1. UW-Eau Claire Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report April 27, 2010

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. 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.

7. Project Objectives Provide UW-Eau Claire with information, analysis, and recommendations as they relate to campus climate. This information will be used in conjunction with other data to provide UW-Eau Claire with an inclusive view of campus and a system-wide review.

8. Projected Outcomes UW-Eau Claire 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 Eau-Claire will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work regarding diversity (e.g., Inclusive Excellence, Equity Scorecard).

9. Inclusive Excellence  Inclusive Excellence broadens and expands our notion of "diversity" and what it means to truly be an inclusive campus community.  Honoring the multi-faceted, intersectional differences among us, enables us to address the needs of individuals and groups thereby creating an "equitable" and welcoming campus environment.  Inclusive Excellence is not limited to compositional diversity, but extends to include curricular transformation, improved policies for all campus members, better retention of students and faculty, and a welcoming campus climate for all.

10. The Climate Project & Inclusive Excellence  The Climate Study is foundational to Inclusive Excellence in that it is the first time in the UW System that we are collecting data on multiple and intersectional identities based on experiences and perceptions of campus life by all members of the community.  It is a population study that encouraged every campus community member to provide input on the campus climate.  The input, data, and final results will be used in tandem with other data as a starting point to build an action plan that speaks to Inclusive Excellence.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.”

15. Process to Date 2004-2005 Academic Planner (C. Saulnier) made aware of bias incidents at several campuses & began conversation regarding system-wide 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

16. 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

17. 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 fact- finding groups and developed protocol Identified “next steps” in process

18. Process to Date 2006-2007 President Reilly pledges support for the project and agrees to finance 75% of the costs Five campuses 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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 the five participating institutions in spring 2008.

24. Process to Date Phase II cont’d Summer and Fall 2009 Diversity Leadership Committee (DLC) at UW-Eau Claire revised the survey to better match the campus context at UW-Eau Claire. Approved by UW-Eau Claire Institutional Review Board (IRB) in September 2009. The survey was distributed in October 2009.

25. 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-Eau Claire community were invited to participate Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at UW-Eau Claire Respondents’ perceptions of climate at UW-Eau Claire Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change

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

27. Method Limitation Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 10 individuals where identity could be compromised. Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility of identifying individuals.

28. Process to Date Phase III January – March 2010 Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted by Rankin & Associates.

29. Process to Date Phase IV April 2010 Draft of the report reviewed by DLC committee members. Final report forwarded to DLC representatives. Presentation of survey results to the campus community.

30. Results Response Rates

31. Who are the respondents?  4,607 people responded to the call to participate (37% response rate overall).  Several respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.

32. Faculty Response Rates Instructional Academic Staff (33%, n = 61) Assistant Professor (55%, n = 63) Adjunct Faculty (n = 9) Associate Professor (54%, n = 67) Professor (51%, n = 67)

33. Staff Response Rates Administrators (n = 30) Limited Term Employee (19%, n = 28) Classified Staff Non-Exempt (27%, n = 88) Classified Staff Exempt (56%, n = 50) Non-Instructional Academic Staff (49%, n = 95) Limited Academic Staff (24%, n = 7)

34. Student Response Rates Bachelor Degree Student (33%, n = 3401 ) Master Degree Student (17%, n = 82 ) Doctoral Degree Student (n = 8 ) Associate Degree (n = 139 ) Non-Degree Seeking (n = 59) Transfer (n = 229 ) Dual Enrollment (n = 2) Professional Degree (n = 32)

35. Student Response Rates by Selected Demographics Students of Color 29% (n = 276) White Students 37% (n = 3676) By Race Women Students 41% (n = 2635) Men Students % 28% (n = 1294) By Gender

36. Results Demographic Characteristics

37. Student Respondents by Class Standing (n)

38. Student Residence 53% of student respondents lived in residence halls 38% of student respondents lived in off- campus apartment or house 8% of student respondents lived with partner, spouse, children, parents, family or relatives

39. Income by Student Status (n)

40. Employee Respondents by Position Status (n)

41. Collapsed Employee Status (n)

42. Respondents by Gender and Position Status (n) There were 10 respondents who identified as transgender (8 students; 2 employees)

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

44. Respondents by Racial Identity (n) (Unduplicated Total)

45. Respondents by Faculty/Staff Appointments by Gender WomenMen n%n% Adjunct professor61.721.0 Instructional Academic Staff4512.6167.8 Assistant professor 4713.2167.8 Associate professor318.73517.2 Professor277.63919.1 Limited Term employee226.252.5 Classified staff non-exempt 6718.82110.3 Classified staff exempt staff287.92213.7 Non-instructional academic staff 6618.52813.7 Limited academic staff51.421.0 Administrator123.4188.8

46. Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

47. Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect Major Life Activities (n)

48. Citizenship Status by Position StudentsEmployees n%n% US citizen 383397.152894.5 US citizen – naturalized 280.781.4 Dual citizenship 180.561.1 Permanent resident (immigrant) 140.4152.7 International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 551.4** * Data is missing due to n < 5

49. Findings

50. Overall Comfort Levels Campus Climate (88%) Department/Work Unit (86%) Classroom (87%)

51. Comfort Levels with Overall Campus Climate, Department/Work Unit Climate, and Class Climate by Demographic Groups Most Comfortable Heterosexual Men White People Least Comfortable LGBQPeople of Color

52. Overall Satisfaction 78% Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW Eau Claire. 65% Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education UW Eau Claire. 89% Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW Eau Claire. 76% Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW Eau Claire.

53. Lowest Levels of Satisfaction by Demographic Groups Women and classified staff Satisfaction with Job Women and classified staff Satisfaction with Career Progression Students of Color and LGBQ students Satisfaction with Education LGBQ Students Satisfaction with Academic Career Progression

54. Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs by Selected Demographic Categories (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

55. Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Selected Demographic Categories (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

56. 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.

57. Employee Comments with Regard to Job and Career Progression Satisfaction  Employees who were satisfied with the way their careers have progressed enjoyed their day-to-day work lives, were “passionate” about the content of their jobs, saw advancement as a possibility, worked in pleasant atmospheres/departments, were happy to have a full time job, and felt supported by their superiors.  Those employees who were not satisfied with their career progression felt “stuck” in their jobs, saw no possibility for advancement, received low salaries, were disparaged or discouraged by their supervisors, and felt that they were “overworked”.

58. Student Satisfaction with Education at UW Eau Claire (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

59. Student Satisfaction with Academic Career at UW Eau Claire (%) * Highly Satisfied and Satisfied collapsed into one category. ** Highly Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied collapsed into one category.

60. Student Comments with Regard to Satisfaction with Academic Experiences  Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have progressed said they had informative academic advisors, had good relationships with “excellent teachers,” UW-Eau Claire has met their expectations, and they were earning “good grades.”  Dissatisfied students said that some coursework was “unnecessary” or “redundant,” their academic advisors “could be better,” they were not able to enroll in required courses, the coursework was not challenging enough, the coursework was too difficult, they had difficulty adjusting to college life, and they were not certain which major to choose.

61. Challenges and Opportunities

62. Experiences with Harassment 508 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-Eau Claire 11%

63. Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

64. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Gender by Gender (%) (n=338)¹ (n=113)² (n=162)¹ (n=17)² (n=2)¹ (n=0)² ¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group. ² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..

65. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Position 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=351)¹ (n=27)² (n=79)¹ (n=31)² (n=31)¹ (n=16)² (n=32)¹ (n=14)²

66. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Race by Race (%) (n=66)¹ (n=36)² (n=427)¹ (n=7)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..

67. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Sexual Orientation due to Sexual Orientation (%) 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=30)² (n=435)¹ (n=7)²

68. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Disability Status by 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=455)¹ (n=16)¹ (n=4)² (n=16)¹ (n=6)² (n=21)¹ (n=13)²

69. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct n% Deliberately ignored or excluded 24548.2 Felt intimidated/bullied 16532.5 Stares 11121.9 Derogatory remarks 9318.3 Isolated or left out when working in groups 8817.3 Isolated or left out because of my identity 6412.6 Received a low performance evaluation 6112.0 Derogatory written comments 479.3 Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 469.1 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 508. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

70. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct n% Feared for my physical safety 295.7 Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 254.9 Target of racial/ethnic profiling 244.7 Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 214.1 Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 203.9 Derogatory phone calls 183.5 Graffiti 153.0 Threats of physical violence 153.0 Target of physical violence 91.8 Victim of a crime 71.4

71. Respondents Who Believed They Were Deliberately Ignored or Excluded Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 39 percent (n = 96) - in a class 34 percent (n = 82) - in a meeting with a group of people Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 381). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

72. Respondents Who Believed They Were Intimidated or Bullied Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 32 percent (n = 52) - in a class 21 percent (n = 35) - in a meeting with a group of people 21 percent (n = 35) - at a campus job Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 381). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

73. Respondents Who Believed They Received Stares Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 60 percent (n = 67) - in a class 50 percent (n = 55) - while walking on campus Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 381). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

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

75. What did you do? 1 Personal responses:  Was angry (53%)  Told a friend (40%)  Felt embarrassed (40%)  Ignored it (34%)  Avoided the harasser (30%) Reporting responses:  Didn’t know who to go to (16% )  Made a complaint to campus employee/official (13%)  Did not report the incident for fear of retaliation (13%)  Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously (10%)  Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously (9%) 1 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-Eau Claire Believed they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful 8% Were fearful of being sexually harassed at UW Eau-Claire 4%

78. Respondents Who Experienced Sexual Assault 88 respondents were victims of sexual assault 2%

79. Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted By Gender Identity Women (3%; n = 78) Men (1%; n=7) Transgender (1%, n = 1) By Sexual Identity Heterosexual (2%; n = 77) LGBQQ (3%, n = 7) By Racial Identity White People (2%; n = 81) People of Color (2%, n = 6) By Position Students (n = 76) Employees (n = 4)

80. Women Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted by Class Standing (n=9)(n=18)(n=12)(n=15) (n=0)

81. Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted Where did it occur? Off-campus (n = 48) Who were the offenders against students?* Students (n = 34) What did you do 1 ? Told a friend (n = 57) Did nothing (n = 24) Told a family member (n = 18) 1 Respondents could mark more than one response

82. Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Eau Claire 36% (n = 1672) of all Respondents ----------------------------------------------- Students (34%); Faculty (56%); Academic Staff (61%); Classified Staff (49%)

83. Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Eau Claire Employees: Women (55%); Men (59%) Employees of Color (46%); White Employees (58%) LGBQ Employees (65%); Heterosexual Employees (57%)

84. Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Eau Claire Students: Women (34%); Men (34%) Students of Color (36%); White Students (33%) LGBQ Students (48%); Heterosexual Students (33%)

85. Perceptions

86. Employees Who Observed or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive and/or Hostile Working or Learning Environment %n Yes19.0861

87. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Race (%)

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

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

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

91. Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct n% Stares 35941.7 Derogatory remarks 34039.5 Deliberately ignored or excluded 30935.8 Racial/ethnic profiling 25229.3 Someone isolated or left out because of their identity 19722.9 Intimidation/bullying 16118.7 Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity 15317.8 Graffiti 15017.4 Derogatory written comments 14216.5 Someone isolated or left out when working in groups 9911.5 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

92. Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct n% Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity 859.9 Threats of physical violence 566.5 Someone receiving a low performance evaluation 566.5 Someone fearing for their physical safety 556.4 Someone isolated or left out because of their socioeconomic status 536.2 Someone receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 475.5 Victim of a crime 313.6 Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 303.5 Physical violence 273.1 Derogatory phone calls 212.4 Someone fearing for their family’s safety 91.0

93. Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%)  Students (54%)  Didn’t Know the Source (22%)  Faculty Members (14%)  Colleagues (11%) Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

94. Respondents Who Observed People Being Stared At Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 63 percent (n = 227) - while walking on campus 47 percent (n = 167) - in a public space on campus 43 percent (n = 155) - in a class Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

95. Respondents Who Observed Others as Targets of Derogatory Remarks Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 35 percent (n = 119) - while walking on campus 34 percent (n = 114) - in a public space on campus Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

96. Respondents Who Observed Someone Being Deliberately Ignored or Excluded Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 43 percent (n = 132) - in a class 23 percent (n = 72) - in a public space on campus Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 861). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

97. Perceived Discrimination Hiring (27%) Due to Gender (27%) Due to Race (17%) Due to Ethnicity (17%) Employment Practices Related to Promotion/Tenure (10%) Due to Gender (24%) Due to Position (20%) Due to Age (11%) Employment Practices Excluding Promotion/Tenure (24%) Due to Gender (34%) Due to Position (19%) Due to Age (10%)

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

99. Work-Life Issues 76% (n = 435) of employee respondents were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations 37% (n = 210) believe there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units 27% (n = 154) were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision 71% (n = 405) believed that they had colleagues or peers who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it

100. Work-Life Issues 63% (n = 357) believed that they had support from decision makers/colleagues who supported their career advancement 50% (n = 134) of faculty thought their research interests were valued by their colleagues 23% (n = 131) constantly felt under the scrutiny by their colleagues 28% (n = 161) felt they had to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate 40% (n = 228) thought their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience

101. Work-Life Issues 62% (n = 357) of employees are usually satisfied with the way in which they were able to balance their professional and personal lives 39% (n = 221) found UW-Eau Claire supportive of family leave 40% (n = 230) have had to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities 18% (n = 88) felt that employees who have children were considered less committed to their careers 21% (n = 118) felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities

102. Work-Life Issues 15% (n = 84) believed the institution was unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, co-parenting partners 26% (n = 140) thought they had equitable access to domestic partner benefits 18% (n = 96) believed they had equitable access to tuition reimbursement

103. Welcoming Workplace Climate  More than half of all employees thought the workplace climate was welcoming of “difference.”  Exceptions include: mental health status, gender expression, learning disability status, and political views.  Respondents of Color and sexual minority respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming.

104. Welcoming Classroom Climate More than half of all student respondents felt that the classroom climate was welcoming for students based on “difference” across all dimensions. 56% of Students of Color and 73% of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race 44% of LGB students and 64% of heterosexual students thought the climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation

105. Institutional Actions

106. Visible Leadership More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the Chancellor, department chairs, Multicultural Affairs, the Admissions Office and Advising provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community. Substantial percentages of respondents were unaware of the degree to which many of the other offices, units, committees, and groups provided visible leadership.

107. 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 mental health status, learning disability, physical disability, and veteran/active military status.

108. 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

109. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate  More than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion and tenure for faculty/staff with families would positively affect the climate training mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior offering diversity training/programs as community outreach would positively affect the climate

110. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate  More than half of all employee respondents recommended: 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 providing on-campus child care services providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities

111. Campus Initiatives That Would Positively Affect the Climate  Less than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course objectives throughout the curriculum rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity training 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 the Affirmative Action Office to provide diversity and equity training to every search and screen committee

112. Summary Strengths and Successes Challenges and Opportunities

113. Summary of Findings Strengths and Successes  89% percent of students were satisfied with their education at UW-Eau Claire.  78% of employees were satisfied with their jobs and 65% with how their careers have progressed.  Over 75% of respondents reported that they were very comfortable or comfortable with the overall climate, climate in their departments or work unit, and climate in their classes.

114. Summary of Findings Opportunities and Challenges Challenge Differential Treatment Due to Institutional Position Challenge Homophobia and Heterosexism Challenge Gender Inequity Challenge Racial Tension

115. Racial Tension at UW-Eau Claire  Twice as many Respondents of Color (20%, n = 66) reported personally experiencing harassment when compared to their White counterparts (10%, n = 427).  Fifty-five percent (n = 36) of Respondents of Color said the harassment was based on their race, while only two percent (n = 7) of White respondents indicated the basis as race.  People of Color were also more likely than White people to observe offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct.  Of those who observed harassment, 24% (n = 203) believed it was based on race.

116. Racial Tension at UW-Eau Claire  People of Color were less comfortable than White respondents with the overall climate for diversity, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes, with the largest difference in the classroom.  Employees of Color were more likely than White employees to report:  they were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear that it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision  colleagues expect them to represent “the point of view” of their identity  their colleagues have lower expectations of them than of other employees  that they have to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate.  Employees of Color were also more likely to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices, employment-related disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion.

117. Gender Inequity According to all respondents who experienced harassment, the conduct was most often based on gender. Women were three times (33%, n = 113) more likely than men (11%, n = 17) to indicate the basis of harassment as gender. Women respondents were also less satisfied with their jobs and the way their careers have progressed when compared with men. This theme did not extend to students such that men student respondents were less satisfied with both their jobs and academic career progression.

118. Gender Inequity Of those respondents who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, 27% (n = 42) said it was based on gender. Of those individuals who believed that they had observed discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, 24% (n = 13) said it was based on gender. Of those individuals who observed discriminatory practices related to promotion, 34%, (n = 46) said it was based on gender. In all three instances, gender was the most cited basis for discrimination.

119. Gender Inequity Women faculty were less likely than men faculty to feel their research interests were valued by their colleagues. Women employees were more reluctant to take family leave that they are entitled to for fear that it will affect their career, and feel they have to work harder than colleagues to be perceived as legitimate and achieve the same recognition/rewards. Women employees were also more likely to feel that faculty/staff who have children are considered less committed to their careers.

120. Homophobia and Heterosexism LGBQ respondents were more than twice as likely than heterosexual respondents to believe that they had experienced harassment. Of those who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 61% (n = 30) of LGBQ respondents versus two percent (n = 7) of heterosexual respondents indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation. More than twice as many LGBQ respondents believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did heterosexual respondents (38% compared with 18%).

121. Homophobia and Heterosexism LGBQ respondents were less comfortable with the overall climate, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes than their heterosexual counterparts. LGBQ employee respondents were less likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation. LGBQ students respondents were less likely to think the classroom climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation LGBQ respondents were more likely to have seriously considered leaving the institution.

122. Differential Treatment by University Status  For those who reported they experienced harassment, university status was the second most common basis.  Of those respondents who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, advanced experience level of the job candidate was cited as the fifth most common basis for discrimination.  For those who believed they had observed discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions and discriminatory practices related to promotion, UW-Eau Claire status was the second most common basis.

123. Differential Treatment Classified Staff  Although classified staff respondents were less likely than faculty members to believe that they had been harassed, they were more likely to attribute the conduct to their status at UW-Eau Claire.  Classified staff members were less satisfied with their jobs and much less satisfied than with the way their careers have progressed when compared with academic staff.  Classified staff members were more likely than faculty and academic staff members to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring and employment-related disciplinary actions.

124. Next Steps

125. Process Forward Fall/Winter 2010  Share report results with community  Community dialogue regarding the assessment results  Community feedback on recommended actions  Executive Summary available on the UW-Eau Claire web site  Full Report will be available by June 1  Recommended planning “advance” to begin a “call to action” regarding the challenges uncovered in the report

126. Tell Us What You Think…  Additional questions/comments on results?  Thoughts on process?  Suggested actions?

127. Questions..? Other Ideas..?