1. University of Wisconsin-Superior Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report October 14, 2011

2. Campuses as Social Systems Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998 Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni Institutional Policies Structural Framework Institutional History/Core Values Vision/MissionSocial Contexts

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; Smith, 1999; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008

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

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, 2007; Hurtado, 2003.

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 and career attitudes and (2) workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health and well-being.. 3 1 Settles, Cortina, Malley, and Stewart (2006) 2 Sears, 2002 3 Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Waldo, 1999

7. Why conduct a climate assessment? To foster a caring University 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.

8. Project Objectives Provide UW-Superior with information, analysis, and recommendations as they relate to campus climate. This information will be used in conjunction with other data to provide UW-Superior with an inclusive view of campus.

9. Projected Outcomes UW-Superior 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-Superior will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work.

10. Setting the Context Examine the Research Review work already completed Preparation Readiness of the campus Assessment Examine the climate Follow-up Building on the successes and addressing the challenges

11. 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

12. 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.

13. Core Mission of the University Cluster …“Serve the needs of women, minority, disadvantaged, disabled, and nontraditional students and seek racial and ethnic diversification of the student body and the professional faculty and staff.”

14. UW-Superior Mission Statement The University of Wisconsin-Superior fosters intellectual growth and career preparation within a liberal arts tradition that emphasizes individual attention and embodies respect for diverse cultures and multiple voices. We value intellectual growth, honesty, individual attention, professionalism, and respect for others and the diversity of peoples and cultures.

15. History of the Project 2004-2005  In 2005, academic planner was made aware of bias incidents at several campuses.  A taskforce committee of the UW System Inclusivity Initiative was formed to search for consulting firms that conduct climate assessments in higher education.  Rankin & Associates (R&A) was identified as leader in conducting multiple identity studies in higher education.

16. History of the Project 2006-2007  R&A presented a proposal to the UW System Provosts and various constituent groups in September 2006.  Following this meeting, UW System Administrators formed the Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) In collaboration with R&A identified potential fact-finding groups and developed protocol Identified “next steps” in process  In July 2007, UW System contracted with R&A to facilitate a System-wide climate assessment.

17. Process to Date Participating Institutions Tier I Spring 2008 UW CollegesUW-La CrosseUW-MilwaukeeUW-OshkoshUW-Stevens Point Tier II Fall 2009 UW-Eau ClaireUW-ParksideUW-River FallsUW-Whitewater

18. Process to Date Participating Institutions Tier III Spring 2011 UW-Green Bay UW-Platteville UW-Madison (CALS/DSL) UW-StoutUW-SuperiorUW Extension

19. Overview of the Project Fact-Finding Groups Phase I Assessment Tool Development and Implementation Phase II Data Analysis Phase III Final Report and Presentation Phase IV

20. Process to Date Phase I September 2007 Fact-finding groups were held with UW System students, staff, and faculty from various constituent groups to discuss their perceptions of the college climate. Information from the fact finding groups used by CSWG to identify baseline system- wide and institutional challenges and to assist in developing survey questions.

21. Process to Date Phase II August 2007 - February 2008 Bi-monthly meetings with CSWG to develop the survey instrument Development of Communication Plan CSWG developed the final survey instrument template that was administered to Tier I participating institutions in Spring 2008.

22. Process to Date Phase II - Fall 2009 The survey instrument was administered to Tier II participating institutions in Fall 2009. Diversity Leadership Committee (DLC) at UW-Superior revised the survey to better match its campus context. Approved by UW-Superior Institutional Review Board (IRB) November, 2009. The survey was distributed in Spring 2011.

23. Survey Instrument Final instrument 88 questions and additional space for respondents to provide commentary On-line or paper & pencil options Sample = Population All students and employees of UW-Superior’s community received an invitation to participate from the Chancellor. Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at UW-Superior Respondents’ perceptions of climate at UW-Superior Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change

24. Survey Assessment Limitations Self-selection bias Response rates Social desirability Caution in generalizing results for constituent groups with significantly lower response rates

25. 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.

26. Process to Date Phase III Summer 2011 Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted

27. Process to Date Phase IV Summer - Fall 2011 Draft of the report reviewed by UW-Superior’s DLC committee members. Draft report forwarded to UW-Superior’s DLC representatives. Presentation of survey results to the campus community.

28. Results Response Rates

29. Who are the respondents?  869 people responded to the call to participate (23% overall response rate).  775 respondents contributed remarks to one or more of the open-ended questions.

30. Who are the respondents? 68% Students 14% Faculty 9% Academic Staff 8% Classified Staff

31. Student Response Rates (17%) Non-Degree Seeking (10%, n=10)Associate Degree (>100%, n=14)Bachelor Degree (17%, n=504)Master Degree (14%, n=46)Doctoral Degree (n=2)Professional Degree (n=5)

32. Faculty Response Rates (84%) Instructional Academic Staff (>100%, n=28)Instructor (n=11)Assistant Professor (66%, n=27)Associate Professor (77%, n=17)Professor (54%, n=23)

33. Staff Response Rates (55%) Limited Term Employee (n=5)Classified Staff (64%, n=80) Non-Instructional/Other Academic Staff (48%, n=65) Administrator (39%, n=13)Other (n=18)

34. Student Response Rates by Selected Demographics Students of Color 42% (n=116) White Students 16% (n=456) By Race Women 20% (n=390) Men 13% (n=183) By Gender

35. Results Additional Demographic Characteristics

36. Respondents by Position Status n% Undergraduate Student52860.8 Graduate Student546.2 Faculty10612.2 Academic Staff839.6 Classified Staff809.2

37. Faculty Academic Departments/Work Unit Affiliations Academic/Work Unitn% Department of Business and Economics56.4 Department of Communicating Arts67.7 Department of Educational Leadership67.7 Department of Health and Human Performance56.4 Department of Human Behavior, Justice and Diversity810.3 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science56.4 Department of Music67.7 Department of Natural Sciences911.5 Department of Social Inquiry911.5 Department of Visual Arts33.8 Department of Writing, Reading and Library Science56.4

38. Instructional Staff Academic Departments/Work Unit Affiliations Academic/Work Unitn% Department of Business and Economics13.6 Department of Communicating Arts310.7 Department of Educational Leadership13.6 Department of Health and Human Performance310.7 Department of Human Behavior, Justice and Diversity27.1 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science517.9 Department of Music13.6 Department of Natural Sciences27.1 Department of Social Inquiry27.1 Department of Writing, Reading and Library Science414.3

39. Non-Instructional Staff Academic Departments/Work Unit Affiliations Academic/Work Unitn% Athletics147.7 Business and Finances126.6 Campus Life2513.8 Continuing Education and Distance Learning116.1 Enrollment Management137.2 Facilities179.4 Information Technology116.1 Library10.6 Not listed above5635.0

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

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

42. Respondents by Position Status and Gender Identity (n) 3 transgender respondents are not included in this review to protect anonymity

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

44. Respondents by Ability/Disability (n)

45. Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation and Campus n% Christian479 55.0 Other than Christian203 23.0 No affiliation18722.0

46. Citizenship Status by Position StudentsEmployees n%n% U.S. Citizen 51488.825396.6 U.S. Citizen – naturalized 101.751.9 Dual citizenship 30.500.0 Permanent resident (immigrant) 50.931.1 International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 467.910.4

47. Employees by Position Status and Age (n)

48. Students by Position Status and Age (n)

49. Employee’s Employment Years by Position (n)

50. Students by Class Standing (n)

51. Student Respondents’ College Career (n)

52. Income by Student Position Status (n)

53. Students’ Residence n% University housing residence hall19733.2 Private residence hall20.3 University housing apartment20.3 Fraternity/sorority housing00.0 Off-campus apartment/house22337.5 With partner/spouse/children7612.8 With parent(s)/family/relative(s)7813.1 Other40.7

54. Findings

55. Overall Comfort Levels Classroom Climate 81% Department/Work Unit Climate 75% Campus Climate 77%

56. Least Comfortable with Overall Campus Climate and Class Climate People of ColorLGBQ * No substantial differences for comfort with department/work unit by select demographics.

57. Overall Satisfaction Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Superior 70% Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with education at UW-Superior 59%85% Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Superior

58. Levels of Satisfaction by Demographic Groups Employees of Color and Men least satisfied Women most satisfied Satisfaction with Jobs People of Color and Classified Staff least satisfied LGBQ most satisfied Satisfaction with Career Progression

59. Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by Gender Identity, Racial Identity, and Sexual Identity (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

60. Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by Position Status (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

61. Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Gender Identity, Racial Identity, and Sexual Identity (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

62. Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Position Status (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

63. Student Satisfaction with Education at UW-Superior (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

64. Challenges and Opportunities

65. Experiences with Harassment 210 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-Superior 24%

66. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct n% Deliberately ignored or excluded10349.0 Intimidation/bullying8540.5 Target of derogatory remarks3617.1 Isolated or left out when working in groups3516.7 Derogatory written comments2813.3 Stares2712.9 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 210). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

67. Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

68. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to University Status (by 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=90)¹ (n=16)² (n=42)¹ (n=14)² (n=43)¹ (n=21)² (n=32)¹ (n=16)²

69. 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. 1 2 (n=130)¹ (n=34)² (n=76)¹ (n=9)²

70. 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=40)¹ (n=19)² (n=164)¹ (n=3)²

71. 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=17)¹ (n=7)² (n=186)¹ (n=1)²

72. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Disability (%) 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=151)¹ (n=2)² (n=47)¹ (n=22)²

73. Location of Perceived Harassment Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 210). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. n% While working at a campus job7234.0 In a campus office6129.0 In a class5426.0 In a meeting with a group of people4722.0 In a faculty office3014.0 In a University housing residence hall2813.0

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

75. What did you do? 1 Personal responses:  Was angry (58%)  Told a friend (37%)  Felt embarrassed (36%)  Avoided the harasser (34%) Reporting responses:  Made an official complaint to campus employee/official (28% )  Didn’t know who to go to (18%)  Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously (17%)  Didn’t report it for fear of retaliation (15%)  Confronted the harasser at the time (15%) 1 Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 210). Respondents could mark more than one response

76. 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.”

77. Sexual Misconduct at UW-Superior Believed they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful 6% Were fearful of being sexually harassed at UW-Superior 12%

78. Respondents Who Experienced Sexual Assault 20 respondents were victims of sexual assault 2%

79. Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted By Select Demographics (n) Gender Women (16)Men (<5) Race White People (13) People of Color (7) Position Students (16) Employees (n<5) Sexual Orientation Heterosexual (14) Bisexual (6)

80. Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted Where did it occur? Off-campus (n = 15) Who were the offenders? Students (n = 9) Friend (n = 5) What did you do 1 ? Told a friend (n = 14) Told family member (n = 5) Sought medical services (n = 5) Contacted campus police/security (n = 5) 1 Respondents could mark more than one response

81. Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Superior 48% (n = 413) of all Respondents Undergraduate Students (40%) Graduate Students (43%) Faculty (65%) Academic Staff (70%) Classified Staff (63%)

82. Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Superior Women (66%) Men (65%) Gender Identity Employees of Color (61%) White Employees (66%) Racial Identity LGBQ (62%) Heterosexual (66%) Sexual Identity

83. Why employees considered leaving…  Many employees who considered leaving did so due to frustrations and tensions with University administration, “added tasks with no additional compensation,” departmental tensions, conflicts with supervisors and/or co-workers, lack of advancement opportunities at UW-Superior, potential for “better” employment elsewhere, salary freezes at UW-Superior, and poor compensation. Several employee respondents indicated they stayed because they were comfortable in their jobs, did not receive anticipated job offers, liked the area, enjoyed their co-workers and their jobs, departmental tensions eased, and commitment to the community.

84. Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Superior Women (37%) Men (46%) Gender Identity Students of Color (43%) White Students (38%) Racial Identity LGBQ (62%) Heterosexual (38%) Sexual Identity

85. Why students considered leaving…  Many of the students who considered leaving did so because they wanted to pursue majors not offered at UW-Superior, did not have close friendships on campus, had financial crises/trouble, wanted to be in a warmer climate, felt unsupported at UW-Superior, had poor advising experiences, wanted to be closer to/further from home, and felt the University offers few co-curricular activities.  Those students who decided to stay did so because they did not want to transfer to another university (transferring credits would be difficult), felt UW-Superior was “cheaper,” the University was close to home, and were close to graduation.

86. Perceptions

87. Respondents Who Observed or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive and/or Hostile Working or Learning Environment %n Yes27.0232

88. Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct n% Racial/ethnic profiling6728.9 Deliberately ignored or excluded6728.9 Derogatory remarks6728.9 Stares6628.4 Intimidation/bullying5523.7 Someone receiving a low performance evaluation3715.9 Someone isolated or left out because of their identity3715.9 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 232). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

89. Observed Harassment Based on…(%)

90. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Race/Ethnicity (%)

91. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Gender (%)

92. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)

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

94. Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%) Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 232). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. Students (38%) Faculty (23%) Colleagues (17%) Staff (13%) Source

95. Location of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 232). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. While working at a campus job 20%n = 46 Public space on campus 22%n = 52 In a class 24%n = 56

96. Perceived Discrimination Employees Only Employment Practices Related to Promotion (27%, n = 73) Employment Practices Up to and Including Dismissal (18%, n = 47) Hiring Practices (27%, n = 72)

97. Perceived Discrimination Race was the primary basis for discriminatory hiring. Gender was the primary basis for discriminatory employment- related disciplinary actions and practices related to promotion.

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

99. Work-Life Issues Successes 72% were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations. 68% believed that they had colleagues or peers who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it. 64% felt they had equipment and supplies they needed to adequately perform their work. 57% felt they had support from decision makers/colleagues towards their career advancement 55% were usually satisfied with the way in which they were able to balance their professional and personal lives. Challenges 32% believe there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units. 31% were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear that it will affect their performance evaluation. 31% thought their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience 28% felt they have to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate. 20% constantly felt under the scrutiny by their colleagues

100. Welcoming Workplace Climate  More than half of all employees thought the workplace climate was welcoming of “difference” based on all characteristics listed in survey except mental health status, learning disability, and political views.  Respondents of Color and LGBQ Respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender identity, racial identity, and sexual identity.

101. Students’ Access to College is Being Compromised by… 56% Concerns about financial debt upon graduation 56% Tuition increases were not met by corresponding increase in financial aid 43% Lack of financial aid

102. Institutional Actions

103. Inclusive Curriculum More than half of all students and faculty felt the curriculum included materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on 12 of 16 demographics characteristics except mental health status, learning disability, physical disability, and veterans/active military status.

104. Visible Leadership More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Student Government Association, Student Organizations, Admissions, NSE/Study Abroad, Athletics, Academic Service Learning, academic departments, Multicultural Affairs, the First Year Experience, and Res Life provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community.

105. Factors that Influence Attendance at Diversity Initiatives More than half of all respondents: believed that diversity initiatives are relevant to their work believed that diversity events are well advertised felt welcome at these events felt school/work load prevents them from attending felt they learned from these events Less than half of all respondents: thought diversity events fit into their schedules believed they were expected to attend diversity events received a personal invitation to attend from a member of the institutional leadership thought diversity initiatives were not relevant to their roles on campus

106. Influential Factors by Demographic Categories Respondents of Color and LGBQ respondents felt most welcome at diversity events on campus Respondents of Color and LGBQ respondents thought that diversity initiatives were most relevant to their work. Faculty and academic staff believed that diversity initiatives were most relevant to their roles on campus.

107. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate Employees  More than half recommended: training mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior offering diversity training/programs as community outreach offering immersion experiences for faculty/staff/students to work with underrepresented/underserved populations.

108. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate Employees  More than half recommended: providing on-campus child care services providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities providing, improving, and promoting access to quality services for those individuals who experience sexual abuse providing mentors for minority faculty/students/staff new to campus providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents at the campus level and departmental level

109. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate Employees  Less than half recommended: providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion and tenure for faculty/staff with families providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course objectives throughout the curriculum rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity training requiring diversity related activities as one of the criteria for hiring and/or evaluation of staff, faculty, and administrators reallocating resources to support inclusive climate changes on campus requiring diversity and equity training to every search and screen committee

110. Summary Strengths and Successes Challenges and Opportunities

111. 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)

112. Overall Strengths & Successes 85% of students were satisfied with their education. The majority of employees expressed positive attitudes and experiences regarding work-life issues. 70% of employee respondents were satisfied with their jobs at UW-Superior and 59% with how their careers have progressed. 77% comfortable with the overall climate, 75% with dept/work unit climate, and 81% with climate in their classes.

113. Overall Challenges & Opportunities 24% (n = 210) believed they had personally experienced harassment. 12% (n = 100) indicated there were times when they were fearful of being sexually harassed at UW-Superior. 48% (n = 413) of all respondents have seriously considered leaving UW-Superior. 27% (n = 232) had observed or personally been made aware of harassment.

114. Other Challenges & Opportunities Racial Tension Respondents of Color (28%, n = 40) reported personally experiencing harassment more often than their White counterparts (23%, n = 164). People of Color were also more likely to indicate racial profiling as the basis when compared to their White counterparts (20% vs. 0%, respectively). Of all respondents who observed harassment, 27% (n = 62) believed it was based on ethnicity and 23% (n = 53) on race. People of Color were less comfortable than White respondents with the overall climate, and the climate in their classes. While 82% (n = 369) of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race, only 63% (n = 72) of Students of Color agreed. 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.

115. Challenges & Opportunities Homophobia and Heterosexism LGBQ respondents were 17% more likely than heterosexual respondents to believe that they had experienced harassment. 41% (n =7) of LGBQ respondents versus one percent (n = 1) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation. 43% (n = 18) of LGBQ respondents believed they had observed harassment compared with 26% (n = 204) of heterosexual respondents. 22% (n = 52) of all respondents indicated sexual orientation as the basis for observed harassment. 62% of LGBQ students versus 38% of heterosexual students seriously considered leaving UW-Superior. Gender Disparities Gender was the most observed reason for discriminatory employment. Between 22-26% of respondents indicated gender was the basis for discriminatory hiring, employment- related disciplinary actions, and practices related to promotion. Gender was reported third (21%, n = 45) as the basis for personal harassment. Over twice as many women (26%, n = 34) than men (12%, n = 9) believed that the mistreatment was based on their gender. Gender was the second most reported basis for those who observed harassment (23%, n = 53).

116. Challenges & Opportunities Differential Treatment by University Status University status (33%, n = 69) was cited as the primary basis for personal harassment. 54% (n = 43) of classified staff respondents reported personally experiencing harassment, higher than any other employee group. Of those classified staff, 49% (n = 21) said it was based on their status at UW-Superior. Classified staff reported observing discriminatory hiring, employment- related disciplinary actions, and practices related to promotion more than any other employee group. Classified staff members were less satisfied the way their careers have progressed when compared with other employee groups. Disparities by Ability/Disability 15% (n = 128) of respondents indicated that they had a disability. Of these respondents, the majority identified as having mental health disorders and chronic health disorders. People who reported having a disability were more likely to experience harassment. 47% (n = 22) of those respondents with disabilities who believed they had experienced harassment said the conduct was based on their disabilities. Many students/faculty felt that their courses did not include materials, perspectives, and/or experiences for those with mental health issues, learning disabilities, and physical disabilities.

117. Next Steps

118. Process Forward Fall 2011  Share report results with community  Community dialogue regarding the assessment results  CIETF (Chancellor’s Inclusive Excellence Task Force)  Community feedback on recommended actions  Full Report is available for community review

119. Questions and Discussion