U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A , A C A D E M I C S E N A T E

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

Martha Kendall Winnacker, J.D. Executive Director Telephone: (510) 987-9458 Universitywide Academic Senate Fax: (510) 763-0309 University of California Email: martha.winnacker@ucop.edu 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Oakland, California 94607-5200

April 16, 2012 CHAIRS OF SENATE DIVISIONS CHAIRS OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES Dear Division and Committee Chairs: On behalf of Academic Council Chair Bob Anderson I am forwarding for full Senate review the report of the joint Faculty Diversity Faculty Diversity Working Group, one of five groups created by President Yudof to support the President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion. The report recommends 11 “promising practices” for fostering a diverse faculty and makes distinct proposals for systemwide and local implementation. Please address your comments to the individual recommendations, but do not feel obligated to comment on every recommendation if you consider one or more to fall outside your committee’s jurisdiction. Comments that predict the consequences of adopting a recommendation or that explain how adoption of a recommendation would change or confirm existing practices in specific divisions should be as detailed as possible. Although the Provost has requested comment by June 11, the Senate leadership has determined that it is not possible for all relevant Senate bodies to opine by that date. Accordingly, your comments are requested by June 20 in order to allow discussion at the June 27 meeting of the Academic Council. As always, every committee is invited to opine on this report, but no committee is obligated to do so if the committee considers the report to be outside the scope of its charge. Sincerely,

Martha Kendall Winnacker, J.D. Executive Director, Academic Senate Encl. (1) Cc: Division directors Committee analysts

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

omcE OFTHE PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT - OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTACADEMIC AFFAIRS 1111 Franklin Street, 12” floor

Oakland, California 94607-5200

April 12,2012

EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLORSACADEMIC COUNCIL CHAIR ANDERSON

Dear Colleagues:

I am transmitting for your review and comment the recommendation report issued by theFaculty Diversity Working Group, one of five groups created by President Yudof tosupport the President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion.

The purpose of the Faculty Diversity Working Group was to report to the Council andrecommend measures of progress, mechanisms for accountability, and advice regardingbest practices on issues related to faculty hiring, contributions to equity and diversity, andadministrative structures and accountability.

Please review the report, in particular, the priorities and suggestions about what should bea campus responsibility and what might be best accomplished systemwide. I wouldappreciate receiving your comments, which should be submitted by June 11, 2012, toSusartCarlson@UCOP.edu.

Sincerely,

&e.iftsProvost and Executive Vice PresidentAcademic Affairs

Attachment

cc: President YudofSpecial Advisor EdleyVice Provost CarlsonDiversity Coordinator Bemal

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTPRESIDENT’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CAMPUS CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND INCLUSION

Faculty Diversity Working GroupBRIEFING PAPER: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR FACULTY DIVERSITY

The Faculty Diversity Working Group was one offive groups created by President Yudof inDecember 2010. The purpose of the Group was to report to the Council and “recommendmeasures of progress, mechanisms for accountability, and advice regarding best practices” onissues related to faculty hiring, contributions to equity and diversity, and administrativestructures and accountability.

One of the Working Group’s initial premises was that there continues to exist a pressing need todiversify the UCfaculty with regard to women and individuals from historically underrepresentedminority (LIRM) communities. The University’s ability to fulfill that need becomes even morepressing in the current budgetary environment.

Importance of Faculty Diversity for Campus Climate: The Working Group’s hypothesis that thereis a strong correlation between the presence of women and URM faculty and a positive campusclimate was informed by contemporary research on climate issues. For example, UCLA professorDaniel Soldrzano and his colleagues write: “Faculty and administration who are open andresponsive to concerns of people of color and other marginalized groups help define and create ahealthy climate!” Moreover, the scholarly literature finds that “students engage with race andethnicity not just in the curriculum but also through the people whom they encounter duringcollege... Interactions with faculty and administrators of a different race or ethnicity may beparticularly important in securing the advantages of diversity.”2 Structural diversity amongfaculty, or the number af diverse faculty, has an influence on a campus’s institutional climatebecause offaculty’s ability to influence the campus environment over time.

The Faculty Diversity Working Group provides eleven practices and recommendations for reviewand discussion by the President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, & Inclusion andthe local campus climate councils. The Working Group considers these findings relevant notonly for racial and ethnic groups, but also for gender, sexuality, and religion-based identities.

Svstemwide-Level Best Practices and Recommendations

Practice #1: Fully Implement Academic Personnel Policy Section 210 (APM —210), Review andAppraisal CommitteesRemind each campus that APM 210 was approved by the entire Senate and chargeeach campus to devise strategies for the implementation of APM 210 as criteria forappointment and promotion of faculty. The implementation process may takedifferent forms at the various micro-levels of division, school, or department.

‘W. Smith, T. Yosso, and D. Solórzano, ‘Racial Primes and Black Misandry on Historically White Campuses:Toward Critical Race Accountability in Educational Administration,” EducationalAdministration Quarterly,43 (2007).2 Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, No Longer Separate, Not yet Equal: Race and

Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2009),181.

President’s Advisory CouncilFaculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19, 2011

PractIce #2: Provide Training for Members of COMMITtEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL/BudgetCommittees

The Working Group recommends that training be developed regarding evaluatingfaculty contributions to diversity.

Practice #3: Accountability Reports on Diversity of Key Senate Committee CompositionsThe Working Group recommends making available to appropriate Senatecommittees on each campus accountability reports, prepared by this WorkingGroup, that identify tifiM and gender composition of Budget/Academic Personnelcommittees over a five year period. Also, continue the collection of faculty searchdata (candidate pool and finalist demographics and search committee make-up)after this initial year.

Practice #4: Selection and Review of Provosts, Deans and Chairs and Annual ReportsThe Working Group recommends integrating diversity and equity issues into thecriteria for selection, appointment, reviews, and promotion of Provosts and Deansor Chairs. We recommend that UCOP require Annual Reports from the Chancellorson diversity and equity progress in these senior management positions.Additionally, we recommend that Provosts, Deans, and Department Chairs submitAnnual Reports to the Chancellor to describe diversity and equity activities andprogress.

Practice #5: FundIng for a Reward Pool of STEThe Working Group recommends established funding for a reward pool forcampuses making noteworthy progress on faculty diversity issues.

Practice #6: President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship ProgramThe President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship program is one of the most successfulprograms for diversifying the faculty. Funding should be restored for this programas well as the UC Diversity Pipeline Initiative for the Health Sciences.

Practice #7: Update the UCOP 2002 Affirmative Action Guidelines for the Recruitment andRetention of Faculty BrochureThe Working Group recommends that Academic Personnel update thiscommunication tool to include the following among other items: 1) UC DiversityStatement (2007, Regents), 2) Diversity activities relevant for the appointment andpromotion of faculty in (APM 210) of Deans (APM 240), and of Chairs (APM 245),3) Implementation methods and evaluation methods for diversity activities in APM210, 240, and 245.

Campus-Level Practices

Practice #8: Crediting Contributions to DiversityEncourage the adoption at each campus of a hybrid approach to the reporting ofcontributions to diversity. First, each file will catalogue relevant activities in thethree basic areas of research, teaching, and service (the so-called integrativemethod), with contributions to diversity flagged by a double asterisk. Secondly,each bio-bib form and/or candidate’s statement will include a diversity narrative

President’s Advisory council on Campus Climate, Culture, & Inclusion 2Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19,2011

box in which faculty members highlight diversity efforts, drawing from the activitiesin the three areas of responsibility (stand-alone method). This combination of thetwo methods for identifying contributions to diversity will be referred to as the“hybrid” method.

Practice #9: One-time half or whole step increase for extraordinary contributions to diversityAllow for awarding a one-time half or whole step increase for exceptional servicerelated to diversity and equity activities.

Practice #10: Central Diversity OfficeEach campus would consider establishing a central Office of Equity, Diversity, andInclusion with appropriate staffing and resources at each campus, with directaccess to the Chancellor and Budget Committee.

Practice #11: cluster HiringEncourage “cluster hiring” of URM and female faculty in areas where they arebelow the national eligibility pool.

Working Grouc Membershin

Convener: Susan Carlson, Vice Provost-Academic Personnel (UCOP)Convener: George “Jorge” Mariscal, Professor of Literature (UCSD)Robert Anderson, Professor of Economics and Mathematics (UCB), & Chair, Academic CouncilInes Boechat, Professor of Radiological Sciences (UCLA)Margaret Conkey, Professor Emerita of Anthropology (UCB)Tyrone Howard, Professor of Education (UCLA)Herbie Lee, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs & Chief Diversity Officer for Faculty (UCSC)Francis Lu, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry (UCD) & Chair, Universitywide Committee on

Affirmative Action & DiversityManuela Martins-Green, Professor of Cell Biology (UCR) & Chair, UCR Affirmative Action &

Diversity CommitteeTeenie Matlock, Professor of Cognitive Science (UCM)Dave Stark, Director-Stiles Hall (UCB)Staff: Janet Lockwood, Academic Personnel (UCOP)

DISCUSSION OF PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SVSTEMWIDE1EVEL

Practice #1: Implement Academic Personnel Policy Section 210 (APM —210), Review andAppraisal Committees

Campus climate is directly affected by the faculty’s willingness to engage in activities thatimprove conditions for URM, women, LGBT, and other groups. APM 210 (implemented in 2005)is the mechanism for ensuring that faculty members receive recognition for their efforts. APM210 states: “The University of California is committed to excellence and equity in every facet ofits mission. Teaching, research, and public service contributions that promote diversity andequal opportunity are to be encouraged and given recognition in the evaluation of thecandidate’s qualifications. These contributions to diversity and equal opportunity can take avariety of forms.”

President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, & Inclusion 3Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19, 2011

The Working Group understands the importance of the campus affirmative action planmandated by the Federal government. Data on faculty underutilization will be an importantfactor for the articulation of diversity and equity goals. In what follows below, however, wefocus on new and innovative approaches designed to generate such goals by analyzing in depthcurrent needs in the local context.

The Working Group’s research has yielded the following innovative best practices for theimplementation of APM 210:

• Once a general campus diversity and equity strategic plan is adopted, eachschool/division and academic department adapts elements for its own plan

• School/Division and/or academic department articulates specific diversity needs andgoals based on 1) campus strategic plans, 2) consultation with stakeholders in each unit,and 3) affirmative action plans. School/Division and/or academic department creates atemplate of specific equity and diversity activities relevant to APM 210 to help achievefaculty-related equity and diversity goals (Document authored by Sheila O’Rourke couldserve as model-template).

• One specific Working Group suggestion is that in an ideal scenario off-campus activitieswould be linked to impact on campus climate. How does a department’s tutoringprogram at a local high school, for example, encourage department faculty to rethink itsresearch priorities and/or the composition of its faculty? Consider off-campus activitiesin dialectical relationship to transformation of on-campus climate.

• Equity advisors check in with tenure and promotion candidates re: credit for diversitywork

• Deans/Provosts deliver annual public town meetings on progress on diversity issues andplans for the coming year

• Development officers/fundraising staff (both divisional and general campus) prepareannual reports on progress related to diversity and equity programs and initiatives

• External reviews of departments/programs include section on diversity• Chair of Academic Senate Committee on Diversity-Equity of each campus sits on Senate

Executive Council of that campus• Include Department Chairs in APM-210 Implementation communications strategy

Practice #2: Provide Training for Members of COMMIflEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL/BudgetCommittees

This training should not be confused with anti-bias training already provided for Committee onAcademic Personnel/Budget committee members. Despite campus reports that APM 210 isbeing implemented, there is abundant anecdotal evidence that the ability of campus evaluatorsto judge contributions to diversity is spread unevenly across the system. In many cases,evaluators state either that they are not sure what constitutes a contribution to diversity or thatthey do not know how contributions should be factored into reviews or both.

The Working Group sees three possible options for training on how to identify and assesscontributions to diversity would be accomplished: 1) web-based training similar to programs forsexual harassment, 2) regional (North/South) training sessions, 3) campus administrators

Presidents Advisory council on Campus Climate, Culture, & Inclusion 4Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19,2011

responsible for faculty diversity offer mandatory workshops. The second option might be thebest given that it will bring together faculty from different campuses, thereby breaking the siloeffect and generating productive cross-campus dialogue about best practices. UCLA isconducting a workshop/training session for Committee on Academic Personnel for the first timein Fall 2011. Other colleagues in the system who are well equipped to assist in the developmentof a training program include Sheila O’Rourke, Ines Boechat (UCLA), Francis Lu (UCD), ManuelaMartins-Green (UCR), and Ross Frank (UCSD).

Practice #3: Accountability Reports on Diversity of Key Senate Committee Compositions

Data compiled by the Working Group indicate that membership on key Academic Senatecommittees, e.g. Committees on Academic Personal, Budget, Planning and Budget across the UCsystem continues to be white and male (see attachment). Although these percentages mirrorthe overall composition of UC faculty, if UC hopes to advance goals of greater inclusion anddiversity it should be proactive by creating bodies whose composition reflect where UC wants tobe —more diverse — particularly if diversity and equity issues are to be in the foreground ofpersonnel decisions. This is especially true during difficult budgetary times.

The Working Group recommends making available to appropriate Senate committees on eachcampus accountability reports, prepared by this Working Group, that identify URM and gendercomposition of Budget/Academic Personnel committees over a five year period. Also, continuethe collection of faculty search data (candidate pool and finalist demographics and searchcommittee make-up) after this initial year. Data should be gathered annually by and reportedon a regular basis to Academic Senate Leadership, campus administrative leadership, and thePresident/Provost. It is important that campus officials responsible for gathering andinterpreting data understand that the combining of URM and international faculty numbersproduces a distorted picture of the University’s progress on the hiring of URM faculty.

Practice #4: Selection and Review of Provosts, Deans and Chairs and Annual Reports

Ensure that diversity and equity activities are integral to the search, selection, and reviewprocess. The Working Group recommends that Provosts, Deans, and Department Chairs submitAnnual reports to the Chancellor describing their activities and progress. This is to ensure thatthese academic leaders will be both incentivized and held accountable for promoting equity anddiversity activities in their unit.

As a UC Irvine document puts it: “Establishing agreed upon guidelines at each level on how toconsider and evaluate diversity and affirmative action efforts during the performance reviewprocess is a first step needed to enable individual accountability. This must involve all thosewho contribute to performance review: Academic Senate committees, departments anddepartment chairs, deans and Academic Personnel administrators”(http://paid . uci.edu/APM%2OSumma ry. pdf).

The Working Group recommends that a formal annual report be delivered from Chairs to Deans,Deans to Provost/Vice Chancellor, Provost/Vice Chancellor to Chancellor, and Chancellor to thePresident/Provost about progress in diversity and equity at all levels. As is the case withAcademic Senate committee membership, it is important that campus officials responsible forgathering and interpreting data understand that the combining of URM and international faculty

President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, & Inclusion 5Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19, 2011

numbers produces a distorted picture of the University’s progress on the hiring of URM faculty.

Practice #5: Funding for a Reward Pool of FE

The Working Group believes strongly in the need for financial incentives and rewards for hiringunder-represented tenure-track faculty. While we understand that changes in Universityrevenues and funding structures complicate central funding of such a pool, we recommend thatthe President work with the Chancellors to determine the best way to reward progress indiversifying the faculty. Options include fund-raising for endowments that support specificprograms or research or tying budget allocations to those units that can demonstrate progressin recruitment and retention of under-represented tenure track faculty. We recommend thatcampuses put together indicator data on hires, promotions, and leadership appointments as apart of the competition for these allocations. Since hiring practices have resulted in onlyincremental progress in the diversity of the faculty over the last decade, we need to invoke amore prominent system to reward success.

Practice #6: Presidents Postdoctoral Fellowship Program

Since 2003, 90 President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship participants have been hired into UC facultyposition and as of May 2011, 21 were tenured. Funding has been cut 62% since 2008 and isslated for an additional 20% cut in 2011-12. There are currently 15 new fellows and 13continuing compared to 42 in 2008.

There is a strong consensus that the program is one of the most effective for populating theURM faculty pipeline. We recommend that its funding be increased to support between 35 and40 fellowships at a cost of $65,000 per year in order to maximize the program. We alsorecommend that some funding be provided for the UC Diversity Pipeline Initiative for graduatewomen of color in the Health Sciences; total cost is $45,000 annually.

Practice #7: Update the UCOP 2002 Affirmative Action Guidelines for the Recruitment andRetention of Faculty Brochure

Update the UCOP 2002 Affirmative Action Guidelines for Recruitment and Retention of FacultyBrochure to include the following among other items: a) UC Diversity Statement (2007,Regents), b) Diversity activities relevant for the appointment and promotion of faculty inlanguage of (APM 210), of Deans (APM 240), and of Chairs (APM 245), c) Implementationmethods and evaluation methods for diversity activities in APM 210, 240, and 245.

DISCUSSION OF PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL CLIMATE COUNCILS

Practice #8: Crediting Contributions to Diversity

Encourage the adoption at each campus of a “hybrid” approach to the reporting of contributionsto equity and diversity. In addition to Cataloging relevant activities in the three basic sections ofresearch, teaching, and service (the so-called integrative method), the bio-bib form wouldinclude a separate breakout box listing diversity contributions. This hybrid approach to thereporting of contributions to diversity would facilitate the identification of relevant activities forCommittee on Academic Personnel/Budget committees and other reviewers and is especially

President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate. Culture, & Inclusion 6Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19, 2011

useful during this transitional period when campus reviewers are becoming accustomed toevaluating diversity and equity activities.

Best practices on campuses that already support this include 1) at least one formal annualconversation between the Committee on Academic Personnel chair and the Campus Diversitycommittee about APM 210 evaluation, 2) training on implicit bias for Committee on AcademicPersonnel members to reduce bias in the appointment and promotion process, and 3) equityadvisors meet with tenure and promotion candidates to discuss equity and diversity activities.

Campuses might also consider implementing an annual Senate award for “OutstandingContributions to Diversity and Equity.” UCB and UCLA currently have such awards.

Practice #9: One-time half or whole step increase for extraordinary contributions to diversity

This practice has been instituted at some UC campuses, most notably UC Berkeley. In order tostress the importance of faculty work related to equity and diversity issues on campus,Committee on Academic Personnel/Budget committees should consider instituting a rewardsystem comparable to those in place for serving as department chair.

Practice #10: Central Diversity Office

In the past, campuses have been allowed a great deal of flexibility with regard to theestablishment of a diversity infrastructure. In too many cases, a weak infrastructure hasproduced a campus climate that specific groups continue to view as inhospitable. The practicethat allows a campus to disperse its climate initiatives across numerous units rather thanthrough a central office may have run its course. The traditional approach that argues “Wedon’t want diversity to be isolated in one location; we want everyone to be doing it” has been ineffect for some four decades and positive outcomes for favorable campus climate and diversityhave been minimal.

Rather than approaching this issue with the question “What will make diversity work moreeasily?” we suggest the question “What will make diversity-related work more effective?” atevery level of the institution. The approach that currently appears to be the most effective is acentral Vice Chancellor position that has the authority and resources to serve as a clearinghouse for all climate and diversity-related activities. In the UC system, the so-called Berkeleymodel has produced the best results to date.3 While we do not propose the direct importationof that model to other campuses, we believe that model to be an extremely usefulprecedent/model/template that other campuses might adapt to local conditions and goals. Weunderstand that the Working Group on structure is focused on this issue as well.

Practice #11: Cluster Hiring

Although the current budgetary climate makes it difficult, the practice of hiring small groups offaculty conducting research on topics related to underrepresented minority communities should

In addition to the Berkeley model, there are other important precedents. See, for example, theoutstanding “Framework for Diversity” document (2004) authored by UC Riverside Special Assistant to theChancellor for Diversity and Excellence Dr. Yolanda Moses.President’s Advisory council on Campus Climate, culture, & inclusion 7Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19,2011

be given the highest priority as soon as it is financially possible. As a leading scholar in campusclimate research, UCLA Professor Sylvia Hurtado has noted “The presence of a critical mass ofunderrepresented minority faculty often helps attract and retain new underrepresentedminority faculty.”4 In his report to President Vudof (April 7,2010), Dean Chris Edley argued thatthe UC San Diego plan for diversifying its faculty was “poorly designed” because it was a“department driven process of stove-piped searches which have an unacceptable risk of failuregiven how limited and competitive applicant pools will be... There are alternative strategies andalternative ways of building a critical mass of diverse scholars.”5

We recommend that the Working Group reconvene one year from now to survey the state ofeach campus with regard to the twelve areas discussed in this report. While we expect thatthere will be uneven progress across the system, an assessment of current practices in Fall of2012 will be a useful tool for faculty and administrators engaged on the issue of faculty diversityand equity.

Attachment: Summary of Ethnicity and Gender of University Committee on AcademicPersonnel (tiC Committee on Academic Personnel) & Ethnicity and Gender ofUniversity Committee on Planning and Budget (UC Committee on Planning andBudget) Members, 2006-07 through 2010-11

‘Study Group on University Diversity-Campus climate Report,http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/diversity/documents/07.campusreport.pdf

Dean Christopher Edley, Report an UCSon Diego (April2010). Distributed with materials for the June 30,2010 meeting of the President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion (Appendix 8).President’s Advisory council on Campus climate, Culture, & Inclusion 8Faculty Diversity Working GroupOctober 19, 2011

UC Senate Committee: CAP (Committee on Academic Personnel)Ethnicity of CAP Members, 2006-07 through 2010-11

Number PercentUniversitywide 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TotalAS 12 7 8 11 17 55 11.1% 5.7% 7.8% 10.0% 15.6% 10.0%BL 1 1 1 4 2 9 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 3.6% 1.8% 1.6%HI 4 7 4 5 6 26 3.7% 5.7% 3.9% 4.5% 5.5% 4.7%IN 1 1 2 0.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%WH 90 106 90 90 84 460 83.3% 86.9% 87.4% 81.8% 77.1% 83.3%Total 108 122 103 110 109 552 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

UCOP Academic Personnel, 4-27-2011.

Page 1 of 2

UC Senate Committee: CAP (Committee on Academic Personnel)Ethnicity of CAP Members, By Campus, 2006-07 through 2010-11

Campus

Total CAP Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)

% Minorities of CAP Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)Headcount (Fall 2009)

% Minorities (Fall 2009)

Expected Number of Minority CAP Members

Last 5 Years (2006-07 through 2010-11)*

BerkeleyAS 6 11.5% 163 12.1% 6BL 2 3.8% 40 3.0% 2HI 0 0.0% 65 4.8% 2IN 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0WH 44 84.6% 1,075 80.0% 42Total 52 100.0% 1,344 100.0% 52

DavisAS 8 17.0% 207 14.6% 7BL 0 0.0% 26 1.8% 1HI 0 0.0% 59 4.2% 2IN 2 4.3% 8 0.6% 0WH 37 78.7% 1,119 78.8% 37Total 47 100.0% 1,419 100.0% 47

IrvineAS 5 8.8% 204 19.4% 11BL 0 0.0% 23 2.2% 1HI 1 1.8% 61 5.8% 3IN 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 0WH 51 89.5% 758 72.3% 41Total 57 100.0% 1,049 100.0% 57

Los AngelesAS 4 5.6% 270 15.2% 11BL 1 1.4% 58 3.3% 2HI 1 1.4% 106 6.0% 4IN 0 0.0% 8 0.5% 0WH 66 91.7% 1,332 75.1% 54Total 72 100.0% 1,774 100.0% 72

MercedAS 7 13.2% 24 20.7% 11BL 0 0.0% 1 0.9% 0HI 7 13.2% 16 13.8% 7IN 0 0.0% 2 1.7% 1WH 39 73.6% 73 62.9% 33Total 53 100.0% 116 100.0% 53

RiversideAS 4 7.8% 129 20.6% 11BL 2 3.9% 23 3.7% 2HI 0 0.0% 37 5.9% 3IN 0 0.0% 4 0.6% 0WH 45 88.2% 433 69.2% 35Total 51 100.0% 626 100.0% 51

CAP Members All Ladder Rank Faculty

Page 2 of 2

UC Senate Committee: CAP (Committee on Academic Personnel)Ethnicity of CAP Members, By Campus, 2006-07 through 2010-11

Campus

Total CAP Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)

% Minorities of CAP Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)Headcount (Fall 2009)

% Minorities (Fall 2009)

Expected Number of Minority CAP Members

Last 5 Years (2006-07 through 2010-11)*

CAP Members All Ladder Rank Faculty

San DiegoAS 8 12.3% 179 16.3% 11BL 0 0.0% 22 2.0% 1HI 6 9.2% 57 5.2% 3IN 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0WH 51 78.5% 841 76.5% 50Total 65 100.0% 1,100 100.0% 65

San FranciscoAS 2 4.2% 32 9.5% 5BL 2 4.2% 8 2.4% 1HI 2 4.2% 11 3.3% 2IN 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 0WH 42 87.5% 285 84.3% 40Total 48 100.0% 338 100.0% 48

Santa BarbaraAS 3 4.9% 79 9.8% 6BL 2 3.3% 18 2.2% 1HI 4 6.6% 47 5.9% 4IN 0 0.0% 4 0.5% 0WH 52 85.2% 655 81.6% 50Total 61 100.0% 803 100.0% 61

Santa CruzAS 8 17.4% 65 13.3% 6BL 0 0.0% 15 3.1% 1HI 5 10.9% 39 8.0% 4IN 0 0.0% 9 1.8% 1WH 33 71.7% 361 73.8% 34Total 46 100.0% 489 100.0% 46

*Calculation was based on % ladder rank minorities (Fall 2009) times total CAP members last 5 years at each campus.

UCOP Academic Personnel, 5-6-2011.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAFull-Time Ladder Rank Faculty2009

U-WIDE UCB UCD UCI UCLA UCM UCR UCSB UCSC UCSD UCSF AmInd 42 1 8 3 8 2 4 4 9 1 2 AfrAm 234 40 26 23 58 1 23 18 15 22 8 Chic/Lat 498 65 59 61 106 16 37 47 39 57 11 Asian 1,352 163 207 204 270 24 129 79 65 179 32 White 6,871 1,059 1,107 753 1,328 73 430 636 360 840 285 Non-Resident Alien 61 16 12 5 4 0 3 19 1 1 0 TOTAL 9,058 1,344 1,419 1,049 1,774 116 626 803 489 1,100 338

AmInd 0.50% 0.10% 0.60% 0.30% 0.50% 1.70% 0.60% 0.50% 1.80% 0.10% 0.60% AfrAm 2.60% 3.00% 1.80% 2.20% 3.30% 0.90% 3.70% 2.20% 3.10% 2.00% 2.40% Chic/Lat 5.50% 4.80% 4.20% 5.80% 6.00% 13.80% 5.90% 5.90% 8.00% 5.20% 3.30% Asian 14.90% 12.10% 14.60% 19.40% 15.20% 20.70% 20.60% 9.80% 13.30% 16.30% 9.50% White 75.90% 78.80% 78.00% 71.80% 74.90% 62.90% 68.70% 79.20% 73.60% 76.40% 84.30% Non-Resident Alien 0.70% 1.20% 0.80% 0.50% 0.20% 0.00% 0.50% 2.40% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Source: IPEDS Fall Staff Survey

UC Senate Committee: CPB (Committee on Planning and Budget)Ethnicity of CPB Members, 2006-07 through 2010-11

Number PercentUniversitywide 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TotalAS 10 8 9 11 13 51 9.0% 7.6% 8.7% 10.3% 11.3% 9.4%BL 1 1 1 1 4 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7%HI 3 5 5 5 2 20 2.7% 4.8% 4.9% 4.7% 1.7% 3.7%WH 98 91 88 90 99 466 88.3% 86.7% 85.4% 84.1% 86.1% 86.1%Total 111 105 103 107 115 541 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

UCOP Academic Personnel, 4-27-2011.

Page 1 of 2

UC Senate Committee: CPB (Committee on Planning and Budget)Ethnicity of CPB Members, By Campus, 2006-07 through 2010-11

Campus

Total CPB Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)

% Minorities of CPB Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)Headcount (Fall

2009)% Minorities (Fall

2009)

Expected Number of Minority CPB

Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)*

BerkeleyAS 3 4.5% 163 12.1% 8BL 0 0.0% 40 3.0% 2HI 0 0.0% 65 4.8% 3IN 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0WH 64 95.5% 1,075 80.0% 54Total 67 100.0% 1,344 100.0% 67

DavisAS 5 10.9% 207 14.6% 7BL 1 2.2% 26 1.8% 1HI 0 0.0% 59 4.2% 2IN 0 0.0% 8 0.6% 0WH 40 87.0% 1,119 78.8% 36Total 46 100.0% 1,419 100.0% 46

IrvineAS 1 2.0% 204 19.4% 10BL 0 0.0% 23 2.2% 1HI 2 4.1% 61 5.8% 3IN 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 0WH 46 93.9% 758 72.3% 35Total 49 100.0% 1,049 100.0% 49

Los AngelesAS 9 11.1% 270 15.2% 12BL 2 2.5% 58 3.3% 3HI 10 12.3% 106 6.0% 5IN 0 0.0% 8 0.5% 0WH 60 74.1% 1,332 75.1% 61Total 81 100.0% 1,774 100.0% 81

MercedAS 0 0.0% 24 20.7% 5BL 0 0.0% 1 0.9% 0HI 1 4.0% 16 13.8% 3IN 0 0.0% 2 1.7% 0WH 24 96.0% 73 62.9% 16Total 25 100.0% 116 100.0% 25

RiversideAS 13 31.7% 129 20.6% 8BL 0 0.0% 23 3.7% 2HI 1 2.4% 37 5.9% 2IN 0 0.0% 4 0.6% 0WH 27 65.9% 433 69.2% 28Total 41 100.0% 626 100.0% 41

CPB Members All Ladder Rank Faculty

Page 2 of 2

UC Senate Committee: CPB (Committee on Planning and Budget)Ethnicity of CPB Members, By Campus, 2006-07 through 2010-11

Campus

Total CPB Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)

% Minorities of CPB Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)Headcount (Fall

2009)% Minorities (Fall

2009)

Expected Number of Minority CPB

Members Last 5 Years (2006-07 through

2010-11)*

CPB Members All Ladder Rank Faculty

San DiegoAS 0 0.0% 179 16.3% 2BL 0 0.0% 22 2.0% 0HI 0 0.0% 57 5.2% 1IN 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0WH 15 100.0% 841 76.5% 11Total 15 100.0% 1,100 100.0% 15

San FranciscoAS 14 14.6% 32 9.5% 9BL 0 0.0% 8 2.4% 2HI 0 0.0% 11 3.3% 3IN 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 1WH 82 85.4% 285 84.3% 81Total 96 100.0% 338 100.0% 96

Santa BarbaraAS 2 2.4% 79 9.8% 8BL 0 0.0% 18 2.2% 2HI 4 4.9% 47 5.9% 5IN 0 0.0% 4 0.5% 0WH 76 92.7% 655 81.6% 67Total 82 100.0% 803 100.0% 82

Santa CruzAS 4 10.3% 65 13.3% 5BL 1 2.6% 15 3.1% 1HI 2 5.1% 39 8.0% 3IN 0 0.0% 9 1.8% 1WH 32 82.1% 361 73.8% 29Total 39 100.0% 489 100.0% 39

*Calculation was based on % ladder rank minorities (Fall 2009) times total CAP members last 5 years at each campus.

UCOP Academic Personnel, 5-6-2011.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAFull-Time Ladder Rank Faculty2009

U-WIDE UCB UCD UCI UCLA UCM UCR UCSB UCSC UCSD UCSF AmInd 42 1 8 3 8 2 4 4 9 1 2 AfrAm 234 40 26 23 58 1 23 18 15 22 8 Chic/Lat 498 65 59 61 106 16 37 47 39 57 11 Asian 1,352 163 207 204 270 24 129 79 65 179 32 White 6,871 1,059 1,107 753 1,328 73 430 636 360 840 285 Non-Resident Alien 61 16 12 5 4 0 3 19 1 1 0 TOTAL 9,058 1,344 1,419 1,049 1,774 116 626 803 489 1,100 338

AmInd 0.50% 0.10% 0.60% 0.30% 0.50% 1.70% 0.60% 0.50% 1.80% 0.10% 0.60% AfrAm 2.60% 3.00% 1.80% 2.20% 3.30% 0.90% 3.70% 2.20% 3.10% 2.00% 2.40% Chic/Lat 5.50% 4.80% 4.20% 5.80% 6.00% 13.80% 5.90% 5.90% 8.00% 5.20% 3.30% Asian 14.90% 12.10% 14.60% 19.40% 15.20% 20.70% 20.60% 9.80% 13.30% 16.30% 9.50% White 75.90% 78.80% 78.00% 71.80% 74.90% 62.90% 68.70% 79.20% 73.60% 76.40% 84.30% Non-Resident Alien 0.70% 1.20% 0.80% 0.50% 0.20% 0.00% 0.50% 2.40% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Source: IPEDS Fall Staff Survey