University of Massachusetts Amherst Climate Survey Abridged Report

Page 1

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST

Campus Climate Survey Abridged Report MAY 2017


2

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST

Campus Climate Survey Abridged Report

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

I


Table of Contents Who We Are

1

MESSAGE FROM THE CHANCELLOR

2

CAMPUS CLIMATE BACKGROUND AND METHODS

4

OVERVIEW

6

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

8

GRADUATE STUDENTS

10

STAFF

12

FACULTY

14

SYNTHESIS

16

OVERVIEW

18

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

24

GRADUATE STUDENT

30

STAFF

34

FACULTY

40

NATIVE AMERICANS

41

COMMITMENT TO INCLUSION

42

SYNTHESIS

Experiences with Unfair Treatment

44

OVERVIEW

46

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

50

GRADUATE STUDENTS

54

STAFF

58

FACULTY

62

SYNTHESIS

Classroom Climate Snapshot

64

OVERVIEW

66

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

68

GRADUATE STUDENTS

Workplace Climate Snapshot

70

OVERVIEW

72

STAFF

74

FACULTY

76

CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY: NEXT STEPS

77

OUR PROMISE: A MESSAGE FROM THE CAMPUS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

Perceptions of Campus Climate

UNIVERSITYOF OFMASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT IIII UNIVERSITY


Message from the

Chancellor

Dear Campus Community, Fostering an environment that protects intellectual exploration, advances mutual respect, and promotes inclusivity is critical to the mission of the university. In support of this priority, our campus’s 2015 Diversity Strategic Plan identified improving the campus climate of inclusion as one of our major goals. To meet this goal, it was essential that we establish a baseline measure of our campus climate since the last campus-wide assessment was done in 2001. To create this baseline measure, a campus-wide survey was conducted during the fall 2016 semester. While we were mindful of coinciding circumstances, such as the contentious national political climate, we also acknowledged the inevitability of ongoing events and circumstances outside of our control and the importance of moving forward to create a baseline measure for the campus. I asked each of you to participate in the survey and to respond candidly, sharing your personal experiences and observations related to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion on our campus. I am deeply gratified that the response rate was 41 percent. It reflects an engaged campus community invested in moving forward together and ensuring our campus is committed to actively realizing its ideals. This report gives an overview of the data gathered and an initial analysis. It shows areas of strength but also clear areas of concern. The measure of inclusivity of our campus has to be judged through the perceptions of those who are vulnerable. As one faculty member commented, “I strongly believe that a welcoming and inclusive environment for all deserves to be among our highest institutional values and priorities.” I share this sentiment, and through your voices, we have illuminated areas in need of institutional attention if we are to create an environment respectful of all. Thoughtful analysis takes time, and I am grateful to the survey design and analysis team composed of institutional researchers and faculty experts led by Professor Enobong (Anna) Branch, Elizabeth Williams, and Martha Stassen. The abridged report that follows focuses on perceptions of campus climate globally, experiences of unfair treatment, and provides a window into classroom and workplace climate. The full report scheduled for release in fall 2017 will be more comprehensive, covering all of the measures included in the climate survey, and will pay specific attention to intersecting social identities. The survey data collected will guide our ongoing process for Diversity Strategic Planning in specific and tangible ways, including campus policies, priorities, and distribution of resources. In reviewing the results of the survey, you will note we are meeting our goals for inclusivity and equality in some areas. While we acknowledge these positive results, I invite the campus community to remain focused on those areas where we are not meeting our goals: these results require our attention. We must address these challenges, and each one of us must ask ourselves how we build a more inclusive environment. I look forward to sharing details with you in the closing section of this report and over the course of the next year.

Sincerely,

Kumble R. Subbaswamy Chancellor

Campus Climate Survey Steering Committee Marilyn Blaustein Raymond La Raja Enobong (Anna) Branch Joya Misra Marcy Clark Anthony Paik

Martha Stassen Elizabeth Williams Ximena Zúñiga

Research Assistants Joshua Bittinger, Kelly Giles, Alicia Remaly, and Stefanie Robles

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGEDREPORT REPORT

11


Campus Climate Survey Background and Methods In fall 2016, all UMass Amherst students and employees were invited to participate in a Campus Climate Survey to help the university better understand the challenges of creating a respectful and inclusive campus environment. The design of the survey was guided by a well-established framework for understanding campus climate (see sidebar), and also by existing climate survey instruments, including one conducted previously at UMass Amherst.

CAMPUS CLIMATE DIMENSIONS 1. Historical Legacy of Inclusion/Exclusion 2. Compositional Diversity 3. Psychological 4. Behavioral 5. Organizational/Structural Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999 Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005

This abridged report focuses on compositional diversity and the psychological dimension of campus climate. These dimensions pertain to the demographic makeup of the campus and differing perceptions of the campus linked to social identity characteristics. The comprehensive report will tap into the behavioral dimension and provide context on the historical dimension from previous campus climate efforts. The online survey was conducted November 13th through December 4th via Qualtrics™ using administration procedures that were confidential for students and anonymous for staff and faculty. The survey included an extensive set of core questions about perceptions and experiences at UMass Amherst, additional item sets tailored to each of four target populations (undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty), and items about social identity. The survey also incorporated open-ended questions to gather details about survey participants’ campus experiences and suggestions for change. Efforts to maximize survey participation were coordinated and multifaceted and included email reminders, an extensive advertising campaign (including both print and social media), personal outreach by survey “ambassadors,” paper versions translated into seven languages, Moodle™ availability of students’ individualized survey links, optimization of question formats to enable participants to take the survey on their phone, prize drawings, and video messages (including one featuring Chancellor Kumble R. Subbaswamy). These concerted efforts helped the campus achieve robust survey response rates across all four target populations (see sidebar, opposite)—rates that exceeded those of several other universities that have conducted similar surveys in recent years (e.g. UC Berkeley, North Carolina State University, UCLA, Texas A&M, Western Michigan University, IUPUI).

UNIVERSITYOF OFMASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT 22 UNIVERSITY

• For students, demographic comparisons were made using student database information. • For staff and faculty, self reported demographics were compared to aggregate statistics from the employee database.


61%

60%

49%

50%

38% 39%

30% 20% 10%

For faculty, survey participants correspond closely to the population with regard to both gender and college/school. Full professors are overrepresented among participants (33 percent versus 28 percent), and white faculty are underrepresented (69 percent versus 75 percent). Each section of this abridged report features visual illustrations of quantitative results and accompanying narrative that compares results across social identity groups. We incorporated open-ended comments to give voice to the survey participants—particularly those whose experiences have been less positive and those who envision change.

FACULTY

40%

STAFF

Staff survey participants differ from the population as follows: 1) women are overrepresented (61 percent of participants versus 52 percent of the population) and men are underrepresented (39 percent versus 48 percent), 2) white staff are overrepresented (82 percent versus 74 percent), and 3) part-time staff are underrepresented (9 percent versus 13 percent). Because 17 percent (n = 475) of staff participants did not report their major work unit, representativeness on this characteristic is difficult to assess. However, among those who did report their unit, administration and finance staff are underrepresented (30 percent of survey participants versus 46 percent of the population).

70%

GRADUATE STUDENTS

For graduate students, survey participants nearly mirror the population with regard to degree type (master’s, doctoral, nondegree), gender, college/school, race/ethnicity, and international status.

SURVEY RESPONSE RATE

UNDERGRADUATES

In order to assess potential nonresponse bias, researchers compared target population and survey participant demographics. Undergraduate student survey participants are a close match (within 1–3 percentage points) to the target population with regard to level/class year, college/school, race/ ethnicity, international status, veteran status, Pell Grant recipient status, and first-generation status. One exception to this close match is that women are overrepresented (55 percent of participants versus 48 percent of the population) and men are underrepresented (45 percent of participants versus 52 percent of the population).

TOTAL CAMPUS POPULATION (n)

CLIMATE SURVEY PARTICIPANTS (n)

Undergraduate Students

21,687

8,323

Graduate Students

4,022

1,584

Staff

5,620

2,731

Faculty

1,752

1,064

The particular subsets of survey questions that are the focus of this abridged report were chosen based on perceived importance and utility in relation to the development of initial campus change efforts. An abundance of additional climate survey results, including extensive open-ended comments (more than 700 pages), remain to be shared in a comprehensive report slated for release in fall 2017. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGEDREPORT REPORT

33


Who We Are This section focuses on compositional diversity, which encompasses the demographic breakdown of undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty who comprise UMass Amherst. Awareness and consideration of “who we are,” as well as how social identities are shaped by an array of intersecting aspects, is key to understanding our campus environment and to considering the multiplicity of perspectives within. The federal government requires all colleges and universities that receive government funding to gather and report annually a wide range of student and employee demographics. Consequently, UMass Amherst possesses considerable institutional data pertaining to the demographics of community members. The population statistics included in “UMass at a Glance” (see the Office of Institutional Research website) go a long way in illustrating who we are. However, a limitation of these data is that they conform to established federal reporting standards that are somewhat misaligned with current social identity concepts. For example, the federal government requires the university to report gender using the categories “male” and “female.” This does not recognize the breadth of gender identities with which individuals identify, such as trans woman/man, agender, androgyne, demigender, genderqueer, and questioning. The Campus Climate Survey aimed to extend knowledge of who we are in two main ways: 1) by utilizing more inclusive and conceptually progressive categories (relative to federal reporting categories) to measure race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and 2) by gathering data on social identity characteristics not currently included in the university’s student and employee databases, including sexual orientation, religion, disability (students only) and political view (students and faculty only). This section includes a set of tables for each main campus population that show survey participants’ self-reported race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious identity, disability, political view, and military status. The survey questions focused on race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation/identity, and disability allowed participants to select more than one category, so those shown in the corresponding tables are not mutually exclusive. The sets of categories for gender identity and sexual orientation were developed to be as inclusive as possible and reflect contemporary conceptualizations of these identity aspects.

4

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Staff concerns about anonymity precluded using the full range of racial/ethnic identities on the staff version of the survey. Instead, staff were asked to identity as African American, Latino/a, Asian, or Native American (ALANA) or not ALANA. These concerns were not as pronounced among faculty and students. The use of these binary categories may obscure differences among specific racial/ethnic groups in comparative analyses with undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. For graduate students, race/ethnicity is reported separately for domestic and international students because of the salience of this intersection of identity aspects at UMass Amherst, where international students comprise approximately 40 percent of the graduate student population. Historically, it has been challenging to assess the Native American experience because small sample sizes hamper analysis and reporting. On the climate survey, 72 undergraduate students, 11 graduate students, and 10 faculty members identified as Native American, with 30 of these individuals identifying as Native American exclusively. To overcome the challenge of small numbers, we combined undergraduate and graduate students, as well as faculty (staff self-reported their race/ethnicity as ALANA or not ALANA, so we were unable to include them). This aggregating allowed us to include in the following section a special focus on Native American perceptions of campus climate. Each “Who We Are� table is paired with a corresponding chart illustrating sense of belonging at UMass Amherst broken down by social identity aspects, including race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. In order to conduct the comparative analysis of belonging shown, researchers created social identity variables with mutually exclusive categories. These results provide a first glimpse into how perceptions and experiences of the campus environment can differ substantially in relation to social identity characteristics. The section concludes with a synthesis across the four main groups.

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

5


Who We Are: Undergraduate Students n = 8,323

RACE/ETHNICITY*

RELIGIOUS IDENTITY 431

5%

Agnostic

852

13%

1,342

17%

Atheist

841

13%

Cape/Cabo Verdean

49

1%

Buddhist

155

2%

Latina/o

488

6%

Christian – Catholic

1,703

26%

Middle Eastern or Middle Eastern American

193

2%

Christian – Protestant

616

9%

Native American, North or South American Indian, or Alaska Native

72

1%

Hindu

114

2%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

30

< 1%

Jewish

345

5%

6,240

77%

Muslim

100

2%

Biracial or Multiracial

389

5%

Another Religious Identity

399

6%

Another Race/Ethnicity

162

2%

Religion Not Part of Identity

1,554

23%

Not Reported

202

-

Not Reported

1,644

-

African American or Black Asian or Asian American

White or Caucasian

DISABILITY*

GENDER* Woman

4,622

56%

Man

3,717

45%

Trans Woman

19

< 1%

Trans Man

36

< 1%

Agender

25

< 1%

Androgyne

17

< 1%

Demigender

17

< 1%

Genderqueer

67

1%

Questioning

62

1%

Another Gender Identity

61

1%

Not Reported

0

-

Lesbian

105

2%

Gay

180

3%

Bisexual

497

Registration

486

7%

Not Registered with Disability Services

6,275

93%

Not Reported

1,562

-

Sensory Disability

78

1%

Mobility-Related Disability

54

1%

Learning Disability

538

8%

Mental Health Disability

677

10%

Other Type of Disability

133

2%

No Disability

5,410

82%

Not Reported

1,724

-

Liberal

3,186

55%

7%

Moderate

1,708

29%

5,644

84%

Conservative

536

9%

Asexual

107

2%

Another Viewpoint

397

7%

Pansexual

164

2%

Not Reported

2,496

-

Queer

176

2%

Questioning or Unsure

200

3%

93

1%

8,230

99%

-

-

Registered with Disability Services

Disability Identity

SEXUAL ORIENTATION*

Heterosexual or Straight

MILITARY STATUS

Same-Gender Loving

33

1%

Current/Former Member of Military

Another Sexual Orientation/Identity

64

1%

Not Member of Military

1,592

-

Not Reported Note:

6

POLITICAL VIEW

*Categories not mutually exclusive; participants could select multiple categories.

Not Reported n = 8,323 (total number of participants)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Sense of Belonging: Undergraduate Students For undergraduate students, sense of belonging varies considerably among social identity groups. Across the categories depicted, the percentage of undergraduate students who perceive a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” ranges from a low of approximately one-quarter to a high of nearly three-fifths. Percentages of undergraduate students who feel a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” are highest among those that identify as white, man, woman, heterosexual, Christian, Jewish, atheist, and have either no disability or a sensory disability. In contrast, percentages are lowest for undergraduate students who identify as black, trans, or genderqueer, or have multiple disabilities. Sense of belonging is most similar among religious/ spiritual groups, and least similar among gender identity and disability groupings.

HERE AT UMASS AMHERST, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU BELONG? % SAYING “TO A GREAT EXTENT”

70%

60% WHT

W

50% LAT

40%

HET M

NOT

JE

AG

AT

ASN

MS ANO

NON LRN

LGB

MUL

AN

30%

CH

SNS

MBL

HN BU

BLK

MNT MPL

TQ

20%

10%

RACE/ETHNICITY GENDER IDENTITY SEXUAL IDENTITY RELIGION/SPIRITUAL BELIEFS Race/Ethnicity: ASN (Asian), BLK (Black), LAT (Latino/a), WHT (White), MUL (Multiracial) Gender Identity: M (Man), TQ (Transgender or Genderqueer), W (Woman), AN (Another identity) Sexual Identity: HET (Heterosexual), LGB (Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual), ANO (Another identity)

DISABILITY

Religion or Spiritual Beliefs: AG (Agnostic), AT (Atheist), BU (Buddhist), CH (Christian), HN (Hindu), JE (Jewish), MS (Muslim), NOT (Religion not part of identity) Disability: LRN (Learning), MBL (Mobility), MNT (Mental), SNS (Sensory), MPL (Multiple disabilities), NON (No disability)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

7


Who We Are: Graduate Students n = 1,584

RACE/ETHNICITY—DOMESTIC STUDENTS ONLY*

RACE/ETHNICITY—INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS ONLY*

African American or Black

59

6%

African American or Black

26

4%

Asian or Asian American

67

7%

Asian or Asian American

331

51%

Cape/Cabo Verdean

<5

< 1%

Cape/Cabo Verdean

<5

1%

Latina/o

76

8%

Latina/o

50

8%

Middle Eastern or Middle Eastern American

9

1%

Middle Eastern or Middle Eastern American

39

6%

Native American, North or South American Indian, or Alaska Native

11

1%

Native American, North or South American Indian, or Alaska Native

<5

1%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

<5

< 1%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

<5

< 1%

White or Caucasian

758

81%

White or Caucasian

67

10%

Biracial or Multiracial

51

6%

Biracial or Multiracial

6

1%

Another Race/Ethnicity

20

2%

Another Race/Ethnicity

19

3%

Not Reported

1

-

Not Reported

135

-

DISABILITY*

GENDER* Woman

876

55%

Man

710

45%

7

< 1%

Trans Man

<5

< 1%

Agender

<5

< 1%

Androgyne

<5

< 1%

Demigender

<5

< 1%

Genderqueer

25

2%

Questioning

6

< 1%

Another Gender Identity

10

1%

Not Reported

0

-

Trans Woman

SEXUAL ORIENTATION*

55

4%

1,258

96%

271

-

Sensory Disability

19

1%

Mobility-Related Disability

13

1%

Learning Disability

67

5%

Mental Health Disability

94

7%

Other Type of Disability

32

3%

No Disability

1,103

86%

Not Reported

307

-

Registered with Disability Services Not Registered with Disability Services Not Reported Disability Identity

RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

POLITICAL VIEW

Lesbian

38

3%

Agnostic

182

14%

Liberal

743

64%

Gay

38

3%

Atheist

198

15%

Moderate

240

21%

Bisexual

69

5%

Buddhist

36

3%

Conservative

51

4%

1,046

83%

Christian – Catholic

140

11%

12%

117

9%

Another Viewpoint

135

Christian – Protestant Hindu

115

9%

Not Reported

415

-

Jewish

39

3%

Muslim

62

5%

Another Religious Identity

91

7%

Religion Not Part of Identity

303

24%

Not Reported

301

-

Heterosexual or Straight Asexual

21

2%

Pansexual

18

1%

Queer

57

5%

Questioning or Unsure

11

1%

Same-Gender Loving

10

1%

Another Sexual Orientation/Identity

10

1%

Not Reported

316

-

Note:

8

Registration

*Categories not mutually exclusive; participants could select multiple categories.

MILITARY STATUS 20

1%

Not Member of Military

1,564

99%

Not Reported

-

-

Current/Former Member of Military

n =1,584 (total number of graduate student participants)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Sense of Belonging: Graduate Students For graduate students, sense of belonging varies considerably among social identity groups, particularly by race/ethnicity. Percentages of graduate students who feel a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” range from an extreme low of less than one-tenth to a high of more than one-half. Percentages of graduate students who feel a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” are lowest for domestic black (black border below), Asian, and multiracial graduate students, those who identify as another gender, those of another sexual identity, Buddhist students, and those who identify as having a mental disability or multiple disabilities. In contrast, percentages are highest for international black (orange border below) and multiracial graduate students. Sense of belonging is most similar across religious groups, with the exception of students who identify as Buddhist.

HERE AT UMASS AMHERST, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU BELONG? % SAYING “TO A GREAT EXTENT”

70%

60% BLK

50%

MUL

40% LAT

WHT

M

ASN

LAT WHT

W

30% ASN

20%

10%

HET LGB

AG

CH

AT

NOT JE

HN

NON

MS BU

MUL

LRN

MPL MNT

ANO

BLK AN

RACE/ETHNICITY

GENDER SEXUAL RELIGION/SPIRITUAL IDENTITY IDENTITY BELIEFS

Race/Ethnicity: ASN (Asian), BLK (Black), LAT (Latino/a), WHT (White), MUL (Multiracial) Domestic (Black border), International (Orange border) Gender Identity: M (Man), W (Woman), AN (Another identity)

DISABILITY

Religion or Spiritual Beliefs: AG (Agnostic), AT (Atheist), BU (Buddhist), CH (Christian), HN (Hindu), JE (Jewish), MS (Muslim), NOT (Religion not part of identity) Disability: LRN (Learning), MNT (Mental), MPL (Multiple disabilities), NON (No disability)

Sexual Identity: HET (Heterosexual), LGB (Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual), ANO (Another identity)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

9


Who We Are: Staff

n = 2,731

RACE/ETHNICITY*

RELIGIOUS IDENTITY 469

African American, Latino/a, Asian, or Native American (ALANA)*

18%

Not ALANA*

2,158

82%

Not Reported

104

-

GENDER* Woman

1,586

Man

Agnostic

275

11%

Atheist

222

9%

Buddhist

72

3%

Christian – Catholic

719

28%

Christian – Protestant

440

17%

Hindu

52

2%

Jewish

88

3%

60%

Muslim

18

1%

1,011

38%

Another Religious Identity

180

7%

Trans Woman

<5

< 1%

Religion Not Part of Identity

488

19%

Trans Man

<5

< 1%

Not Reported

177

-

Agender

<5

< 1%

Androgyne

<5

< 1%

Demigender

<5

< 1%

Genderqueer

19

1%

Yes

2,246

85%

< 1%

No

386

15%

6

< 1%

Not Reported

99

-

115

-

119

4%

2,507

96%

105

-

6

Questioning Another Gender Identity Not Reported

ENGLISH FIRST LANGUAGE

MILITARY STATUS Current/Former Member of Military

SEXUAL ORIENTATION* Lesbian

90

4%

Gay

44

2%

Not Reported

96

4%

2,147

84%

Asexual

25

1%

24 or younger

90

3%

Pansexual

14

1%

25 to 34

433

17%

Queer

40

2%

35 to 44

502

19%

Questioning or Unsure

13

1%

45 to 54

676

26%

Same-Gender Loving

21

1%

55 to 64

759

29%

Another Sexual Orientation/Identity

9

< 1%

65 or Older

158

6%

278

-

Not Reported

113

-

Bisexual Heterosexual or Straight

Not Reported Note:

10

Not Member of Military

*Categories not mutually exclusive; participants could select multiple categories.

AGE

n =2,731 (total number of staff participants)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Sense of Belonging: Staff For staff, sense of belonging varies most by gender identity and by sexual identity. For nearly all of the categories depicted, the percentage who reported a feeling of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” is between approximately one-third and approximately one-half. It is notable that perceptions of belonging between ALANA and non-ALANA staff are fairly close, between 30 and 40 percent. It is possible that this aggregate measure masks underlying racial variation between the component groups (African American, Latino/a, Asian, and Native American). Percentages of staff who feel a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” are by far the lowest for staff who identify as another gender and for staff who identify as another sexual identity. Percentages are highest (close to 50 percent) for Hindu and Jewish staff and managerial staff with several additional groups at or near 40 percent.

HERE AT UMASS AMHERST, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU BELONG? % SAYING “TO A GREAT EXTENT” 70%

60%

50%

HN M

40%

NA ALN

BU

HET

W

LGB

MA

JE AG AT NOT

PR

CH SC

MS

30%

20%

AS

ANO

10% AN

RACE/ETHNICITY GENDER IDENTITY SEXUAL IDENTITY RELIGION/SPIRITUAL BELIEFS Race/Ethnicity: ALN (ALANA), NA (Not ALANA)

JOB TYPE

Gender Identity: M (Man), W (Woman), AN (Another identity)

Religion or Spiritual Beliefs: AG (Agnostic), AT (Atheist), BU (Buddhist), CH (Christian), HN (Hindu), JE (Jewish), MS (Muslim), NOT (Religion not part of identity)

Sexual Identity: HET (Heterosexual), LGB (Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual), ANO (Another identity)

Job Type: Administrative Support (AS), Professional (PR), Maintenance or Service (MS), Skilled Crafts (SC), Managerial (MA)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

11


Who We Are: Faculty RACE/ETHNICITY*

RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

African American or Black

49

5%

Agnostic

182

19%

Asian or Asian American

114

12%

Atheist

178

18%

Cape/Cabo Verdean

<5

< 1%

Buddhist

20

2%

Latina/o

46

5%

Christian – Catholic

107

11%

Middle Eastern or Middle Eastern American

11

1%

Christian – Protestant

133

14%

Native American, North or South American Indian, or Alaska Native

10

1%

Hindu

12

1%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

<5

< 1%

Jewish

76

8%

White or Caucasian

763

77%

Muslim

7

1%

Biracial or Multiracial

14

1%

Another Religious Identity

92

9%

Another Race/Ethnicity

32

3%

Religion Not Part of Identity

166

17%

Not Reported

73

-

Not Reported

91

-

ENGLISH FIRST LANGUAGE

GENDER*

Yes

810

80%

No

208

20%

Not Reported

46

-

Woman

477

47%

Man

529

52%

Trans Woman

<5

< 1%

Trans Man

<5

< 1%

Agender

<5

< 1%

Androgyne

<5

< 1%

Current/Former Member of Military

22

2%

< 1%

Not Member of Military

999

98%

Not Reported

43

-

24 or Younger

0

0%

25 to 34

93

9%

35 to 44

272

27%

273

27%

<5

Demigender Genderqueer

6

1%

Questioning

<5

< 1%

Another Gender Identity

11

1%

44

Not Reported

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

-

*

MILITARY STATUS

AGE

Lesbian

43

4%

45 to 54

Gay

31

3%

55 to 64

264

26%

Bisexual

43

4%

65 or Older

110

11%

Not Reported

52

-

Heterosexual or Straight

832

86%

Asexual

<5

< 1%

Pansexual

<5

< 1%

POLITICAL VIEW Liberal

674

69%

Moderate

178

18%

1%

Conservative

26

3%

15

2%

Another Viewpoint

99

10%

95

-

Not Reported

87

-

Queer

24

2%

Questioning or Unsure

<5

< 1%

Same-Gender Loving

8

Another Sexual Orientation/Identity Not Reported Note:

12

n = 1,064

*Categories not mutually exclusive; participants could select multiple categories.

n = 1,064 (total number of faculty participants)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Sense of Belonging: Faculty For faculty, sense of belonging varies substantially within each of the five aspects of social identity. Among the categories depicted here, the percentage of faculty who feel a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” ranges from a low of less than one-quarter to a high of nearly two-thirds. Within nine of the groups shown, the percentage of faculty who feel like they belong “to a great extent” is at or exceeds 50 percent. Percentages of faculty who feel a sense of belonging at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” are highest for men, Buddhist and Jewish faculty, and full professors. In contrast, percentages are lowest for multiracial and black faculty, faculty of another gender, and faculty who identify as another sexual orientation.

HERE AT UMASS AMHERST, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU BELONG? % SAYING “TO A GREAT EXTENT”

70% BU

60% WHT

50%

40%

JE

M LAT ASN

HET

AT

LGB

CH

FUL

AG NOT

LEC

ASO

AST

W CLR

30%

20%

BLK

ANO AN

MUL

10%

RACE/ETHNICITY GENDER IDENTITY SEXUAL IDENTITY RELIGION/SPIRITUAL BELIEFS Race/Ethnicity: ASN (Asian), BLK (Black), LAT (Latino/a), WHT (White), MUL (Multiracial) Gender Identity: M (Man), W (Woman), AN (Another identity) Sexual Identity: HET (Heterosexual), LGB (Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual), ANO (Another identity).

RANK

Religion or Spiritual Beliefs: AG (Agnostic), AT (Atheist), BU (Buddhist), CH (Christian), HN (Hindu), JE (Jewish), MS (Muslim), NOT (Religion not part of identity) Rank: Lecturer (LEC), Assistant Professor (AST), Associate Professor (ASO), Full Professor (FUL), Clinical or Research Faculty (CLR)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

13


Who We Are: Synthesis This section of the report focused on compositional diversity, the dimension of campus climate that pertains to the social identity characteristics of campus community members. Although some of the self-reported identity information presented here aligns closely with demographic data available on the Office of Institutional Research website, other information is unprecedented. Here, we highlight some commonalities and differences across the four main population groups— undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty. The data in the “Who We Are” tables illustrate that the distributions of racial/ethnic identities are quite similar among undergraduate students, domestic graduate students, and faculty—with a few exceptions: undergraduate and graduate students are more likely than faculty to identify as multiracial (5 and 6 percent versus 1 percent) and undergraduates are more likely than domestic graduate students or faculty to identify as Asian or Asian-American (17 percent versus 7 and 12 percent). The disaggregation of race/ethnicity data for domestic and international graduate student survey participants illustrates three main differences between the two subpopulations: international graduate students are much more likely to identify as Asian (51 percent versus 7 percent), domestic students are much more likely to identify as white (81 percent versus 10 percent), and international graduate students are slightly more likely to identify as Middle Eastern (6 percent versus 1 percent). The data in the tables reflect the slight overrepresentation of women (and underrepresentation of men) among student and staff survey participants. Percentages who selected each of the gender identity categories outside of those associated with the “gender binary” are nearly identical across all four main groups, generally equal to or less than 1 percent for each category. Among undergraduate student survey participants, more than 200 individuals identified as trans, agender, androgyne, demigender, genderqueer, questioning, or another gender identity. Across the four main groups, percentages who selected each sexual identity category are similar. Between 14 percent and 17 percent of survey participants across all four groups selected an identity other than heterosexual. The data pertaining to religious identity show substantial similarity across the four populations with a few exceptions: graduate students and faculty (11 percent for both) are less likely than undergraduate students or staff to identify as Catholic (26 and 28 percent), faculty are twice as likely as staff to identify as atheist (18 percent versus 9 percent), and undergraduate and graduate students are slightly more likely than staff or faculty to select “religion is not part of my identity” (23 and 24 percent versus 19 and 17 percent).

14

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Faculty and graduate students are more likely than undergraduate students to identify as politically liberal (69 and 64 percent versus 55 percent), whereas undergraduates are more likely than graduate students and faculty to identify as conservative (9 percent versus 4 and 3 percent). Undergraduate students are more likely than graduate students to report that they are registered with Disability Services (7 percent versus 4 percent), but percentages selecting each of the disability types are similar (within three percentage points). The percentage identifying as active military or veteran is highest among staff (4 percent). Staff are younger than faculty; they are twice as likely to be ages 25–34 or 24 or younger (9 percent versus 20 percent), whereas faculty are more likely than staff to be age 65 or older (11 percent versus 6 percent). The data visualizations comparing sense of belonging across identity groups illuminate substantial variation across the four populations: the percentage who feel like they belong at UMass Amherst “to a great extent” ranges from less than 20 percent for some identity groups to upward of 60 percent for others. Percentages who perceive a sense of belonging “to a great extent” are lowest (less than 20 percent) for graduate students and staff who identify as another gender or another sexual orientation, black domestic graduate students, and graduate students with a mental disability. In contrast, percentages are highest (approximately 60 percent) for faculty who identify as men, Buddhist or Jewish, and full professors. The charts also show that sense of belonging varies more among faculty and among graduate students than it does among undergraduate students or among staff. The next section of the report switches focus from compositional diversity to the psychological dimension of campus climate, exploring perceptions of campus climate, diversity, inclusiveness, and racial climate across several of the social identity aspects that define “who we are.”

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

15


Perceptions of Camp This section focuses on the psychological dimension of campus climate, which encompasses perceptions of the campus environment and tensions driven by social identity. The survey included a set of items to assess perceptions of aspects of the campus climate overall and questions about the racial climate (more specifically), as well as the university’s level of commitment to inclusion. Most results are reported separately for undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty. For each of these groups, we illustrate the extent to which perceptions of campus climate are similar or different across several intersecting aspects of social identity (e.g. gender identity, race/ethnicity, or sexual identity). Such comparisons are crucial to advancing understanding of how members of the UMass Amherst community perceive the campus environment in which they learn, work, teach, and socialize—an environment created and shaped by a wide range of human interactions, attitudes, and behaviors. Throughout this section, we use the sidebar to incorporate direct quotes from survey participants’ open-ended responses. These quotes help to illuminate community members’ perceptions and lived experiences authentically. The quotes are intended to give voice to the survey participants—particularly those whose experiences with the campus climate are less positive and who envision change. The comprehensive report will include analysis of the full set of openended comments. As discussed previously, the survey questions that asked participants to report their race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual identity/ orientation allowed individuals to select more than one category. In order to conduct the comparative analyses reported here, researchers created social identity variables with mutually exclusive categories.

16

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

CAMPUS CLIMATE ASPECTS Thinking about your own experiences and interactions, please rate the campus overall on each scale below.

Welcoming

Safe

Supportive

Friendly

Unwelcoming Unsafe Unsupportive Hostile

Not Diverse Diverse Inclusive Not Inclusive

Tolerant

Respectful

Intolerant Disrespectful Not Collaborative

Collaborative

Strong sense Weak sense of community of community

WHY DOES CAMPUS CLIMATE MATTER? Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central to our mission, our values, and our success. We conducted the Campus Climate Survey to better understand the challenges of creating an environment that is respectful and inclusive for all.

INTERSECTING SOCIAL IDENTITIES

GENDER

RACE/ ETHNICITY

SEXUAL IDENTITY


pus Climate To preserve the anonymity of survey participants’ responses, some identity categories selected by numerically few individuals were aggregated to form hybrid analytical categories (e.g. transgender or genderqueer). Additional information about these variables will be available in the comprehensive report scheduled for release in fall 2017.

RACIAL CLIMATE How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the racial climate at UMass Amherst? Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied

Like several other campuses that have conducted similar climate surveys, we measured perceptions of the general campus climate using a collective set of items that tap into climate aspects (see sidebar, opposite). We combined responses for nine of these 10 items (all but the Diverse Not Diverse item) to create a composite, summative measure. In this section, we illustrate and discuss results pertaining to the general campus climate and also focus in on two specific climate aspects: diversity and inclusiveness. The Black Lives Matter movement factored prominently into both campus and broader societal contexts for the fall 2016 climate survey. The Diversity Strategic Plan’s highlighting of the campus racial climate as problematic, and personal experiences shared by students and staff at campus listening forums, underscored the importance of devoting specific attention to racial climate at UMass Amherst—a predominantly white institution (PWI). Consequently, the committee charged with survey design decided that it was important to assess community members’ levels of satisfaction with the campus racial climate, specifically (see sidebar). In this section of the report, we illustrate racial climate satisfaction levels by race/ethnicity and by gender identity.

Very Dissatisfied

INCLUSION DEFINED

“The opportunity for all individuals to join and participate fully within the community” (UMASS AMHERST DIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLAN)

INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT From your perspective, how committed or uncommitted to inclusion is UMass Amherst as an institution? Very Committed Somewhat Committed Somewhat Uncommitted Very Uncommitted I’m Not Sure

This section concludes by reporting the collective results pertaining to perceived institutional commitment to inclusion (see sidebar), and by synthesizing patterns of perception across the four main groups of campus community members—undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty.

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

17


Undergraduate Student Perceptions: Overall Climate The majority of undergraduate students rated the campus climate positively (a 4 or 5) on the composite overall climate measure. Most students across all of the social identity categories depicted rated the campus on the positive end of the scale. For example, overwhelming majorities of women, Asian, LGB, and Jewish students rated the overall climate a 4 or 5, as did lesser majorities of transgender or genderqueer students and black students. Although these findings are encouraging, the survey results show room for improvement. For example, more than one-quarter of students overall rated the campus climate less positively (3, 2, or 1). Focusing on the negative end of the rating scale, there are three social identity groups that stand out relative to others: transgender or genderqueer students, students of another gender identity (e.g. agender, questioning), and black students. Trans or genderqueer students and students of another gender were among the most likely to rate the overall climate very negatively. Twenty percent of trans or genderqueer students and 15 percent of those of another gender rated the overall climate on the negative end of the scale. Trans or genderqueer students were least likely, across all of the groups depicted, to rate the overall climate very positively. Fourteen percent of black undergraduates rated the overall campus climate negatively (1 or 2), and black students were less likely than students of other racial/ethnic identities to rate the overall climate very positively (5). As illustrated in the previous section on the structural dimension of campus climate, black students and students who identify as trans or genderqueer, or another gender, are among the smallest demographic groups at UMass Amherst. They also are groups that have been oppressed and marginalized within the larger society. Our survey results suggest that enhancing campus climate for these groups, in particular, should be paramount.

18

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“I think that UMass is a welcoming and inclusive place.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“I have had several experiences with professors making transphobic and cissexist remarks within lectures. I am also misgendered by peers and professors quite often despite being very open about my pronouns.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

SAFETY Perceptions of safety on campus are central to campus climate assessments. The comprehensive report will explore this further. • Across all racial/ethnic groups, vast majorities rated the campus on the “safe” end of the scale and fewer than 10 percent rated it on the “unsafe” end. • One-quarter of trans or genderqueer students rated the campus on the “unsafe”end.


Undergraduate Students RATINGS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

19


Undergraduate Perceptions: Diversity & Inclusiveness Undergraduate student perceptions of both campus diversity and inclusiveness varied across social identity groups more than their perceptions of overall campus climate. Overall, three-fifths of students rated the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale (4 or 5), whereas one-fifth rated the campus on the “not diverse” end (1 or 2). Asian, white, and multiracial students’ perceptions were quite similar, but differed considerably from those of Latino/a and especially black students: the majority of black and more than onethird of Latino/a undergraduate students rated the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale. With regard to gender identity, cisgender students’ perceptions were similar, with men slightly more likely than women to rate the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale, and women slightly more likely than men to rate the campus on the “not diverse” end. The ratings of students who identify as trans or genderqueer, or another identity, contrast sharply with those of cisgender students: 44 percent of trans or genderqueer students rated the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale, as did 33 percent of students who identify as another gender identity. These survey results illustrate stark differences in undergraduate students’ perceptions of campus diversity. It is important to consider that individuals’ perceptions of diversity are influenced by varied conceptual understandings, as well as differing prior experiences engaging in social contexts that are demographically heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous. For some undergraduate students, the term “diversity” may signal race/ethnicity only, or gender identity only. For others, the term may encapsulate a broader array of social identities, including political orientation.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“The student body is overwhelmingly homogeneous. For the campus to be more welcoming/inclusive, it needs to, quite simply, change its demographics.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“I find that people with similar identities stick together, so even if there is representation on campus, the diversity may not actually impact anyone in a significant way. I think there needs to be more integration rather than just representation.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“Stop sheltering students from the harsh realities of the real world! It may not seem inclusive, but if we instead teach them to debate rather than report, it would be a much better climate overall.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

Given the contentious political climate in fall 2016, it is reassuring to see that undergraduate students’ ratings of campus inclusiveness are quite similar across conservative, moderate, and liberal political identity groups, with a majority overall rating the campus on the “inclusive” end of the scale.

20

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Undergraduate Students RATINGS OF DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE ASPECTS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

21


Undergraduate Student Perceptions: Racial Climate As illustrated, undergraduate student satisfaction with the racial climate at UMass Amherst differs considerably by race/ethnicity, with the greatest differences between black students and white and Asian students. Although the vast majority (82 percent) of undergraduate students overall reported being either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the racial climate on campus, it is important to consider that this statistic reflects the perceptions of the numerical racial/ethnic majority at UMass Amherst (white students). White students are the most likely to report being “very satisfied” with the racial climate, whereas black students are the least likely, by far. Vast majorities of Asian, Latino/a, white, and multiracial students indicated that they are very or somewhat satisfied with the racial climate at UMass Amherst. In sharp contrast, a majority of black students (55 percent) and almost one-third (32 percent) of Latino/a students indicated being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the racial climate. Consistent with the previously discussed pattern of perceptions of campus diversity, trans or genderqueer students and students of another gender were much more likely than cisgender students to express dissatisfaction with the campus racial climate. Nearly onehalf of trans or genderqueer students and 40 percent of students of another gender reported being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the racial climate. Undergraduate students’ perceptions of racial climate echo the differing perceptions of campus diversity by race/ethnicity and gender identity. In its starkness, this difference in perceptions presents a clear target for university change efforts.

22

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“Simply being the only black student in a room brings on discomfort for me. At times, when things happen, although they are mundane and seemingly typical, I’m made to wonder, is it because of the color of my skin? I’ve also been disgusted by the way people in this community have engaged in discussing the results of the election by distancing themselves and the issues from white supremacy and racism.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“Daily microaggression done by white people. It is often implicit, but it can still be hurtful and reinforce stereotypes, which then dehumanize me and many other people of color.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT


Undergraduate Students SATISFACTION WITH THE RACIAL CLIMATE AT UMASS

“I’ve been in classrooms and other spaces on campus where students and faculty have felt comfortable using racial slurs without having the proper education and knowledge as to why those slurs would be offensive . . .” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

23


Graduate Student Perceptions: Overall Climate Overall, 61 percent of graduate students rated the campus climate on the positive end of the rating scale (4 or 5). However, within many of the social identity groups, including black domestic students, Latino/a domestic students, and LGB students, only a minority rated the campus on the positive end of the scale. One of the most discernible patterns in the overall climate data is that considerably larger proportions of international students rated the campus on the positive end of the scale than did domestic students—across all racial/ethnic groups. In contrast, among domestic students, substantial proportions of black, Latino/a, and multiracial graduate students rated the campus climate on the negative end of the scale. The divergent perceptions of domestic and international students may be attributable in part to differing perspectives grounded in diverse social and cultural contexts. The survey results bring these differing perceptions of campus climate to light and suggest a focal point deserving of consideration and further attention. Graduate students’ ratings of the campus climate were similar across religious identity groups, with two exceptions: Jewish students were less likely than others to assign the campus a very positive (5) rating, whereas Hindu students were much more likely than others to assign the campus a very positive rating. It is, however, important to recognize that Jewish students and Hindu students are the two smallest religious identity groups among graduate students.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“UMass needs to work on cultivating an inclusive climate by strategically selecting and creating a more diverse student body. Students of color cling to one another because of the overwhelmingly homogenous student body.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“I think UMass is honestly one of the most inclusive spaces I’ve worked in. And I say this having lived in three countries.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“There needs to be more resources for LGBT graduate students, not just to build a network within itself, but to have a presence in the UMass community. The Stonewall Center is a great resource, but it heavily caters to undergraduates.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

24

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Graduate Students RATINGS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

25


Graduate Student Perceptions: Diversity & Inclusiveness Overall, a slight majority (56 percent) of graduate students rated the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale (4 or 5). However, there is substantial variation in students’ assessments of the campus, both across and within social identity groups. Asian international students were more likely than all other racial/ethnic groups to rate the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale, with 43 percent assigning a rating of 5. In contrast, no black domestic students assigned a rating of 5. In fact, an overwhelming majority of black domestic students rated the campus on the “not diverse” end of the rating scale (1 or 2), followed by more than half of multiracial domestic students and nearly one-half of Latino/a domestic students. Lesser, but still substantial, proportions of both Asian and white domestic students rated campus diversity similarly. As mentioned previously, individuals’ perceptions of diversity hinge on their particular standpoints—views that vary in accordance with both social identity characteristics and life experiences. As illustrated in the previous section on compositional diversity, a substantial proportion of the graduate student population is international. The survey results pertaining to diversity and inclusiveness further underscore the importance of considering the intersection of race/ethnicity and domestic/ international status within the graduate student population. Men were more likely than women to rate the campus on the diverse end of the scale, and cisgender students were much more likely than students of another gender identity to rate the campus on the diverse end. Conversely, more than one-half of students of another gender identity and nearly one-third of women rated the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale. As was the case with undergraduate students, it is reassuring to see that graduate students’ ratings of campus inclusiveness are similar across conservative, moderate, and liberal political views, with a majority overall rating the campus on the “inclusive” end of the scale.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“Make UMass more diverse—students of color feel like they are living in a fishbowl where they are the only students of color on campus. . . .” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“UMass Amherst needs to admit more black and Latino students and hire more black and Latino faculty.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“I think UMass is an extremely welcoming environment to diverse populations, which is wonderful. Despite this, the UMass community is not welcoming to others who do not share the same beliefs. For example, the amount of people who were angry because there was to be a Republican discussion on campus was very upsetting. Our campus community needs to show more openness and willingness to discuss different opposing ideas rather than say they are invalid and try to stop people from thinking of these ideas.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

26

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Graduate Students RATINGS OF DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE ASPECTS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

27


Graduate Student Perceptions: Racial Climate Although the vast majority (76 percent) of all graduate students reported being very or somewhat satisfied with the campus racial climate, domestic and international students’ perceptions differ considerably. For four of the five racial/ethnic groups (Asian, black, Latino/a, and white), larger percentages of international students than domestic students reported being “very satisfied” with the racial climate. Conversely, across all five racial/ethnic groups, larger percentages of domestic students than international students reported being “very dissatisfied.” An overwhelming majority (80 percent) of domestic black graduate students reported dissatisfaction with the campus racial climate—a much higher percentage than any other group. This troubling statistic suggests a need for further investigation into the specific causes of the dissatisfaction expressed by this group of graduate students. With regard to gender, students of another gender identity were much more likely than both women and men to report being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the campus racial climate—with a majority expressing dissatisfaction. Men were almost twice as likely as women to report being “very satisfied” with the racial climate, whereas women were more likely than men to report dissatisfaction.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“Being a person of color on this campus is very uncomfortable. Seeing a lack of diversity in faculty is also disheartening.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“This summer [2016], when multiple horrific shootings happened [in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Texas], UMass had no comment. UMass’s silence speaks loudly, and the horrific racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. experience on campus goes unchallenged . . .” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“My professor used me as an example to explain a racial issue . . . not only was it a horrible explanation, I was singled out for being the only person of color in the class.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

28

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Graduate Students SATISFACTION WITH THE RACIAL CLIMATE AT UMASS

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

29


Staff Perceptions: Overall Climate Overall, 59 percent of university staff rated the campus climate on the positive end of the scale (4 or 5). In contrast to both undergraduate and graduate students, there is relatively little variation in campus climate ratings across the social identity groups depicted here. Although majorities across nearly all identity groups rated the campus on the positive end of the scale (4 or 5), percentages of staff who assigned the campus the most positive rating are rather modest, ranging from 11 percent to 25 percent across the various groups. Elevated concerns among staff about confidentiality precluded employing the more comprehensive set of racial/ethnic categories that was utilized in the undergraduate student, graduate student, and faculty versions of the survey. Consequently, it is possible that the simplified, dichotomous way that race/ethnicity was measured in the staff survey masks existing differences between, for example, Latino/a staff and white staff or black staff and Asian staff. Although campus climate ratings among staff were noticeably uniform overall, the ratings of a few social identity groups stand out as different. Staff who identified as another gender identity were less likely than cisgender staff to rate the campus on the positive end of the scale and were more likely to rate the campus on the negative end of the scale (27 percent rated it a 1 or 2). With regard to sexual identity, staff who identified as another sexual identity were more likely than heterosexual and LGB staff to rate the campus on the negative end of the scale (19 percent rated it a 1 or 2).

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“As a genderqueer person, I regularly have issues with bathrooms. I get stared at, barred from entering, or questioned about entering public bathrooms. The lack of gender inclusive bathrooms in many areas on campus is very limiting and uncomfortable.” —STAFF MEMBER

“Every time you make the university more ‘welcoming and inclusive’ for one group, you alienate another.” —STAFF MEMBER

“Leaders set the tone. Anyone in a leadership position should say ‘hello’ to people they see in the hall every day. Communicate with your staff daily, say ‘hello’ when you see them in the morning. That one small thing creates an inclusive environment and it’s so easy to do.” —STAFF MEMBER

30

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Staff Members RATINGS OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

31


Staff Perceptions: Diversity and Racial Climate Although a majority of staff members rated the campus on the “diverse” end of the rating scale (4 or 5), assessments varied somewhat by race/ ethnicity and by gender. ALANA staff were more likely than staff who do not identify as ALANA to rate the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale. With regard to gender identity, staff who identify as another gender were much more likely than cisgender staff to rate the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

Overall, an overwhelming majority (81 percent) of staff members reported being very or somewhat satisfied with the racial climate on campus. However, the survey data reveal differences by race/ethnicity and by gender.

“Tired of being looked down on or not taken seriously about my job since I am a woman in [a traditionally] male field.”

ALANA staff members were more likely than those who did not identify as ALANA to report being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the campus racial climate. More than one-quarter of ALANA staff reported dissatisfaction, suggesting room for improvement. Staff who identified as another gender were much more likely than were cisgender staff to report being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the campus racial climate. Men were slightly more likely than were women, and much more likely than were those who identified as another gender, to report being “very satisfied” with the campus racial climate.

“The people who are bullies and racists have learned how to do it undercover and indirectly—they have been taught what is not ok to do and say so they do it in other ways. Just because a person doesn’t use the “N” word or is not openly biased, does not make anything better if they are still in positions of power and can manipulate the situation.” —STAFF MEMBER

32

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

“UMass is a very difficult place to be a white heterosexual male. I feel that being a white male is now demonized, because we supposedly have a white privilege that makes everything easier as compared to the rest of the population.” —STAFF MEMBER

—STAFF MEMBER

“I don’t mind helping out . . . by participating in committees, but sometimes it has been fairly evident that I get asked to be in many more committees than my peers who are not minorities. This reinforces a feeling that I am different.” —STAFF MEMBER


Staff Members RATINGS OF DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE ASPECTS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

SATISFACTION WITH THE RACIAL CLIMATE AT UMASS

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

33


Faculty Perceptions: Overall Climate A majority of faculty (61 percent) rated the campus climate on the positive end of the rating scale (4 or 5). Similar to staff, the variation in campus climate ratings across the social identity groups depicted is relatively modest. Perceptions of the campus climate vary somewhat by race/ethnicity, with multiracial and black faculty more likely than Asian, white, and Latino/a faculty to rate the campus on the negative end of the scale (1 or 2). Conversely, Asian, Latino/a, and white faculty were more likely than black and multiracial faculty to rate the campus on the positive end of the scale. Perceptions of campus climate varied only slightly by gender identity, with men more likely than women or faculty of another gender rating the campus on the positive end of the scale. Majorities of both heterosexual and LGB faculty rated the campus climate on the positive end of the scale, but the same is not true for faculty of another sexual identity. Faculty of another sexual identity were slightly more likely than heterosexual faculty to rate the campus on the negative end of the scale. Faculty ratings of campus climate varied minimally by religion or spiritual beliefs, with majorities across all groups rating the campus on the positive end of the scale. Buddhist faculty were slightly more likely than those with other religious identities to rate the climate on the negative end of the scale. Overall, faculty assessments of the campus climate did not vary considerably across the social identity groups depicted. Across all of the social identity categories, fewer than 30 percent rated the campus climate a 5, and fewer than 10 percent rated the campus climate a 1.

34

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“While student disabilities are managed well, faculty disabilities are rarely acknowledged and not respected, nor are they recognized as a criteria for creating an inclusive environment. The disability is treated as the faculty member’s weakness and problem, whether or not that results in exclusion from student and/or departmental activities and the loss of the ability to engage with colleagues.” —FACULTY MEMBER

“I see very little discussion or specific procedures against linguistic prejudice, especially against foreign students. I heard administrators making negative remarks about graduate students with the same language background as me, and I was personally offended by it.” —FACULTY MEMBER


Faculty Members RATINGS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

35


Faculty Perceptions: Diversity & Inclusiveness There was considerable variation, overall, in faculty perceptions of campus diversity. The percentage of all faculty who rated the campus on the “diverse” end of the rating scale (4 or 5) does not constitute a majority, and nearly one-quarter overall rated the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale (1 or 2). Faculty perceptions of diversity varied considerably by race/ethnicity. Asian and white faculty were most likely to rate the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale, whereas black faculty were least likely, by far, to rate the campus on the “diverse” end. Conversely, one-fifth of both black and Latino/a faculty assigned the campus the lowest possible rating (1). Faculty perceptions of diversity varied to a lesser extent by gender identity. Women faculty were slightly less likely than faculty of another gender or men to rate the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale. Women were more likely than men or faculty of another gender to rate the campus on the “not diverse” end of the scale. Nearly one-third of women and approximately one-fifth of men and faculty of another gender rated the campus on the “not diverse” end. Overall, a majority of faculty rated the campus on the “inclusive” end of the rating scale. There was modest variation in faculty ratings by political beliefs, with conservative faculty less likely than moderate or liberal faculty to rate the campus on the “inclusive” end of the scale, and more likely to rate the campus on the “not inclusive” end of the scale. It is important to consider here that faculty who identified as conservative are vastly outnumbered by both moderate and liberal faculty (see the “Who We Are” section pertaining to the compositional diversity of the campus).

“My disability plays a role in my being undervalued within my immediate work environment as I’m judged by traditional work approach used by the able-bodied. My disability requires me to approach many of my primary work tasks very differently from my peers . . . my peers have shown no interest in learning from me about the disabled perspective.” —FACULTY MEMBER

36

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“Revise the working definition of inclusion to include people with differing political views. Make political hate speech/action just as offensive as other kinds of derogatory speech/action . . . an organization is either really inclusive— that means inclusive of everyone—or not.” —FACULTY MEMBER

“I am often the only woman in a meeting or on a committee, and sometimes there are meetings in which my opinion is ignored, I am interrupted by men, or my thoughts/ideas are attributed to male members of the group. I have also met in a group with female leaders who direct all the conversation to the males in the group and overlook (or perhaps ignore) my presence in the room . . . ” —FACULTY MEMBER


Faculty Members RATINGS OF DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE ASPECTS OF OVERALL CAMPUS CLIMATE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

37


Faculty Perceptions: Racial Climate Although a majority of faculty reported being somewhat or very satisfied with the campus racial climate, nearly one-quarter reported being very or somewhat dissatisfied. As illustrated, level of satisfaction with the racial climate varies considerably by race/ethnicity. Asian faculty are most likely to report being “very satisfied” and black faculty are least likely to report being “very satisfied” (only 2 percent). A striking majority of black faculty, two-fifths of multiracial faculty, and nearly one-third of Latino/a faculty reported dissatisfaction with the campus racial climate. These disparate perceptions of racial climate by race/ethnicity bear similarity to those of domestic graduate students. Faculty perceptions of racial climate vary less across gender identity groups, but men are more likely than women or faculty of another gender to report being “very satisfied.” Conversely, women are much more likely than both men and faculty of another gender identity to report dissatisfaction: one-third of women faculty reported being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the campus racial climate.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“Many faculty have blinders on their systemic racism, and perceive issues of social justice (thinly veiled issues of racial equity) as nonacademically rigorous scholarship— unless the subject is being tackled by faculty representative of the majority population.” —FACULTY MEMBER

“I am a woman of color faculty member on a majority white campus. This means that I am often pressed into service on committees or in administrative positions so that the institution can demonstrate its commitment to diversity. I appreciate this impulse, however it does result in a higher service burden for myself and others like me.” —FACULTY MEMBER

38

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Faculty Members SATISFACTION WITH THE RACIAL CLIMATE AT UMASS

“My colleagues have a very naive understanding of race and racism, and also of sexism. Any criticism of lack of inclusiveness toward minorities or of double standards for women is received defensively . . . there is no appreciation for the more nuanced ways in which structures of race, gender, and power interact to create norms that disadvantage minorities and women. The implicit assumption is that if you don’t fit in, it must be your fault.” —FACULTY MEMBER

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

39


Perceptions of Campus Climate: Native Americans Due to the historical and contemporary significance of indigenous peoples in the commonwealth and at UMass Amherst, it is important to assess the climate for Native Americans, specifically. The Kwinitekw (Connecticut River) Valley and the lands on which the UMass Amherst is situated are the ancestral lands of the Pocumtuc and Nonotuck tribal nations and a traditional crossroads and gathering place for many tribal communities in the Northeast. Today, UMass Amherst includes a diverse community of indigenous peoples including members of nations of the Wôpanâak (Wampanoag), Nipmuc, the Wabanaki and Haudenosaunee Confederacies, Narragansett, Anishinaabe, Nêhiyawak, Tsalagi, Diné, and many others whose histories, languages, and cultures continue to enrich and influence the campus. To overcome analysis and reporting limitations associated with small numbers of Native American survey participants, we aggregated responses for undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty who identified as Native American, North or South American Indian, or Alaska Native (n = 93; whether solely or in conjunction with another racial/ethnic identity or identities). Staff identified as ALANA and not ALANA, so we are unable to include them here. A majority of Native American community members rate the overall campus climate on the positive end of the rating scale (4 or 5). Perceptions of campus inclusiveness were quite similar to perceptions of overall climate, but perceptions of diversity were more varied. Although a majority rated the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale (4 or 5), more than one-quarter rated it on the “not diverse” end (1 or 2). A majority of Native Americans report being very or somewhat satisfied with the campus racial climate, but more than one-quarter reported dissatisfaction, suggesting room for improvement. Lastly, nearly 38 percent perceive UMass Amherst to be “very committed” to inclusion—a level similar to that of several of the social identity groups depicted in the adjacent page’s illustration.

40

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Perceptions: Commitment to Inclusion The figure below illustrates percentages of survey participants who perceive that UMass Amherst is “very committed” to inclusion—reported by race/ethnicity and gender identity within each of the four major population groups (undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty). This data visualization facilitates intergroup comparisons and illuminates some notable patterns. First, percentages who perceive UMass Amherst as “very committed” are lowest for graduate students and staff who identify as another gender, trans or genderqueer undergraduate students, black domestic graduate students, and black faculty members. In contrast, percentages are highest for men (across all four populations), white and Asian faculty members, Asian international graduate students, and white undergraduate students. Considered in tandem with the previously discussed survey results pertaining to campus climate, the overall pattern of percentages shows that social identity groups with relatively poor perceptions of campus climate are among those least likely to perceive UMass Amherst as being “very committed” to inclusion.

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, HOW COMMITTED OR UNCOMMITTED TO INCLUSION IS UMASS AMHERST AS AN INSTITUTION? % SAYING “VERY COMMITTED” 70%

60%

50%

M MUL

40%

ASN

WHT

WHT

BLK LAT

WHT

ASN

WHT

BLK

20%

MUL

W

LAT

LAT ALN

LAT

M

NOT

ASN

30%

ASN

M

AN

M

W

AN

MUL

W W

MUL BLK

BLK

TQ AN

10%

AN

RACE/ETHNICITY Race/Ethnicity: ASN (Asian), BLK (Black), LAT (Latino/a), WHT (White), MUL (Multiracial); [Staff only: ALN (ALANA), NOT (Not ALANA)]

GENDER IDENTITY Gender Identity: M (Man), W (Woman), TQ (Transgender or Genderqueer), AN (Another)

DOMESTIC UNDERGRADUATES STUDENTS

GRADUATE STUDENTS

INTERNATIONAL

STAFF

FACULTY

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

41


Perceptions of Campus Climate: Synthesis The results so far illustrate the difficulty in making broad generalizations across various populations at UMass Amherst because people of varying social identities experience the climate so differently. However, there is value in considering the commonalities and differences across the four main populations surveyed (undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty) to identify where crosscutting themes might emerge. Overall Campus Climate. One noticeable pattern is that undergraduate students’ ratings of the overall campus climate is over 10 percentage points more positive than those of the other three groups. With that as a backdrop, there are some common patterns across the populations. Individuals with gender identities other than man or woman rate the overall climate lower, as do black undergraduate students and faculty, as well as black domestic graduate students. Other differences are not as crosscutting. Undergraduate students, graduate students, and staff men and women rate the climate similarly, but for the faculty population, women have lower ratings. LGB and another sexual identity ratings are lower for the undergraduate and graduate population, but show no difference for staff and faculty. Campus Diversity. While overall ratings on the Not Diverse Diverse continuum were similar for three of the four populations (faculty rated the level of diversity lower), the perceptions of campus diversity varied substantially by race/ethnicity and by gender identity. Black undergraduate students, black faculty, and black and multiracial domestic graduate students rate the campus as much less diverse than other groups. While not to the same degree, Latino individuals from these populations also rate the diversity lower. Among undergraduate students, graduate students, and staff, cisgender individuals were more likely to rate the campus on the “diverse” end of the scale than were those who identified as trans or genderqueer or another gender. However, among faculty, men’s and women’s perceptions differed, with nearly twice the proportion of women rating the campus as “not diverse.” Inclusiveness. Nationally, there was a great deal of contentiousness during the months leading up to the survey. On campus, there are no marked differences in undergraduate students’ and graduate students’ ratings of campus inclusiveness by political views (liberal, conservative, and moderate). Among faculty, however, those who identified as conservative were more likely than those who identified as moderate or liberal to rate the campus on the “not inclusive” end of the scale.

42

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Racial Climate. The overall high level of satisfaction with the racial climate at UMass Amherst across the four populations might lead one to conclude that the campus racial climate is healthy. However, a closer look contradicts this conclusion. Like many other aspects of the campus climate, satisfaction varies dramatically by both race/ ethnicity and gender (and for graduate students, by international/ domestic status). Over half of black undergraduate students, black domestic graduate students, and black faculty reported dissatisfaction with the racial climate at UMass Amherst. In addition, about a third of Latino/a undergraduate students, Latino/a graduate students, multiracial domestic graduate students, ALANA staff, Latino/a faculty, and multiracial faculty also expressed dissatisfaction. Among undergraduate students, graduate students, and staff, substantial percentages of individuals who identify as transgender or genderqueer or another gender also expressed dissatisfaction with the campus racial climate. The differences in patterns across the four campus populations highlight the importance of considering the specific contexts in which each of these populations exists on campus. However, other findings are quite consistent across populations. Black and trans or genderqueer or another gender individuals experience a particularly negative climate at UMass Amherst. In a number of instances, Latino/a and multiracial individuals do as well. These commonalities reinforce the patterns shown in the earlier graph comparing the four populations on their ratings of the university’s “Commitment to Inclusion.” As highlighted there, social identity groups with relatively poor perceptions of campus climate are among those least likely to perceive UMass Amherst as being “very committed” to inclusion. These perceptions are likely also related to their specific experiences on this campus. The following sections explore some of these experiences.

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

43


Experiences with Un In this section, we continue our reporting of results pertaining to the psychological dimension of campus climate, switching focus to an important experiential aspect—unfair treatment. To measure levels of unfair treatment experienced by students, staff, and faculty, the climate survey queried individuals about their experiences with unfair treatment during the fall 2016 semester based on 11 specific aspects of social identity (12 aspects for staff and faculty, see opposite page). A similar set of questions was included in the paper-based Employee Attitudes & Experiences Survey conducted at UMass Amherst in 2002–03 to inform an earlier campus climate initiative. The online format of the 2016 survey facilitated an expanded focus on unfair treatment, including a follow-up, open-ended question asking those who reported unfair treatment to describe their personal experiences (see sidebar). Some campus climate surveys conducted by other institutions have focused on experiences with “harassment” (e.g. sexual or racial/ ethnic) or “discrimination,” more specifically, rather than unfair treatment. The committee charged with survey design opted to focus on unfair treatment for two main reasons: 1) individuals’ colloquial understandings of the terms “harassment” and “discrimination” are likely to differ from policy-based and/or legal meanings of these terms, potentially convoluting survey findings, and 2) retaining a focus on unfair treatment would allow for rough comparisons with the earlier employee survey findings. It is important to acknowledge here that the survey data reflect individuals’ perceptions of unfair treatment as they understand it, rather than unfair treatment that corresponds to an external, set definition. In this section, we report on experiences of unfair treatment across campus populations. Percentages are broken down by corresponding social identity categories (e.g. gender: man, woman, trans or genderqueer, another gender). Quotes in the sidebars illustrate the nature of unfair treatment experienced. Forthcoming qualitative analysis of the comprehensive set of open-ended comments will illuminate the full range of experiences and provide additional insight about how unfair treatment based on social identity impacts students, staff, and faculty at UMass Amherst.

OPEN-ENDED FOLLOW-UP You indicated that you have personally experienced unfair treatment based on social identity. Please use the space below to describe your experience(s) with unfair treatment—for example, the context(s) of the unfair treatment and its impact on you.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“People make jokes in passing about aspects of my identity.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“Much of the unfair treatment relate[s] not only to that which individuals have said outright, but to the quiet, almost imperceptible gestures of hostility and exclusion; the silence that follows comments I make either in class or in public discourse that highlight my racial/ ethnic difference.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“I am personally not treated unfairly, but the mistreatment of those close to me on the basis of their social identity impacts me tremendously.” —FACULTY MEMBER

44

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


nfair Treatment Unfair Treatment Survey Questions

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

45


Undergraduate Student Experiences: Unfair Treatment Experiences with unfair treatment on the basis of social identity are not uncommon among undergraduate students at UMass Amherst— although such experiences are more common for some students than others (see chart, opposite). The focus here is incidence, but the full climate survey report slated for release in fall 2017 (F17) will draw on responses to the open-ended follow-up question to detail the nature and impact of unfair treatment. The F17 report also will include analysis of the cumulative types of unfair treatment experienced by students, in acknowledgment of their multiple, intersecting identities.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

As shown, undergraduate students’ experiences with unfair treatment are wide-ranging, with fall 2016 semester (F16) incidence rates considerably higher within some social identity groups than others.

—UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

Two-fifths of black undergraduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity during F16. Lesser, but still substantial, percentages of Asian, Latino/a, and multiracial students also indicated experiencing race-based unfair treatment. Nearly three-fifths of trans or genderqueer students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of gender identity during F16 and nearly onefifth said it happened “often.” Students of another gender and women were both much more likely to report gender-based unfair treatment than were men. Approximately one-quarter of both LGB students and students of another sexual identity reported experiencing unfair treatment based on sexual identity, with most saying it happened “sometimes.” More than one-half of conservative undergraduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of political beliefs—with nearly one-third saying it happened “often.” Lesser, but notable, percentages of moderate and liberal students reported unfair treatment, as well.

46

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

“I know it’s not done maliciously, but a teacher has consistently struggled to properly acknowledge my gender identity . . . I get that my pronouns aren’t standard, and it’s hard to get used to, and I also get that nothing she did was done out of genuine malice.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“Typical undergraduate comments that I’m only here because I’m black and an athlete.” “People often do not give me a say or let me speak with an opinion because I am a woman. Furthermore, I am Muslim, and many people make assumptions and disrespect my religious beliefs.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“I am sometimes silenced due to my personal political beliefs, and if I do share my beliefs, I am immediately disregarded due to being a Republican. Many of my opinions are also disregarded just because of my status as a white man.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT


Undergraduate Students EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

47


Undergraduate Student Experiences: Unfair Treatment Most incidence rates for the four types of unfair treatment depicted here (see chart, opposite) are lower than the rates for the unfair treatment types discussed previously. That said, substantial proportions of undergraduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of disability, national origin, military status, or religion during the fall 2016 (F16) semester.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

More than one-third of undergraduate students who identified as having more than one disability reported experiencing unfair treatment—a percentage more than double that of undergraduate students who identified as having a learning disability.

“Negative comments made about veterans when students don’t know how hurtful those statements are, or don’t know that I am also a veteran.”

Nearly one-third of international students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of national origin, with the vast majority saying that it happened “sometimes.” Similarly, nearly one-third of undergraduate students who identified as veterans or active military reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of military status, with the vast majority indicating that it happened “sometimes.” Muslim students and Jewish students were much more likely to report unfair treatment on the basis of religion than were students who identified as agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Christian, or Hindu. More than one-third of Muslim and more than one-quarter of Jewish undergraduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment in the F16 semester.

“UMass makes it difficult for one to be an observant Jew. It is very difficult (though not impossible) to obtain kosher food, and important events are very often scheduled on the Sabbath. No Jewish holidays are given off . . .” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

—UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“Some professors have made negative comments about my learning disability and have told me I’m not going to make it to graduation and that I should pick an ‘easier major.’ ” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

“I’d love to communicate with guys in my dorm. But it seems like everyone [is] afraid of me since I am Chinese. And they are not nice to [the] Chinese. When [the] Chinese show up, they do not talk anymore. [They don’t] even greet us . . . I just feel like I am not welcomed by them.” —UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

48

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Undergraduate Students EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

49


Graduate Student Experiences: Unfair Treatment Experiences with unfair treatment on the basis of social identity are not uncommon for graduate students at UMass Amherst, and for students of particular social identities, rates of unfair treatment are alarming (see chart, opposite). More than one-half of black domestic graduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity in fall 2016 (F16), with one-quarter indicating that this happened “often.” Percentages of Latino/a, multiracial, and Asian students reporting unfair treatment based on race/ethnicity were much lower, yet still substantial (one-fifth or more). Nearly one-half of multiracial international graduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity, as did two-fifths of black international graduate students. The percentage of Latino/a international graduate students reporting unfair treatment was much lower, but still substantial. Three-fifths of graduate students of another gender reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of gender identity, with one-quarter indicating that this happened “often.” A lower, but still substantial, percentage of women reported unfair treatment based on gender—and this percentage was more than four times the percentage of men. Rates of unfair treatment on the basis of sexual identity were lower than those for the other types of unfair treatment depicted here, with LGB graduate students and students of another sexual identity much more likely to report unfair treatment than heterosexual students.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“On at least two occasions, I have been approached by faculty or staff to participate in discussions of ‘diversity,’ based, I believe, on the mere fact of my ethnic and racial background . . . these discussions of ‘diversity’ seem to place a lot of responsibility on black, brown, and other marked bodies within the department. Additionally, I recently had a faculty member make assumptions about my family, educational, and socioeconomic background based on my ethnicity.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

“Being told that I can take my time to express myself since English isn’t my first language when it is. Being asked what my ‘real’ name is, since it’s inconceivable that an African can have an English name. Being asked how long I’ve been in the U.S. since my English is so good. Being made to feel foolish and naive for being Catholic because religion is a sign of my ‘colonized mind.’ ” —GRADUATE STUDENT

50

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Graduate Students EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

“As a trans person I do not have access to all-gender bathrooms in the buildings where I teach or in the buildings where I take classes . . . I have been harassed on campus for my gender presentation and in bathrooms . . .” —GRADUATE STUDENT

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

51


Graduate Student Experiences: Unfair Treatment As is the case with undergraduate students, most incidence rates for the four types of unfair treatment depicted here (see chart, opposite) are lower than the rates for the unfair treatment types discussed previously. That said, substantial percentages of graduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of political beliefs, disability, national origin, military status, or religion during the fall 2016 (F16) semester. Conservative graduate students were much more likely than moderate or liberal graduate students to report experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of political beliefs. More than one-third of conservatives reported unfair treatment during the F16 semester. One-third of graduate students who identified as having more than one disability reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of disability. Lower, but still substantial, percentages of students with learning and mental disabilities reported unfair treatment, as well. Approximately one-quarter of international graduate students reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of national origin. Most of these students indicated that they experienced unfair treatment “sometimes.” One-third of graduate students who identified as veterans or active military reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of military status. One-half of these students indicated that they experienced unfair treatment “often.” As with undergraduate students, Muslim and Jewish graduate students were much more likely to report unfair treatment on the basis of religion than students who identified as agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Christian, or Hindu. More than one-fifth of Muslim and nearly one-fifth of Jewish graduate students indicated that they experienced unfair treatment in the F16 semester.

52

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“The combination of being a white male and having some conservative beliefs in the highly politically correct climate of any large university makes me feel I do not have full freedom of expression. So, I do not voice my political views, while others do. I do not want to be labeled an ‘oppressor.’’’ —GRADUATE STUDENT

“My advisors refused to accept accommodations presented by disability services. These advisors made fun of my [accommodations]. They have used the symptoms of my disability to convince other faculty members that I am not a good ‘fit’ in the department despite my publishing record, funding awards, job offers, and strong academic reputation in the department and in the field.” —GRADUATE STUDENT


Graduate Students EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

“Some graduate students (mostly white domestic students) get teaching associateships while those same opportunities are not exactly as easily accessible for others. I have also been in classes where every example of world poverty is a picture from my continent’s region where I come from. It was such a biased view of the state of the world.” —GRADUATE STUDENT

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

53


Staff Experiences: Unfair Treatment Substantial percentages of staff indicated that they experienced unfair treatment on the basis of social identity during the fall 2016 (F16) semester (see chart, opposite). ALANA staff were nearly four times as likely as staff who did not identify as ALANA to report unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity, with two-fifths indicating that they experienced unfair treatment during the F16 semester. Most ALANA staff who reported unfair treatment said it happened “sometimes.” More than one-half of staff who identified as another gender reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of gender identity, with one-third of these staff saying it happened “often.” Nearly one-third of women experienced unfair treatment, as well, with most indicating it happened “sometimes.” Rates of unfair treatment on the basis of sexual identity were lower than those for the other types of unfair treatment depicted here, with LGB staff and students of another sexual identity more likely to report unfair treatment than were heterosexual staff. Rates of unfair treatment on the basis of job level, status, or rank are substantial and vary modestly across the five job categories, with onethird or more of staff in each category indicating that they experienced unfair treatment. The incidence rate was a bit lower for managerial, administrative, or executive staff than for the other four groups. Across the groups, between 11 percent and 17 percent of staff indicated that they experienced unfair treatment on the basis of job level “often.”

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“My requests to have others use my gender pronouns of preference have not been honored. This makes me feel partially invisible and misrepresented.” —STAFF MEMBER

“Individuals made racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural bias comments to me privately and in public. This includes the management and leadership of the organization. They say it is a joke and say sorry after the fact.” —STAFF MEMBER

“Males in my department get promotions at a much higher rate than women . . . almost every male staff member in my college has received a recent promotion, while I can only think of 1–2 women who have. I think there is an implicit bias that people do not realize they are using underneath these promotions.” —STAFF MEMBER

54

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Staff Members EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

“It’s no secret that there is a hierarchy of employees here and that not all are treated equally. Look at the ‘secondary labor force’ of unbenefited (or, sometimes, barely benefited) ‘03’ workers . . .” —STAFF MEMBER

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

55


Staff Experiences: Unfair Treatment Nearly two-fifths of staff for whom English is not a first language reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of perceived English language skills. About one-quarter of these staff indicated that it happened “often.” Nearly one-fifth of staff who identified as veterans or active military reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of military status. Most of these staff indicated that they experienced this type of unfair treatment “sometimes.” Overall, nearly one-fifth of staff reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of socioeconomic class background. Most of these staff indicated that they experienced this type of unfair treatment “sometimes.” (The climate survey did not include a demographic question pertaining to socioeconomic class background that would enable us to break down further by class level.) Jewish and Hindu staff were more likely to report unfair treatment on the basis of religion than were staff who identified as agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, or Christian. Slightly more than one-fifth of both Hindu and Jewish staff reported experiencing unfair treatment, with most indicating that it happened “sometimes.” Staff in the youngest two age groups were most likely to report unfair treatment on the basis of age, followed by staff in the 55–64 age group. One-third of staff 24 or younger, and a slightly lower percentage of staff 25–34, indicated that they experienced unfair treatment on the basis of age during fall 2016 (F16). Most staff who reported unfair treatment on the basis of age indicated that it happened “sometimes.”

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“I don’t think I have ever been unfairly treated outright as a secular Muslim woman (I do not wear the hijab and do not pray five times/day), but on the other hand, I do celebrate the two main Muslim holidays. These holidays are not a regularized holiday in the system—I have to take a day off to celebrate them.” —STAFF MEMBER

“There have been several times on campus where I have been disregarded due to the perceived lack of knowledge or ability due to what others have believed my age and level of experience is. I look much younger than I am, but I have nine years of experience within my current position. As a woman, I have had negative interactions with older white men on campus when I have questioned policies, procedures, or provided suggestions to help them accomplish one of their goals.” —STAFF MEMBER

56

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Staff Members EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

“I have recently started feeling that I reached a glass ceiling because of my English. Coming from a different country, I have an unfamiliar accent that I think gets in the way of my daily interactions.” —STAFF MEMBER

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

57


Faculty Experiences: Unfair Treatment For the types of unfair treatment depicted here (see chart, opposite), rates vary considerably across social identity groups, and are highest among black faculty, women faculty, and conservative faculty. Slightly more than one-half of black faculty reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity during fall 2016 (F16), with all who did indicating that it happened “sometimes.” Nearly two-fifths of multiracial faculty and more than one-quarter of both Asian and Latino/a faculty also reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity. Latino/a faculty were more likely than Asian faculty to indicate that they experienced unfair treatment “often.” More than two-fifths of women faculty reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of gender identity during F16 (compared to fewer than one-fifth of men). Nearly one-third of faculty of another gender reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of gender identity, as well. Nearly one-fifth of faculty who identified as another sexual identity reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of sexual identity, as did a slightly lower percentage of LGB faculty. Faculty in both of these groups were more likely to report experiencing unfair treatment than were heterosexual faculty. Overall, fewer than one-tenth of staff reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of disability (or perceived disability) during the F16 semester, with most saying it happened “sometimes.” (The staff and faculty versions of the climate survey did not include a demographic question pertaining to disability that would allow for breakdowns.) Faculty who identified as conservative were much more likely to report experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of political beliefs than were either moderate or liberal faculty. More than two-fifths of conservative faculty indicated that they experienced unfair treatment in F16.

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“Faculty meeting discussions with a senior faculty member disparaging the need to use Equal Opportunity and Diversity rules in hiring; two colleagues rolling their eyes whenever I raise my hand to speak, colleagues holding white hires to weaker standards for hiring than those individuals required to support earlier black candidate.” —FACULTY MEMBER

“I see more women relied on for advising and mentoring students and for college and campus level service commitments. I see male colleagues having more time for research and grant writing and being requested to participate in/nominated for more ‘public’ universitywide service commitments.” —FACULTY MEMBER

“As a junior faculty member (and working mother), I am asked to show up to events and mentor students more so than more senior members. There has been no systematic policy or set of informal guidelines to curb this.” —FACULTY MEMBER

58

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Faculty Members EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

“There are contexts on campus where a conservative political view will not be tolerated. This is untenable for a good democracy.” —FACULTY MEMBER

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

59


Faculty Experiences: Unfair Treatment Rates of unfair treatment on the basis of rank varied considerably by rank (see chart, opposite), with lecturers, clinical or research faculty, and associate professors more likely than full professors or assistant professors to indicate having experienced unfair treatment. More than twofifths of lecturers, clinical or research faculty, and associate professors indicated that they experienced unfair treatment in fall 2016 (F16).

ILLUSTRATIVE VOICES

“I am grateful for the respect given for racial, socioeconomic, and, for the most part, gender diversity on this campus. However, the inequities that exist for the perceived superiority of rank, particularly professor over lecturer or faculty over staff have been significant.” —FACULTY MEMBER

Nearly one-third of faculty for whom English is not a first language reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of perceived English language skills. Most of these faculty indicated that they experienced this “sometimes.” Rates of unfair treatment on the basis of both military status and religion were substantially lower than those for most of the other types of unfair treatment. Christian and Jewish faculty were about equally likely to report experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of religion—and more likely to do so than were faculty who identified as agnostic or atheist. (Numbers of Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim faculty were too small for those results to be included here.) Faculty in the youngest and two oldest age groups were more likely to report experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of age. Slightly more than one-fifth of faculty in the youngest age group reported unfair treatment, as did a nearly identical percentage in the second-oldest age group. Nearly one-third of faculty in the oldest age category reported experiencing unfair treatment. Most faculty who reported experiencing unfair treatment on the basis of age indicated that it happened “sometimes.”

“My supervisor sometimes pretends he does not understand my English. He makes me repeat words over and over again, requests that I write them down, looks at my writing and then proceeds to correct my pronunciation. As I have been teaching at U.S. universities and colleges for [a number of] years, and have not received one single evaluation where students complain about my accent, I find it hard to believe that this man cannot understand my English.” —FACULTY MEMBER

60

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Faculty Members EXPERIENCES WITH UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF . . . (% SAYING THEY EXPERIENCED IN F16)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

61


Unfair Treatment: Synthesis This section of the report focused on experiences with unfair treatment on the basis of social identity—an experiential aspect of the psychological dimension of campus climate. It is important to acknowledge that “unfair treatment” is a broad term used intentionally in lieu of more constraining terms such as “harassment” and “discrimination.” The student, staff, and faculty voices that accompany the quantitative results illustrate many different ways that unfair treatment based on social identity manifests at UMass Amherst. Extensive qualitative analysis of the comprehensive set of open-ended responses is forthcoming and will provide additional insight about how unfair treatment impacts students, staff, and faculty. It is disturbing when any member of our campus community reports that they have experienced unfair treatment based on an aspect of their social identity. With that as a given, we synthesize unfair treatment incidence rates across the four main population groups, with an aim of identifying the largest/most dramatic levels of reported unfair treatment. One of the strengths of this set of results is that it allows us to consider experiences of unfair treatment across a wide range of social identity characteristics (11 different identity aspects in all). Within each main population, across a majority of the social identity characteristics, there is at least one category in which 20 percent or more reported experiencing unfair treatment. The only consistent exception is sexual identity, where the highest percentage who reported unfair treatment is 25 percent. There are other instances where the incidence rate is 30 percent or more for only some population groups: international status for graduate students, military status for undergraduate and graduate students, and religion for undergraduate students.

62

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


We turn next to the social identity categories with the highest incidence levels (between 40 and 60 percent) across all or most of the four main population groups. For unfair treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity, incidence rates are high for black individuals (and among staff, ALANA individuals). For unfair treatment on the basis of political beliefs, rates are highest among conservatives. For unfair treatment on the basis of gender identity, incidence rates are highest among individuals identifying as another gender (except for among faculty, where the percentage of women reporting unfair treatment is highest). Staff and faculty reported rather striking levels of unfair treatment based on job level, status, or rank in most categories. Some community members may find this surprising. For both populations, members of almost all ranks/status levels reported high (40 percent or higher) levels of unfair treatment. The only exceptions are assistant professors (30 percent) and full professors (22 percent) and for staff, management, administrative, and executives where the incidence rate is just under the cutoff (39 percent). We conclude by highlighting that the social identity groups who reported the most negative ratings of campus climate (blacks, another gender) are among the groups reporting the highest levels of unfair treatment. Additional quantitative analyses to be included in the forthcoming comprehensive report will explore the relationship between individuals’ experiences with unfair treatment and their perceptions of campus climate.

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

63


Classroom Climate This section focuses on one experiential aspect of the psychological dimension of campus climate: classroom climate. Undergraduate and graduate students in the course-taking phase of their degree programs spend considerable time in the classroom (including lecture halls and labs) in the company of both course instructors and other students. Consequently, it was important for the Campus Climate Survey to gather data about students’ experiences and interactions in the classroom context, specifically. The undergraduate and graduate student versions of the climate survey included identical questions about classroom experiences (the question wording is provided on the opposite page). The classroom climate questions shown here focus on 1) students’ experiences feeling excluded on the basis of an aspect of their social identity, and 2) students’ experiences with course instructors stereotyping, making negative remarks about, or telling jokes about an aspect of their social identity. The four consecutive data visualizations featured here illustrate students’ responses to these questions—broken down by race/ ethnicity, gender identity, sexual identity, political view, and disability type. This section is more abbreviated than those preceding it, featuring data visualizations only. However, the charts reveal some notable overarching patterns: Among both undergraduate and graduate students, rates (and frequency) of feeling silenced in class are generally higher than rates of experiencing course instructors stereotyping. Among both undergraduate and graduate students, 20 percent or more in every identity group indicated that they feel silenced in class on the basis of social identity at least sometimes, and 10 percent or more in every social identity group reported that they experience faculty stereotyping, making negative remarks or telling jokes at least sometimes. The comprehensive climate survey report will include additional results pertaining to classroom climate, including the social identity aspects on the basis of which students felt excluded or silenced, targeted or singled out, and open-ended comments describing classroom experiences.

64

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Snapshot Classroom Climate Survey Questions

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

65


Undergraduate Students HOW OFTEN STUDENTS FEEL SILENCED IN CLASS ON THE BASIS OF AN ASPECT OF THEIR SOCIAL IDENTITY

66

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Undergraduate Students HOW OFTEN STUDENTS REPORT INSTRUCTORS STEREOTYPING OR TELLING JOKES ABOUT AN ASPECT OF THEIR SOCIAL IDENTITY

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

67


Graduate Students HOW OFTEN STUDENTS FEEL SILENCED IN CLASS ON THE BASIS OF AN ASPECT OF THEIR SOCIAL IDENTITY

68

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Graduate Students HOW OFTEN STUDENTS REPORT INSTRUCTORS STEREOTYPING OR TELLING JOKES ABOUT AN ASPECT OF THEIR SOCIAL IDENTITY

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

69


Workplace Climate This snapshot focuses on workplace climate for staff and faculty. Although some employees at UMass Amherst may consider the entire campus to be their workplace, most work within smaller spheres (e.g. a work unit, an office, or an academic department). Consequently, staff and faculty perceptions of the campus climate overall are influenced by experiences and interactions they have in their immediate work environment.

SAMPLE STAFF QUESTIONS

The staff and faculty versions of the Campus Climate Survey devoted substantial attention to workplace climate. Some questions were directed to both staff and faculty, whereas others were specific to each population. Both staff and faculty were asked to respond to a set of “agree/disagree” items pertaining to their work environment (see opposite page). In addition, both were asked about feelings of connection to their specific work unit or department, whether they have a mentor or role model on campus, how likely they are to recommend the university as a place to work, and how often they hear negative comments in their workplace that relate to social identity. Staff only were asked the extent to which their supervisor pays attention to how people in their workplace are treated (see sidebar), as well as how often they experience mistreatment in their job (see opposite page). Faculty only were asked how much service they do relative to others in their department (see opposite page), as well as whether they experience being excluded or marginalized on the basis of social identity.

From your perspective, how committed or uncommitted to inclusion are the people at UMass Amherst with whom you work most directly?

The data visualizations featured here illustrate staff and faculty responses to only a few of these many questions—broken down by race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual identity, political view (faculty only), and job type or rank. For both staff and faculty, percentages agreeing and disagreeing that “there is a spirit of cooperation” in their immediate workplace are similar across the social identity categories—with majorities agreeing either strongly or somewhat. More than one-third of staff overall indicated that they experience mistreatment in their campus job “often” or “sometimes,” with modest differences among identity groups. Faculty perceptions of how much service they do relative to others varies a bit across social identity groups— most notably by rank. However, across nearly all social identity categories, majorities of faculty perceive that they do “a bit more” or “much more.” The comprehensive Campus Climate Survey will include an extensive set of results pertaining to workplace climate for staff and faculty.

70

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

From your perspective, to what extent does your supervisor pay attention to how people in your workplace are treated? To a Very Great Extent To a Great Extent To Some Extent To a Little Extent To a Very Little Extent I’m Not Sure

Very Committed Somewhat Committed Somewhat Uncommitted Very Uncommitted I’m Not Sure

SAMPLE FACULTY QUESTIONS How likely or unlikely are you to recommend UMass Amherst to others as a good place to work as a faculty member? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to balance your work priorities and personal life priorities? Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied


Snapshot Workplace Climate Survey Questions

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

71


Staff Members IMMEDIATE WORK ENVIRONMENT “THERE IS A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION”

72

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Staff Members HOW OFTEN MEMBERS EXPERIENCED MISTREATMENT IN THEIR CAMPUS JOBS

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

73


Faculty Members IMMEDIATE WORK ENVIRONMENT “THERE IS A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION”

74

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT


Faculty Members PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE LOAD RELATIVE TO DEPARTMENT PEERS

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT

75


Campus Climate Survey: Next Steps These results offer initial insight into the compositional diversity and psychological dimensions of campus climate at UMass Amherst. A comparison of survey responses across populations (undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty), as well as social identity categories, shows that perspectives and experiences are substantially similar in some respects, in both positive and negative ways. More importantly, however, cross-group comparisons reveal substantial, and undesirable, differences among social identity categories. Similarities and differences are both consequential for shaping change efforts. The focus of this abridged report was a subset of the survey’s “common core” of items that were asked of everyone. However, the survey included a host of additional questions, as well as items specific to each of the four main campus populations. The Campus Climate Survey also included open-ended questions, where community members were encouraged to share their personal experiences and perceptions, as well as their suggestions for change. This yielded a considerable amount of detailed data. All of these data— quantitative and qualitative alike—warrant substantial time and attention in order to maximize their full value to the campus. Our aim in this report was to provide the campus with initial results from the survey in order to capitalize on the interest and energy generated by the survey administration and spark interest in the full array of climate survey results. The comprehensive Campus Climate Survey report (forthcoming in fall 2017) will offer insight including how often (and where) community members see or hear negative remarks or comments related to social identity; individuals’ level of confidence in the university’s ability to respond effectively to specific incidents of unfair treatment, harassment, and assault; the extent to which individuals interact with others whose racial/ethnic identities are different from their own; and the extent to which community members holistically attribute positive outcomes to their interactions with others who are different from themselves. The full report will also cover the population-specific items. Finally, the comprehensive report will investigate similarities and differences among “locations” within the organization (e.g. major employment units or colleges/schools) and explore the complexity of community members’ intersecting social identities. Prior to the release of the final report, data will be shared with campus leaders to facilitate timely, datadriven change efforts throughout the organization.

UNIVERSITYOF OFMASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS AMHERSTI CAMPUS I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT 76 UNIVERSITY AMHERST CLIMATE SURVEY ABRIDGED REPORT 76


Our Promise These initial results enable us to take stock of our campus climate and point to differing experiences and perceptions across a range of social identities. It gives new urgency to our desire to improve our campus climate at a time when the environment for diversity on a national level, including on college campuses, has changed considerably. UMass Amherst, while clearly committed to diversity and inclusion, has struggled over the decades to maintain a wellarticulated and well-executed long-term diversity enhancement plan. At least three different plans have been drawn up under three different chancellors, including myself. While sporadic progress in recruitment of students and faculty from diverse backgrounds has been achieved, efforts to establish an inclusive and supportive climate for students, staff, and faculty of all backgrounds have languished. More recently, I am proud of the progress we have made in implementing the 2015 Diversity Strategic Plan. A great many new initiatives to increase the diversity of the student body and to improve inclusivity have been launched during the past two years, and we are actively tracking our progress (www.umass.edu/diversity). We must, however, do more. As one staff member said, “I believe that the work of creating a welcoming and inclusive campus starts with an intensive study of the current climate and culture that represents UMass. This survey is a good beginning, what comes next is also very important.” Our promise to you is that the survey is only the beginning. In the coming months and years, we will work together to regularly develop dialogues, resources, and methods of evaluation to create a campus climate where all members of our community can thrive. To that end, I have charged the campus leadership to review the results within their respective units closely and identify avenues for improvement. We will use these insights to revise and strengthen the Diversity Strategic Plan, developing local objectives and campus-wide strategies. In the next academic year, I am committed to funding grants to enable members of the UMass Amherst community, regardless of formal position or responsibility, to bring their creativity to the work of enhancing our campus climate. Your survey responses confirm that we share a range of perspectives, which we celebrate as a campus. “Many Voices, Our UMass” recognizes the importance of preserving the plurality of voices, valuing difference and freedom of expression, as well as the need for respect and tolerance to sustain community. Thank you for your continued commitment to this effort.

Sincerely,

Kumble R. Subbaswamy Chancellor

Campus Leadership Council Ryan Bamford Enobong (Anna) Hannah Branch Julie Buehler Brian Burke Robert S. Feldman

Enku Gelaye Bryan Harvey John Kennedy Michael A. Leto Michael F. Malone

Andrew P. Mangels Katherine S. Newman Susan Pearson Christine Wilda

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST I CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEYABRIDGED ABRIDGEDREPORT REPORT

77 77