1. Fashion Institute of Technology Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report April 22-23, 2013 1

2. Campuses as Social Systems Harper & Hurtado, 2009; Smith, 2010 Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni Institutional Policies Structural Framework Institutional History/Core Values Vision/MissionSocial Contexts 2

3. Climate In Higher Education Climate (Living, Working, Learning) Creation and Distribution of Knowledge Community Members Barcelo, 2004; Bauer, 1998, Kuh & Whitt, 1998; Hurtado, 1998, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Milhem, 2005; Peterson, 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Smith, 2009; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008 3

4. Assessing Campus Climate Rankin & Reason, 2008 What is it? Campus Climate is a construct Definition? Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and students of an institution How is it measured? Personal Experiences Perceptions Institutional Efforts 4

5. Campus Climate & Students How students experience their campus environment influences both learning and developmental outcomes. 1 Discriminatory environments have a negative effect on student learning. 2 Research supports the pedagogical value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning outcomes. 3 1 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005 2 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991. 3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2009; Hurtado, 2003. 5

6. Campus Climate & Faculty/Staff The personal and professional development of employees including faculty members, administrators, and staff members are impacted by campus climate. 1 Faculty members who judge their campus climate more positively are more likely to feel personally supported and perceive their work unit as more supportive. 2 Research underscores the relationships between (1) workplace discrimination and negative job/career attitudes and (2) workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health/well-being.. 3 1 Settles, Cortina, Malley, and Stewart, 2006 2 Sears, 2002 3 Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Costello, 2012 6

7. Projected Outcomes FIT 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). FIT will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work. 7

8. Examine the Research Review work already completedPreparation Readiness of each campusAssessment Examine the climateFollow-up Building on the successes and addressing the challenges Setting the Context for Beginning the Work 8

9. Current Campus Climate Access Retention Research Scholarship Curriculum Pedagogy University Policies/Service Intergroup & Intragroup Relations Transformational Tapestry Model © Baseline Organizational Challenges Systems Analysis Local / Sate / Regional Environments Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment Advanced Organizational Challenges Consultant Recommendations Assessment Transformation via Intervention Fiscal Actions Symbolic Actions Administrative Actions Educational Actions Transformed Campus Climate Access Retention Research Scholarship Curriculum Pedagogy University Policies/Service Intergroup & Intragroup Relations © 2001 External Relations External Relations 9

10. Overview of the Project Assessment Tool Development and Implementation Phase I Data Analysis Phase II Final Report and Presentation Phase III 10

11. Process to Date Phase I Fall 2012 – Fall 2013 Meetings with FIT’s Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) to develop the survey instrument. The CSWG reviewed multiple drafts of the survey and approved the final survey instrument. The final survey was distributed to the entire population of students and employees via an invitation to participate from Dr. Brown in fall 2012. 11

12. Instrument/Sample Final instrument 103 questions and additional space for respondents to provide commentary On-line or paper & pencil options Sample = Population All students and employees of FIT’s community received an invitation to participate from Dr. Brown and members of the CSGW forwarded subsequent invitations. 12

13. Survey Limitations Self-selection biasResponse ratesSocial desirability Caution in generalizing results for constituent groups with significantly lower response rates 13

14. Method Limitation Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 5 individuals where identity could be compromised. Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility of identifying individuals. 14

15. Process to Date Phase II January- February 2013 Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted 15

16. Process to Date Phase III March – April 2013 Report Draft reviewed by FIT’s CSGW Presentation of survey results to the campus community. 16

17. Results Response Rates 17

18. Who are the respondents? 2,046 people responded to the call to participate (16.5% overall response rate) 1058 different respondents contributed remarks to one or more of the open-ended questions 18

19. Response Rates by Position 15% Students ( n = 1497) 49% Staff (n = 312) 14% Faculty (n = 238) 19

20. Student Response Rates 16% Undergraduate Student - Day 17% Undergraduate Student – Evening/Weekend 4% Non-Degree Student 15% Graduate Student 86% Certificate Student 20

21. Faculty Response Rates 42% Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty 57% Non-Classroom Faculty 7% Adjunct 21

22. Staff Response Rates 46% Staff 29% Classroom Assistants >100% Administrators 22

23. Results Additional Demographic Characteristics 23

24. Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (n) (Duplicated Total) 24

25. Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (n) (Unduplicated Total) 25

26. Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (n) 4 respondents identified as transgender, but given the small “n” are not included in subsequent gender analyses 26

27. Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n) 27

28. Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect Major Life Activities n% No disability 171183.5 ADD/ADHD 914.4 Asperger’s/ High Functioning Autism 20.1 Chronic Illness 261.3 Emotional/Psychological 854.2 Hearing 130.6 Learning disabled 331.6 Medical/health 452.2 Physical/mobility ambulatory 90.4 Physical/mobility non-ambulatory 30.1 Visual 170.8 Other 150.7 28

29. Employee Respondents by Position (n) 29

30. Collapsed Employee Position (n) 30

31. Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation 31

32. Citizenship Status by Position n% U.S. citizen 164080.1 U.S. citizen – naturalized 824.0 Dual citizenship 391.9 Permanent resident (immigrant) 924.5 Permanent resident (refugee) 20.1 International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, A, L, or G visas) 1738.4 Undocumented resident 100.5 32

33. Employee Respondents by Age (n) 33

34. Students by Class Standing (n) 34

35. Students’ Family Income by Dependency Status (n) 35

36. Students’ Primary Methods for Paying for FIT 36 n% Family contribution 76151.1 Loans (private and federal) 70547.4 Pell grant 37825.4 Personal contribution/job 33322.4 Credit card 28118.9 Academic scholarship 19813.3 Need based grant 16511.1 Other 825.5 Employer sponsored support 110.7 Tuition remission through FIT employee 110.7

37. Manners in Which Students Experienced Financial Hardship n% Difficulty purchasing my books/equipment/supplies 62279.2 Difficulty affording tuition 53468.0 Difficulty in affording transportation costs 41152.4 Difficulty in affording housing 38849.4 Difficulty affording fees 38549.0 Difficulty participating in co-curricular events or activities (alternative spring breaks, class trips, etc.) 24030.6 Difficulty traveling home during college breaks 22428.5 Difficulty in affording health insurance 16921.5 Difficulty affording FIT meal plan/food 14418.3 Other 486.1 37

38. Student Respondents by Age (n) 38

39. Students’ Residence Residence n% On campus residence halls51834.8 Off campus Commuter96664.9 Living independently or with roommates in apartment/house 48049.7 Living with family member/guardian41242.7 Missing747.7 39

40. Time Students Expect to Spend at FIT to Complete Degrees (n) 40

41. Student Time Spent on Experiential Learning (n) 41

42. Findings 42

43. “Comfortable”/ “Very Comfortable” with: Classroom Climate for Faculty (78%) Classroom Climate for Students (82%) Department/Work Unit Climate (77%) Overall Campus Climate (81%) 43

44. Comfort With Overall Climate and Department/Work Unit No differences in comfort for overall campus climate and department/work unit by race, gender, sexual identity, or religious/spiritual status When examining disability status, people with disabilities were less comfortable than people without disabilities When examining the data by position, administrators were more comfortable than faculty and staff 44

45. More than 80% of all students were comfortable with their classroom climate There were no differences in comfort by sexual identity or low- income status When examining differences by racial identity, Students of Color were less comfortable than White students When examining differences by gender identity, women students were less comfortable than men students Comfort with Class Climate for Students 45

46. More than 85% of all faculty members were comfortable with their classroom climate There were no differences in comfort by gender or race When examining differences by sexual identity, LGBQ faculty were less comfortable than heterosexual faculty 46 Least Comfortable with Classroom Climate for Faculty

47. Employees’ Overall Satisfaction “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs/careers 68% “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their jobs/careers have progressed 57% “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their opportunities for job/career development 48% 47

48. Employee Overall Satisfaction By Tenure status: Non-Tenured/Non- Tenure Track Faculty less satisfied than Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty By Overall Position: Staff and Non- Tenured/Non- Tenure Track Faculty less satisfied than Administrators 48

49. Employee Satisfaction with Jobs/Careers by Position Status (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category. Note: The category of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is not included in the graph 49

50. Employee Satisfaction with Jobs/Careers by Selected Demographics (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category. Note: The category of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is not included in the graph 50

51. Employee Satisfaction with Job/Career Progression by Position Status (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category. Note: The category of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is not included in the graph 51

52. Employee Satisfaction with Job/Career Progression by Selected Demographics (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category. Note: The category of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is not included in the graph 52

53. * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category. Employee Satisfaction with Job/Career Development Opportunities by Position Status (%) Note: The category of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is not included in the graph 53

54. Employee Satisfaction with Job/Career Development Opportunities by Selected Demographics (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category. Note: The category of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is not included in the graph 54

55. Challenges and Opportunities 55

56. Experiences with Harassment 304 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (harassing behavior) at FIT. 15% 56

57. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct n% Deliberately ignored or excluded15049.3 Intimidated/bullied12039.5 Isolated or left out11337.2 Isolated or left out when work was required in groups6521.4 Target of derogatory verbal remarks5016.4 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 304). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 57

58. Personally Experienced Based on…(%) 58

59. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to University Status (%) 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. (n=174)¹ (n=26)² (n=35)¹ (n=12)² (n=4)¹ (n=0)² (n=48)¹ (n=22)² (n=18)¹ (n=7)² (n=25)¹ (n=10)² 59

60. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Gender Identity (%) 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. (n=81)¹ (n=10)² (n=214)¹ (n=30)² 60

61. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Racial Identity (%) 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. (n=145)¹ (n=44)² (n=122)¹ (n=5)² 61

62. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Sexual Identity (%) 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. (n=49)¹ (n=19)² (n=203)¹ (n=6)² 62

63. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Disability Status (%) 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. (n=209)¹ (n=77)¹ 63

64. Location of Perceived Harassment Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 304). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. n% In a classroom setting10634.9 In a campus office6521.4 In a public space on campus5116.8 In a meeting with a group of people5016.4 64

65. Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (n) 65

66. What did you do? 1 Personal responses:  Was angry (42%)  Felt embarrassed (36%)  Did nothing (36%)  Told a friend (35%) Reporting responses:  Didn’t report it for fear their complaints would not be taken seriously (12%)  Didn’t know who to go to (10%)  Did report it but didn’t feel the complaint was taken seriously (9%)  Made complaints to campus officials (5%) 1 Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 304). Respondents could mark more than one response 66

67. Unwanted Sexual Contact at FIT 21 respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact at FIT More than half of respondents said it happened off-campus 67

68. Gender Women (15)Men (5) Race People of Color (11) White People (8) Position Students (14)Employees (7) Respondents Who Experienced Unwanted Sexual Contact By Select Demographics 68

69. Sexual Orientation LGBQ (5) Heterosexual (13) Disability Status With Disability (9) Without Disabilities (10) Respondents Who Experienced Unwanted Sexual Contact By Select Demographics 69

70. Respondents Who Believed They Experienced Unwanted Sexual Contact Who were the offenders? Strangers (n = 7) What did you do 1 ? Was angry (n = 10) Felt somehow responsible (n = 9) Felt embarrassed (n= 7) Avoided the person (n = 6) Told a friend (n = 6) 1 Respondents could mark more than one response 70

71. Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving FIT 20% (n = 112) Non-Bargaining Staff (27%) Administrators (24%) Bargaining Staff/Classroom Assistants (21%) Non-Tenured/Non-Tenured Track Faculty (18%) Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty (17%) 71

72. Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving FIT Women (19%) Men (23%) Gender Identity Employees of Color (28%) White Employees (15%) Racial Identity LGBQ (33%) Heterosexual (17%) Sexual Identity 72

73. When employees considered leaving… Many faculty and staff who seriously considered leaving did so during various times of their employment. Examples for faculty included “in the past year,” “several years ago,” “during my first year as an instructor,” at several points,” “after being treated unfairly,” and “during my first year full time as un-tenured professor.” Examples for staff included “a couple of years after starting here,” “after I was unfairly treated,” “during my first year,” “every day,” “multiple times,” and “within the past 6 months.” 73

74. Why employees considered leaving and why they stayed… Employees who considered leaving did so because of age discrimination; new supervisors; an uncomfortable, stressful or hostile working environment; inequities in one’s work unit; lack of promotion opportunities or acknowledgment of contributions to the department; and, “culture of entitlement.” Employees stayed because of the time they already put into the institution; difficulty in finding another job; the vacation offered; benefits; they liked their departments and the students with whom they work; and, they loved their profession. 74

75. Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving FIT 14% (n = 201) During First Year (70%) During Second Year (36%) During Third Year (14%) During Fourth Year (6%) 75

76. Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving FIT Women (13%) Men (14%) Gender Students of Color (13%) White Students (15%) Race LGBQ (16%) Heterosexual (13%) Sexual Orientation 76

77. Why students considered leaving…  Some respondents offered that they felt ostracized because of their identity(ies); they experienced unfriendly students who are exclusive or “cliquey,” staff who are not helpful, and, “little campus enthusiasm” since everyone seems to be doing their own thing.  Others also described a racist campus; “general social discomfort;” personal psychological and medical struggles; physical disability; difficult time adjusting; hostile climate; political views; unfriendly environment for international students; and, level of high difficulty in one’s major as reasons for wanting to leave. 77

78. Why students stayed…  Networking opportunities;  The FIT education and reputation are strong;  They were already enrolled and didn’t want to fall behind or disappoint family members;  FIT had the program that they wanted;  The proximity to the center of NYC;  Friends and good faculty members and courses;  Once they became more involved in campus they felt more comfortable. 78

79. Perceptions 79

80. Respondents who observed conduct or communications directed towards a person/group of people that created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive working or learning environment… In the last year… %n 18.0355 80

81. Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct n% Derogatory verbal remarks 13939.2 Deliberately ignored or excluded 12434.9 Isolated or left out 10128.5 Intimidated/bullied 9025.4 Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 7120.0 Racial/ethnic profiling 6618.6 Singled out to represent their “point of view” of their identity 6618.6 Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 6217.5 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 355). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 81

82. Observed Harassment Based on…(%) 82

83. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Select Demographics (%) 83

84. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%) 84

85. Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%) Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 355). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. Student (43%) Faculty Member (24%) Administrator (18%) Staff Member (14%) Source 85

86. Location of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 355). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. In a campus office 18%n = 65 In a public space on campus 21%n = 73 In a classroom 34%n = 120 86

87. Hiring Practices 22% n=115 Employment- Related Disciplinary Actions 13% n=66 Employment Practices Related to Promotion 24% n=127 Perceived Discrimination Employees 87

88. Perceived Discrimination Position and ethnicity were cited as the most common bases for all observed discriminatory employment practices. 88

89. Work-Life Issues The majority of employee respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues. 89

90. Work-Life Issues – All Employees Successes 74% of employee respondents were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations. FIT understands the value of a diverse faculty (64%) and diverse staff (65%). Few employees felt that staff (11%) and faculty (6%) who have children were considered less committed to their jobs/careers. Few felt that staff (13%) and faculty (9%) who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities. 7% of faculty and staff found it difficult to balance childcare with their work responsibilities; 9% found it difficult to balance eldercare. 90

91. Work-Life Issues – All Employees Successes The majority of employees believed that they had supervisors (52%) who gave them job/career advice or guidance when they need it. 52% felt they had support from supervisors regarding their job/career advancement. Most have the equipment and supplies (65%) they needed to adequately perform their work. Few respondents felt under scrutiny by their colleagues due to their identities (8%). 91

92. Work-Life Issues – All Employees Challenges 32% thought there were many unwritten rules concerning how one was expected to interact with colleagues in their work units. 23% were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear that it will affect their performance evaluation. 21% believed their colleagues/co-workers had higher expectations of them as other colleagues/co-workers. 17% believed their colleagues expected them to represent the “point of view” of their identities. 92

93. Work-Life Issues – All Employees Challenges Less than one-quarter of employees felt they had to work harder than they believed their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate (21%) or to achieve the same recognition (25%). 33% of employees thought there were many unwritten rules concerning how one was expected to interact with colleagues in their work units. Less than half of employees felt salary determinations were fair (41%) and clear (49%). 12% felt their colleagues/co-workers treat them with less respect than other faculty/staff. 93

94. Tenure/Teaching Issues - FACULTY Successes & Challenges Half of faculty respondents (47%) felt their teaching expectations, professional development, and contributions to the college were similar to those of their colleagues. More than half of all faculty respondents felt the reappointment process (62%), tenure processes (54%), and CCE process (57%) were clear. 22% of faculty felt burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of their colleagues. 23% felt pressured to change their teaching methods to achieve tenure or be promoted. 94

95. Welcoming Workplace Climate More than half of all employees thought the workplace climate was welcoming for all characteristics listed Respondents of Color and LGBQ respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender, race, and sexual identity. 95

96. Welcoming Classroom Climate More than half of all student/faculty respondents felt that the classroom climate was welcoming for students based on “difference” across all dimensions Students of Color less comfortable than White students→ RACE Students who identified with other than Christian less likely than Christian students → RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL VIEWS Students from low income less likely than not low income → SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS 96

97. Student Perceptions of Campus Climate 66% of students believed the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. 34% of all students felt faculty pre-judge their abilities based on their identities/backgrounds 69% of all students knew faculty who they perceive as role models. Students thought that FIT faculty (64%), staff (52%), and administrators (50%) were genuinely concerned with their welfare. Students felt valued by faculty (72%) and other students (62%) in the classroom. 97

98. Institutional Actions 98

99. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate - Employees The majority of employees thought the following would positively affect the climate: Access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment Mentorship for new faculty and staff Clear and fair process to resolve conflicts 99

100. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate - Employees A smaller number of employees thought the following would positively affect the climate: Including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty Providing more flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure (e.g., family leave) 100

101. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate - Students The majority of students thought the following would positively affect the climate: Person to address student complaints of classroom inequity Opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue among students, and between faculty, staff, and students More effective faculty mentorship of students 101

102. Summary Strengths and Successes Opportunities for Improvement 102

103. Context Interpreting the Summary Although colleges and universities attempt to foster welcoming and inclusive environments, they are not immune to negative societal attitudes and discriminatory behaviors. As a microcosm of the larger social environment, college and university campuses reflect the pervasive prejudices of society. Classism, Racism, Sexism, Genderism, Heterosexism, etc. (Eliason, 1996; Hall & Sandler, 1984; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Malaney, Williams, & Gellar, 1997; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Smith, 2009; Worthington, Navarro, Loewy & Hart, 2008) 103

104. Overall Strengths & Successes Students thought very positively about their academic experiences at FIT. 68% of employee respondents were satisfied with their jobs/careers at FIT. 82% of students and 78% of faculty were comfortable with the classroom climate. 81% comfortable with the overall climate, and 77% with dept/work unit climate. 104

105. Overall Opportunities for Improvement 18% (n = 355) believed that they had observed conduct on campus that created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or or hostile (harassing) working or learning environment within the past year. 15% (n = 304) had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., stigmatized, shunned, ignored) intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct within the past year. 105

106. Strengths & Successes Students A majority felt valued by faculty and other students in the classroom. A majority felt that employees and administrators were genuinely concerned with their welfare. Employees The majority of employees felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and 7 other demographics characteristics. 106

107. Opportunities for Improvement Inequalities Due to FIT Position Administrators reported they were more comfortable with the overall climate and the climate in their departments than other employee groups. Non-bargaining staff respondents (32%) personally experienced harassment at higher rates than other employee groups, followed by tenured/tenure-track faculty (26%) and bargaining staff/classroom assistants (24%). Non-bargaining staff (36%) and tenured-tenure-track faculty (32%) observed more harassment. FIT position was indicated as the primary basis for both experienced and observed harassment at FIT. 107

108. Opportunities for Improvement Inequalities Due to FIT Position FIT position status was cited as the primary basis for observed discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions and discriminatory practices related to promotion. Administrators were most satisfied with their jobs/careers; how their jobs/careers have progressed; their opportunities for job/career development; and their compensation than other employee groups. Tenure/tenure-track faculty members were more satisfied with their jobs/careers; how their jobs/careers have progressed; their opportunities for job/career development; and their compensation than their non-tenured counterparts. 108

109. Opportunities for Improvement Racial Tension Respondents of Color who experienced harassment were much more likely to indicate race as the basis than White People (30% versus 4%, respectively). Ethnicity was cited as the secondary basis for both experienced harassment and observed harassment. Race was also mentioned often as a basis for observed harassment. Employees of Color (39%) were less likely to agree that their workplace climate was welcoming based on race than White employees (64%). Employees of Color (28%) were almost twice as likely as White employees (15%) to have seriously considered leaving FIT. 109

110. Opportunities for Improvement Racial Tension Employees of Color were also more likely than White Employees to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices; discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions; and discriminatory practices related to promotion at FIT. Race and ethnicity were cited among the top three bases for all types of discriminatory employment practices. Employees of Color were less satisfied with their jobs/careers; how their jobs/careers have progressed; and their opportunities with job/career development than their White employee counterparts. 110

111. Opportunities for Improvement LGBQ Issues and Concerns 21% of LGBQ respondents compared with 13% of heterosexual respondents experienced harassment. Of those respondents, 39% of LGBQ respondents versus 3% of heterosexual respondents said it was based on sexual orientation. A higher percentage of LGBQ respondents (24%) believed they had observed harassment compared with heterosexual respondents (17%). LGBQ respondents were also twice as likely as heterosexual respondents to experience unwanted sexual contact. 111

112. Opportunities for Improvement LGBQ Issues and Concerns LGBQ faculty members were less comfortable than heterosexual faculty members with the campus climate. LGBQ employees were less likely to agree that the workplace climate is welcoming based on sexual orientation than their heterosexual counterparts. 33% of LGBQ employees and 17% of heterosexual respondents have seriously thought of leaving the institution. 112

113. Next Steps 113

114. Process Forward Sharing the Report with the Community Spring 2013 Full Report and Power Point will be available on FIT website Full Report hard copies will also be available 114

115. Process Forward - Fall 2013 Following FIT Strategic Plan Approval Diversity Council will sponsor a series of forums facilitated by 1-2 committee members Purpose: To develop 2-3 actions that can be accomplished in the next year. 115

116. Questions and Discussion 116