1. University of Wisconsin La Crosse Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report October 7-8, 2008

2. Why Assess Climate? What was the Process? Assessing College Climate

3. 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.

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

5. Projected Outcomes UW-La Crosse 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-La Crosse will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work regarding diversity (e.g., 2004 Climate Studies, Equity Scorecard).

6. 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

7. Research on Climate In Higher Education Campus climate not only affects creating knowledge, but also impacts members of academic community who, in turn, contribute to creating campus environment (Hurtado, 2003; Milem, Chang, & antonio, 2005). Preserving climate that offers equal learning opportunities for all students and academic freedom for all faculty – an environment free from discrimination – is a primary responsibility of educational institutions.

8. Value of Campus Climate on Enhancing Learning Outcomes Numerous studies and publications have confirmed the pedagogical value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning outcomes. Selected research references include: Frank W. Hale, Jr. (2004). What Makes Racial Diversity Work in Higher Education, Diversity Digest, Sterling, VA: Stylus. Harper, S.R., & Quaye, S.J. (2004). Taking seriously the evidence regarding the effects of diversity on student learning in the college classroom: A call for faculty accountability. UrbanEd, 2(2), 43-47. Harper, S.R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7-24. Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.”

12. UW-La Crosse Priorities for 2006-2007 Number 4:  Increase the number of diverse faculty/staff  Increase the number of diverse students on campus  Make the campus climate inclusive for all Source: www.uwlax.edu/chancellor/html/Priorities06-07.htm

13. Process to Date 2004-2005 Academic Planner (C. Saulnier) made aware of bias incidents at several campuses & began conversation regarding systemwide campus climate project Taskforce committee formed to investigate consulting firms who conduct climate assessments in higher education. Rankin & Associates identified as leading expert in multiple identity studies in higher education

14. Process to Date 2005-2006 Conversations at system level continued Proposal presentation made to UWS Provosts and various constituent groups in Madison in September 2006

15. 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

16. 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

17. Process to Date Participating Institutions University of Wisconsin Colleges University of Wisconsin-La Crosse University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

18. 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

19. Process to Date Phase I September 28-29, 2007 Convened fact-finding groups Inclusive of faculty, staff, and students from various constituent groups Climate Study Working Group (CSWG), Status of Women, Women’s Studies, Multicultural Coordinators, Chief Student Affairs Officers, LGBTQ students, LGBTQ faculty/staff, Multicultural Students, Academic Staff Representatives, Equity Scorecard, Faculty/Staff of Color, Faculty Representatives, Women students, CSSD/ADA, Students with Disabilities, Student Representatives, International Students

20. Process to Date Phase I February 12, 2008 Information from the Fact Finding Groups Used By CSWG: To identify baseline system-wide and institutional challenges To assist in developing survey questions

21. PHASE II Assessment Tool Development and Implementation

22. Process to Date Phase II August – December 2007 Bi-monthly meetings with CSWG to develop the survey instrument January - February 2008 Development of Communication Plan IRB Proposal development/approval at each participating institution UW-La Crosse approval – February 4, 2008

23. Process to Date Phase II and III April 2008 Survey administration (March 31 to April 18) May-August Data Analysis

24. Process to Date Phase IV August 2008 Draft report reviewed by CSWG team members September 2008 Final report forwarded to CSWG representatives and Provost from UW- La Crosse and to UW System October 2008 Presentation of survey results to the campus community

25. Assessment Methods Research Model Survey Instrument Limitations

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

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

28. Method Limitation Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 10 individuals so as not to compromise identity. Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility of identifying individuals.

29. Results Response Rates

30. Who are the respondents?  2,576 people responded to the call to participate (23% response rate overall).  1840 respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.

31. Faculty Response Rates Assistant Professor (51%, n = 44) Associate Professor (51%, n = 16) Faculty = 38% (n = 196) Instructional Academic Staff (24%, n = 52) Professor (46%, n = 47)

32. Staff Response Rates Academic Staff = 42% (n = 172) Limited Term Employee (19%, n = 16) Non-instructional academic staff (46%, n = 127) Limited academic staff (16%, n = 8) Administrator (n = 21)

33. Staff Response Rates Classified Staff = 42% (n = 132) Classified staff non-exempt (35%, n = 92) Classified staff exempt staff (78%, n = 40)

34. Student Response Rates Students 21% (n = 2029) Master Degree student = 7% (n = 112 ) Other students = (n = 154) [ Transfer, Associate, Dual Enrollment, Non-degree] Bachelor degree student = 21% (n = 1723 ) Doctoral/Terminal Degree student = 26% (n = 40)

35. Student Response Rates Students 21% (n = 2029) White Students = 20% (n = 1813 ) Men students = 14% (n = 565) Students of color = 30% (n = 184 ) Women students = 24% (n = 1455)

36. Results Demographic Characteristics

37. Student Respondents by Year (n)

38. Student Residence 44% of student respondents lived in Residence Halls 49% student respondents lived in off-campus houses and apartments

39. Income by Student Status (n)

40. Employee Respondents by Position Status(n)

41. Collapsed Employee Status (n)

42. Respondents by Gender (n) There were 4 respondents who identified as transgender

43. Respondents by Sexual Orientation & UW-La Crosse Status (n)

44. Respondents by Racial Identity (Duplicated Total)

45. Respondents by Racial Identity (Unduplicated Total)

46. Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

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

48. Citizenship Status by Position StudentsEmployees n%n% US citizen 195296.347995.6 US citizen – naturalized 140.761.2 Dual citizenship 100.530.6 Permanent resident (immigrant) 80.471.4 Permanent resident (refugee) 10.00 International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 412.041.0

49. Findings

50. Aggregate Findings 85% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at UW-La Crosse. 84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work unit. 85% of student/faculty respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes.

51. Aggregate Findings 83% of respondents have not personally experienced any exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that has interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW- La Crosse. 79% percent of UW-La Crosse faculty and staff respondents were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW- La Crosse. 89% of student respondents were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-La Crosse.

52. Challenges and Opportunities

53. Personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with one’s ability to work or learn at UW-La Crosse n% Yes44817.4

54. Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

55. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent 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 = 305)¹ (n = 137)² (n = 137)¹ (n = 22)²

56. Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that Conduct, the Percent Due to Institutional 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 = 282)¹ (n = 36)² (n = 75)¹ (n = 20)² (n = 38)¹ (n = 19)² (n = 39)¹ (n = 21)²

57. Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due to Race 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 = 78)¹ (n = 44)² (n = 346)¹ (n = 9)²

58. Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that Conduct, the Percent 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 = 44)¹ (n = 27)² (n = 380)¹ (n = 3)²

59. Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that Conduct, the Percent 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 = 394)¹ (n = 21)² (n = 16)¹ (n = 3)² (n = 11)¹ (n = 8)² (n = 34)¹ (n = 14)²

60. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct n% Deliberately ignored or excluded 21147.1 Felt intimidated/bullied 15334.2 Stares 12327.5 Derogatory remarks 11024.6 Isolated or left out when working in groups 8719.4 Isolated or left out because of my identity 5211.6 Derogatory written comments 5011.2 Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 439.6 Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 419.2

61. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct n% Target of racial/ethnic profiling 306.7 Received a low performance evaluation 296.5 Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 286.3 Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 276.0 Feared for my physical safety 255.6 Derogatory phone calls 235.1 Graffiti 194.2 Threats of physical violence 163.6 Victim of a crime 112.5 Target of physical violence 61.3

62. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Demographic Characteristics Race Deliberately ignored or excluded (n = 43) Someone staring at them (n = 39) Target of racial/ethnic profiling (n = 26) Isolated or left out when working in groups (n = 25)

63. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Demographic Characteristics Sexual Orientation  Deliberately ignored or excluded (n = 23)  Derogatory remarks (n = 23)  Someone staring at them (n = 19)  Felt intimidated/bullied (n = 14)  Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity (n = 13)

64. Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? Of the respondents who believed they had been deliberately ignored or excluded 41 percent (n = 86) said it happened in a class 38 percent (n = 80) said it happened in a meeting with a group of people 27 percent (n = 57) said it happened while working at a campus job 19 percent (n = 41) said it happened in a residence hall

65. Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? Of the respondents who indicated that they were intimated or bullied: 44 percent (n = 29) said it occurred in class 44 percent (n = 29) said it happened while working at a campus job 40 percent (n = 26) said it happened while meeting with a group of people

66. Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (%)

67. What did you do? 1 Personal responses:  Was angry (59%)  Felt embarrassed (40%)  Told a friend (36%)  Ignored it (34%)  Avoided the harasser (33%) Reporting responses:  19% made a complaint to a UW-La Crosse employee/official  13% didn’t know who to go to  10% didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously  13% did not report the incident for fear of retaliation 1 Respondents could mark more than one response

68. 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.”

69. Respondents Who Believed They Have Personally Been a Victim of Sexual Harassment by Primary Status StudentsEmployees n%n% 542.641.0

70. Respondents Who Believed That They Had Been The Victim of Sexual Assault While at UW-La Crosse n% Yes 964.0 91 of the 96 victims were women 86 were students

71. Respondents Who Believed That They Had Been The Victim of Sexual Assault Where did it occur? On-campus (n = 40) Off-campus (n = 57) Who was the offender? Another student (n = 44) Acquaintance (n = 27) Friend (n = 26) Stranger (n = 23)

72. Respondents Who Believed That They Had Been The Victim of Sexual Assault What did you do 1 ? Told a friend (n = 69) Did nothing (n = 27) Told a family member (n = 18) Sought support from a campus resource/counseling center(s) (n = 9) Sought information on-line (n = 9) 1 Respondents could mark more than one response

73. Respondent Comments With Regard To Why They Did Not Report The Alleged Sexual Assault  Some respondents offered that they thought they would not be believed or feared reporting the incident.  Several commented that they were too embarrassed or did not want others to know the assault occurred.  Others said that they just wanted to forget it happened, or that it became more real for them when they stated it out loud.  Several said they did not report the incidents because the perpetrators were their friends and didn’t want to get them in trouble.  Still others seemed to blame themselves for the assaults indicating that it was their fault because they were drinking, or felt that others would say it was their fault due to how they were dressed.

74. Satisfaction with UW-La Crosse Employees Students

75. Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs at UW-La Crosse  79% (n = 403) percent of UW-La Crosse faculty and staff were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW- La Crosse. Little difference found between demographic categories with the exception of: Faculty reporting that they were more dissatisfied than staff.

76. Faculty and Staff Members’ Satisfaction with Their Jobs (%)

77. Employee Satisfaction with The Way Their Careers have Progressed at UW-La Crosse  62% (n = 312) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse. Classified staff members were less satisfied than faculty and academic staff with the way their careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse. Women and sexual minority employees were less satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse.

78. Employee Satisfaction With The Way Their Careers Have Progressed By Position Status (%)

79. Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Selected Demographic Categories(%)

80. Employee Comments With Regard To The Way Their Careers Have Progressed  A number of classified staff members, who were generally dissatisfied with their career progression (but not necessarily their jobs), said that classified staff office professionals have few chances to advance or be compensated for their level of responsibility.  Others said job instability (one-year contracts) created a great deal of stress and lack of opportunities for advancement.  Dissatisfied faculty suggested that the scholarly expectations & promotion system skew priorities in what should be a teaching institution.

81. Student Satisfaction With Their Education at UW-La Crosse  89% (n = 1805) of students were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-La Crosse. Little difference found between demographic categories with the exception of: Students of Color and sexual minority students were more dissatisfied than their majority counterparts.

82. Student Satisfaction With Their Education at UW-La Crosse  77% (n = 1563) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse. Men, Students of Color and sexual minority students were more dissatisfied than their majority counterparts.

83. Student Satisfaction with the Way Their Academic Careers Have Progressed (%)

84. Student Respondents’ Comments in Regard to Satisfaction Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have progressed said they established relationships with supportive advisors and faculty members, made good grades, recognized the value in getting a college education, and felt challenged by the course work. Dissatisfied students said their advisors and faculty didn’t care about them, admittedly lacked necessary academic/study skills, and believed UW-La Crosse changed program requirements without regard to students already enrolled.

85. Have You Seriously Considered Leaving UW-La Crosse? 72 percent of faculty respondents Faculty women (76%); Faculty men (67%) White faculty (73%); Faculty of Color (47%) 61 percent of academic staff and 55 percent of classified staff respondents Staff men (64%); Staff women (55%) Staff of Color (71%); White staff (57%)

86. Have You Seriously Considered Leaving UW-La Crosse? 33% of Student Respondents Men (34%); Women (33%) Students of Color (47%); White students (32%) LGBQ (36%); Heterosexual (33%)

87. Perceptions

88. Perceived or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive and/or Hostile Working Or Learning Environment %n Yes34.0868

89. Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Race

90. Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Gender

91. Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Sexual Orientation

92. Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Position Status (%)

93. Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct(%) n% Stares 39345.3 Derogatory remarks 39245.2 Racial/ethnic profiling 34639.9 Deliberately ignored or excluded 30034.6 Graffiti 26130.1 Derogatory written comments 24528.2 Intimidation/bullying 21324.5 Someone isolated or left out because of their identity 20924.1 Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity 18821.7 Someone isolated or left out when working in groups 12013.8 Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity 11913.7 Someone fearing for their physical safety 11313.0 Threats of physical violence 11112.8

94. Source of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)  Undergraduate Students (51%)  Faculty (17%)  Colleagues (16%)  Community Members (10%)  Staff Members (9%)

95. Perceived Discriminatory Practices Perceived Discriminatory Hiring (31%) Due to gender (32%) Due to race (17%) Due to institutional status (14%) Perceived Discriminatory Promotion (29%) Due to gender (42%) Due to institutional status (13%) Due to ethnicity (12%) Due to age (12%) Due to race (10%) Perceived Discriminatory Firing (13%)  Due to gender (43%)  Due to race (18%)  Due to age (16%)  Due to ethnicity (15%)  Due to institutional status (13%)

96. The majority of respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues. There were, however, responses that demonstrated less positive attitudes towards their work unit, the clarity of tenure/promotion, the clarity and fairness of salary determinations, and the lack of diversity in the UW-La Crosse administration. Work-Life Issues

97. 77% (n = 387) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations. 36% (n = 181) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units. 25% (n = 128) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision.

98. Work-Life Issues 59% ( n = 297) of employees “strongly agree/agree” that they are able to balance their professional and work lives. 46% (n = 228) find that UW-La Crosse is supportive of family leave. 34% (n = 171) of faculty and staff members have to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities. 24% (n = 109) of respondents felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities. 14% (n = 369) “strongly agree/agree” that they have equitable access to domestic partner benefits.

99. Work-Life Issues 67% (n = 341) of employee respondents believe that they have colleagues or peers at UW-La Crosse who give them career advice or guidance when they need it. 57% (n = 292) of employee respondents believe that they have support from decision makers/colleagues who support their career advancement. 37% (n = 190) of employee respondents reported that their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience.

100. More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the Chancellor, Deans and Directors, and Campus Climate Coordinator provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community. Institutional Actions

101. 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 learning disabilities and veteran/military status

102. Welcoming Classroom Climate The majority of students found the classroom climate to be welcoming of “difference.” Several exceptions include : Racial Differences  White Students (73%); Students of Color (51%) Sexual Orientation Differences  Heterosexual (62%); LGBQ (43%)

103. Welcoming Workplace Climate  The majority of employees found the workplace climate to be welcoming of “difference.”  Women, respondents of color, and sexual minority respondents were less likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender, race and sexual orientation than their men, white, and heterosexual counterparts.

104. Next Steps…

105. Process Forward Fall/Winter 2008  Share report results with community  Community dialogue regarding the assessment results  Community feedback on recommended actions  Executive Summary available at: http://go.UW-La Crosse.edu/climate  Full Report will be available at the Research & Resource Center for Campus Climate and at Murphy Library  Recommended planning “advance” to begin a “call to action” regarding the challenges uncovered in the report

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

107. Questions..? Other Ideas..?

108. Last Thoughts “Resistance begins with people confronting pain, whether it’s theirs or somebody else’s, and wanting to do something to change it” --- bell hooks,“Yearning ”