gender.
 Of the nineteen respondents who believed they were sexually assaulted,
16 were female.
 Of respondents who observed others being harassed, a slightly higher
percentage of women than men believed they had witnessed offensive,
hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct.
 Higher percentages of women than men observed discriminatory
employment practices for hiring, disciplinary actions, and promotion.
Perceived Racism
 Respondents of Color were more likely to believe they had experienced offensive,
hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct and on the basis of race.
 Slightly higher percentages of People of Color believed they had observed
harassment at the UW Colleges.
 Respondents of Color were less comfortable in their colleges, department or work
unit, and classes than their White counterparts.
 Only 58% of Employees of Color compared with 76% of all employee thought the
workplace climate was welcoming based on race.
 Employees of Color were not as comfortable asking questions about performance
expectations, felt that their colleagues had higher expectations of them, and felt
constantly under scrutiny by their colleagues.
 A success, however, is that lower percentages of Employees of Color and Students
of Color than their White counterparts have seriously considered leaving their
colleges.
Next Steps…
Process Forward
Fall/Spring 2008-2009
 Share report results with campus community
 Campus-based dialogue regarding the assessment results
 Campus-based feedback on recommended actions
 UW Colleges-wide aggregate and campus-specific Executive
Summaries available at:
http://www.uwc.edu/administration/academicaffairs/campusclimate/
 The UW Colleges Aggregate Report and individual campus-specific
reports will also be available in hard copy at each campus library.
 Recommend an “advance” (as opposed to a retreat)
to begin a call to action regarding the challenges
uncovered in the reports.
Tell Us What You Think…
Additional questions/comments on
results?
Thoughts on process?
Suggested actions?
Questions..?
Other Ideas..?
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