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

University of Wisconsin La Crosse

Campus Climate Assessment

Results of Report

October 7-8, 2008

Why Assess Climate?

What was the Process?

Assessing College Climate

Why conduct a climate assessment?

To foster a caring University community that provides leadership for constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. To open the doors wider for underrepresented groups is to create a welcoming environment.To improve the environment for working and learning on campus.

Project Objectives

Provide UW-La Crosse with information, analysis, and recommendations as they relate to campus climate.

This information will be used in conjunction with other data to provide UW-La Crosse with an inclusive view of their campus and a system-wide review.

Projected Outcomes

UW-La Crosse will add to their knowledge base with regard to how constituent groups currently feel about their particular campus climate and how the community responds to them (e.g., pedagogy, curricular issues, professional development, inter-group/intra-group relations, respect issues).UW-La Crosse will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work regarding diversity (e.g., 2004 Climate Studies, Equity Scorecard).

Setting the Context

Examine the Research Review work already completed

Preparation Readiness of the campus

Assessment Examine the climate

Follow-up Building on the successes and addressing the challenges

Research on Climate In Higher Education

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

Value of Campus Climate on Enhancing Learning Outcomes

Numerous studies and publications have confirmed the pedagogical value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning outcomes.

Selected research references include: Frank W. Hale, Jr. (2004). What Makes Racial Diversity Work in Higher Education,

Diversity Digest, Sterling, VA: Stylus. Harper, S.R., & Quaye, S.J. (2004). Taking seriously the evidence regarding the

effects of diversity on student learning in the college classroom: A call for faculty accountability. UrbanEd, 2(2), 43-47.

Harper, S.R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7-24.

Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.

Current Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

Transformational Tapestry Model©

Baseline Organizational

Challenges

SystemsAnalysis

Local / Sate /Regional

Environments

Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment

AdvancedOrganizational

Challenges

ConsultantRecommendations

Assessment

Transformationvia

Intervention

FiscalActions

Symbolic Actions

AdministrativeActions

EducationalActions

Transformed Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

© 2001

External Relations

External Relations

University of Wisconsin System Mission

The mission of the system is to develop human resources, to discover and disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate society by developing in students heightened intellectual, cultural and humane sensitivities, scientific, professional and technological expertise and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.

Core Mission of the University Cluster

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

UW-La CrossePriorities for 2006-2007

Number 4: Increase the number of diverse faculty/staff Increase the number of diverse students on campus Make the campus climate inclusive for all

Source: www.uwlax.edu/chancellor/html/Priorities06-07.htm

Process to Date2004-2005

Academic Planner (C. Saulnier) made aware of bias incidents at several campuses & began conversation regarding systemwide campus climate project

Taskforce committee formed to investigate consulting firms who conduct climate assessments in higher education.

Rankin & Associates identified as leading expert in multiple identity studies in higher education


Conversations at system level continued

Proposal presentation made to UWS Provosts and various constituent groups in Madison in September 2006


UWS Administrators form Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) Conducted in-depth interviews with other higher

education institutions who had contracted with R&A resulting in very positive reviews

In collaboration with R&A identified potential fact-finding groups and developed protocol

Identified “next steps” in process

Process to Date 2006-2007

President Reilly pledges support for the project and agrees to finance 75% of the costs

Five campuses volunteer to participate in climate assessment in the first year

Participating institutions Provosts’ Teleconference with R&A to discuss process, Scope of the Work, Projected Time-line, Proposed Budget

At the request of R&A, the Provosts were invited to add additional members to the CSWG to ensure institutional representation

Process to Date Participating Institutions

University of Wisconsin Colleges University of Wisconsin-La CrosseUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeUniversity of Wisconsin-OshkoshUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Process to Date 2006-2007

Project Co-Chairs and Project Coordinator named Vicki Washington (Co-Chair, CSWG)

Interim Assistant Vice President of the Office of Academic Development and Diversity, UW System Administration

Ed Burgess (Co-Chair, CSWG)

Department of Dance, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lisa Beckstrand (Project Coordinator)

Academic Planner, Director of Inclusivity Initiative, Office of Academic & Student Services, UW System Administration

Process to Date Phase I

Process to Date Phase I

PHASE II

Assessment Tool

Development and Implementation

Process to Date Phase II

August – December 2007 Bi-monthly meetings with CSWG to develop the survey

instrumentJanuary - February 2008

Development of Communication Plan IRB Proposal development/approval at each participating

institution UW-La Crosse approval – February 4, 2008

Process to Date Phase II and III

April 2008 Survey administration (March 31 to April 18)

May-August Data Analysis

Process to Date Phase IV

August 2008 Draft report reviewed by CSWG team members

September 2008 Final report forwarded to CSWG representatives and Provost

from UW- La Crosse and to UW System

October 2008 Presentation of survey results to the campus community

Assessment Methods

Research Model

Survey Instrument

Limitations

Survey Instrument

Final instrument 91 questions and additional space for respondents to provide

commentary On-line or paper & pencil options

Sample = Population All members of the UW-La Crosse community were invited to

participate

Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at UW-La Crosse Respondents’ perceptions of climate at UW-La Crosse Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change

Survey Assessment Limitations

Self-selection biasResponse ratesCaution in generalizing results for

constituent groups with significantly lower response rates

Method Limitation

Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 10 individuals so as not to compromise identity.

Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility of identifying individuals.

Results

Response Rates

Who are the respondents?

2,576 people responded to the call to participate (23% response rate overall).

1840 respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.

Faculty Response Rates

Assistant Professor (51%, n = 44)

Associate Professor (51%, n = 16)

Faculty = 38% (n = 196)

Instructional Academic Staff (24%, n = 52)

Professor (46%, n = 47)

Staff Response Rates

Academic Staff = 42% (n = 172)

Limited Term Employee (19%, n = 16)

Non-instructional academic staff (46%, n = 127)

Limited academic staff (16%, n = 8)

Administrator (n = 21)

Staff Response Rates

Classified Staff = 42% (n = 132)

Classified staff non-exempt (35%, n = 92)

Classified staff exempt staff (78%, n = 40)

Student Response Rates

Students 21% (n = 2029)

Master Degree student = 7% (n = 112)

Other students = (n = 154) [Transfer, Associate, Dual Enrollment, Non-degree]

Bachelor degree student = 21% (n = 1723)

Doctoral/Terminal Degree student = 26% (n = 40)

Student Response Rates

Students 21% (n = 2029)

White Students = 20% (n = 1813)

Men students = 14% (n = 565)

Students of color = 30% (n = 184)

Women students = 24% (n = 1455)

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Student Respondents by Year (n)

106

417

526

457

379

126

Students

First year

2nd yr

3rd yr

4th yr

5th yr or more

Graduate

Student Residence

44% of student respondents lived in Residence Halls

49% student respondents lived in off-campus houses and apartments

Income by Student Status (n)

88

268

65

297

6221

519

42 37

250

22 11

140

7 2

Undergraduate dependent students

Undergraduate independent students

Graduate students

Employee Respondents by Position Status(n)

5244

5347

16

92

40

127

21

43

Instructional academic staff

Assistant professor

Associate professor

Professor

Limited term employee

Classified staff non-exempt

Classified staff exempt

Non-instructional academic staff

Administrator

Other

Collapsed Employee Status (n)

200

172

132

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Gender (n)

1340

104 941135692

40

529

36115

Female Male

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

There were 4 respondents who identified as transgender

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

1895

73

176

19 10

158

2

127

Heterosexual LGB

StudentsFaculty

Academic StaffClassified Staff

Respondents by Racial Identity(Duplicated Total)

7 331

5927 23 2

2343

10 42 1230 5 44

AfricanAfrican American/BlackAlaskan NativeAsianAsian AmericanSoutheast AsianCaribbean/West IndianCaucasian/WhiteIndian subcontinentLatino(a)/HispanicMiddle EasternNative American IndianPacific IslanderOther

Respondents by Racial Identity (Unduplicated Total)

228

2297

People of Color White People

Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

1671

300466

126

ChristianOther than ChristianNo AffiliationOther

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

27

10

3 2

19

2 30

61

73

0

Physical Disability Learning Disability Psych Condition

StudentsFacultyAcademic StaffClassified Staff

Citizenship Status by Position

Students Employeesn % n %

US citizen 1952 96.3 479 95.6

US citizen – naturalized 14 0.7 6 1.2

Dual citizenship 10 0.5 3 0.6

Permanent resident (immigrant) 8 0.4 7 1.4

Permanent resident (refugee) 1 0.0 0 0.0

International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 41 2.0 4 1.0

Findings

Aggregate Findings

85% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at UW-La Crosse.

84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work unit.

85% of student/faculty respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes.

Aggregate Findings

83% of respondents have not personally experienced any exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that has interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-La Crosse.

79% percent of UW-La Crosse faculty and staff respondents were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-La Crosse.

89% of student respondents were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-La Crosse.

Challenges and Opportunities

Personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with one’s

ability to work or learn at UW-La Crosse

n %

Yes 448 17.4

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

36

2221

17 17

13 13 1311

Gender (n=160)Institutional Status (n=99)Age (n=94)Political Views (n=74)Religious/Spiritual views (n=74)Educational level (n=60)Physical Characteristics (n=59)Race (n=58)Ethnicity (n=50)

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct

the Percent due to Gender Identity

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

17 18

45

16

Female Male

Overall experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to gender²

(n = 305)¹

(n = 137)²

(n = 137)¹

(n = 22)²

Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that Conduct, the Percent

Due to Institutional Status (%)


14

38

22

30

13

27

5054

Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff


Experienced conduct due to status²

(n = 282)¹

(n = 36)²

(n = 75)¹

(n = 20)²

(n = 38)¹

(n = 19)²

(n = 39)¹

(n = 21)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct

the Percent due to Race

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..

34

15

56

3

People of Color White


Experienced conduct due to race²

(n = 78)¹

(n = 44)²

(n = 346)¹

(n = 9)²


Due to Sexual Orientation (%)


38

16

61

1

LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents


Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²

(n = 44)¹

(n = 27)²

(n = 380)¹

(n = 3)²


Due to Disability (%)

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..

16

38

46 48

5

19

73

41

No disability Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological condition


Experienced conduct due to disability²

(n = 394)¹

(n = 21)²

(n = 16)¹

(n = 3)²

(n = 11)¹

(n = 8)²

(n = 34)¹

(n = 14)²

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Deliberately ignored or excluded 211 47.1

Felt intimidated/bullied 153 34.2

Stares 123 27.5

Derogatory remarks 110 24.6

Isolated or left out when working in groups 87 19.4

Isolated or left out because of my identity 52 11.6

Derogatory written comments 50 11.2

Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 43 9.6

Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 41 9.2

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 30 6.7

Received a low performance evaluation 29 6.5

Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 28 6.3

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 27 6.0

Feared for my physical safety 25 5.6

Derogatory phone calls 23 5.1

Graffiti 19 4.2

Threats of physical violence 16 3.6

Victim of a crime 11 2.5

Target of physical violence 6 1.3

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Demographic

Characteristics

Race Deliberately ignored or excluded (n = 43) Someone staring at them (n = 39) Target of racial/ethnic profiling (n = 26) Isolated or left out when working in groups (n = 25)

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Demographic

Characteristics

Sexual Orientation Deliberately ignored or excluded (n = 23) Derogatory remarks (n = 23) Someone staring at them (n = 19) Felt intimidated/bullied (n = 14) Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity (n = 13)

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur?

Of the respondents who believed they had been deliberately ignored or excluded

• 41 percent (n = 86) said it happened in a class• 38 percent (n = 80) said it happened in a meeting with a group of people• 27 percent (n = 57) said it happened while working at a campus job• 19 percent (n = 41) said it happened in a residence hall

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur?

Of the respondents who indicated that they were intimated or bullied:

• 44 percent (n = 29) said it occurred in class• 44 percent (n = 29) said it happened while working at a campus job• 40 percent (n = 26) said it happened while meeting with a group of people

Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (%)

154

5 6 2

75

27

116

158 8

1323

7 917

4 38 12

Student Respondents Faculty Respondents Academic StaffRespondents

Classified StaffRespondents

Source = UndergraduateSource = FacultySource = AdministratorSource = StaffSource = Supervisor

What did you do?1

Personal responses: Was angry (59%) Felt embarrassed (40%) Told a friend (36%) Ignored it (34%) Avoided the harasser (33%)

Reporting responses: 19% made a complaint to a UW-La Crosse employee/official 13% didn’t know who to go to 10% didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously 13% did not report the incident for fear of retaliation

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault

The survey defined sexual harassment as “A repeated course of conduct whereby one person engages in verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, that is unwelcome, serves no legitimate purpose, intimidates another person, and has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or classroom environment.”

The survey defined sexual assault as “Intentional physical contact, such as sexual intercourse or touching, of a person’s intimate body parts by someone who did not have permission to make such contact.”

Respondents Who Believed They Have Personally Been a Victim of Sexual Harassment by Primary

Status

Students Employees

n % n %

54 2.6 4 1.0

Respondents Who Believed That They Had Been The Victim of Sexual Assault

While at UW-La Crosse

n %

Yes 96 4.0

91 of the 96 victims were women

86 were students


Where did it occur?On-campus (n = 40)

Off-campus (n = 57)

Who was the offender?Another student (n = 44)

Acquaintance (n = 27)

Friend (n = 26)

Stranger (n = 23)


What did you do1?Told a friend (n = 69)

Did nothing (n = 27)

Told a family member (n = 18)

Sought support from a campus resource/counseling center(s) (n = 9)

Sought information on-line (n = 9)

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Respondent Comments With Regard ToWhy They Did Not Report The Alleged

Sexual Assault

Some respondents offered that they thought they would not be believed or feared reporting the incident.

Several commented that they were too embarrassed or did not want others to know the assault occurred.

Others said that they just wanted to forget it happened, or that it became more real for them when they stated it out loud.

Several said they did not report the incidents because the perpetrators were their friends and didn’t want to get them in trouble.

Still others seemed to blame themselves for the assaults indicating that it was their fault because they were drinking, or felt that others would say it was their fault due to how they were dressed.

Satisfaction with UW-La Crosse

Employees

Students

Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs at UW-La Crosse

79% (n = 403) percent of UW-La Crosse faculty and staff were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-La Crosse. Little difference found between demographic categories

with the exception of:Faculty reporting that they were more dissatisfied than

staff.

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

71

85 85

10 814

Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Satisfaction with The Way Their Careers have Progressed at UW-La Crosse

62% (n = 312) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse. Classified staff members were less satisfied than

faculty and academic staff with the way their careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse.

Women and sexual minority employees were less satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse.

Employee Satisfaction With The Way Their Careers Have Progressed

By Position Status (%)

64 6456

1824

17

Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Selected

Demographic Categories(%)

5867

61 6356

62

11

21 18 18

2923

Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Comments With Regard To The Way Their Careers Have Progressed

A number of classified staff members, who were generally dissatisfied with their career progression (but not necessarily their jobs), said that classified staff office professionals have few chances to advance or be compensated for their level of responsibility.

Others said job instability (one-year contracts) created a great deal of stress and lack of opportunities for advancement.

Dissatisfied faculty suggested that the scholarly expectations & promotion system skew priorities in what should be a teaching institution.

Student Satisfaction With Their Education at UW-La Crosse

89% (n = 1805) of students were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-La Crosse. Little difference found between demographic categories

with the exception of: Students of Color and sexual minority students were more

dissatisfied than their majority counterparts.

Student Satisfaction With Their Education at UW-La Crosse

77% (n = 1563) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW-La Crosse. Men, Students of Color and sexual minority students

were more dissatisfied than their majority counterparts.

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

7973

67

79

6978

11 138 8

137

Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Student Respondents’ Comments in Regard to Satisfaction

Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have progressed said they established relationships with supportive advisors and faculty members, made good grades, recognized the value in getting a college education, and felt challenged by the course work.

Dissatisfied students said their advisors and faculty didn’t care about them, admittedly lacked necessary academic/study skills, and believed UW-La Crosse changed program requirements without regard to students already enrolled.

Have You Seriously Considered Leaving UW-La Crosse?

72 percent of faculty respondents

Faculty women (76%); Faculty men (67%)

White faculty (73%); Faculty of Color (47%)

61 percent of academic staff and 55 percent of classified staff respondents

Staff men (64%); Staff women (55%)

Staff of Color (71%); White staff (57%)

Have You Seriously Considered Leaving UW-La Crosse?

33% of Student Respondents

Men (34%); Women (33%) Students of Color (47%); White students (32%) LGBQ (36%); Heterosexual (33%)

Perceptions

Perceived or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive

and/or Hostile Working Or Learning Environment

% n

Yes 34.0 868

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Race

32

45

White People (n=743)

People of Color (n=102)

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Gender

34 34

Women (n=599)

Men (n=264)

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Sexual Orientation

64

32

LGB (n=74)

Heterosexual (n=765)

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

32

49

42

33

Students (n=644)

Faculty (n=98)

Academic Staff (n=72)

Classified Staff (n=44)

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct(%)

n %Stares 393 45.3Derogatory remarks 392 45.2Racial/ethnic profiling 346 39.9Deliberately ignored or excluded 300 34.6Graffiti 261 30.1Derogatory written comments 245 28.2Intimidation/bullying 213 24.5Someone isolated or left out because of their identity 209 24.1Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity 188 21.7Someone isolated or left out when working in groups 120 13.8Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity 119 13.7Someone fearing for their physical safety 113 13.0Threats of physical violence 111 12.8

Source of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)

Undergraduate Students (51%) Faculty (17%) Colleagues (16%) Community Members (10%) Staff Members (9%)

Perceived Discriminatory Practices

Perceived Discriminatory Hiring (31%) Due to gender (32%) Due to race (17%) Due to institutional status (14%)

Perceived Discriminatory Promotion (29%) Due to gender (42%) Due to institutional status (13%) Due to ethnicity (12%) Due to age (12%) Due to race (10%)

Perceived Discriminatory Firing (13%) Due to gender (43%) Due to race (18%) Due to age (16%) Due to ethnicity (15%) Due to institutional status (13%)

The majority of respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues.

There were, however, responses that demonstrated less positive attitudes towards their work unit, the clarity of tenure/promotion, the clarity and fairness of salary determinations, and the lack of diversity in the UW-La Crosse administration.

Work-Life Issues

Work-Life Issues

77% (n = 387) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations .

36% (n = 181) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units.

25% (n = 128) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision.

Work-Life Issues

59% ( n = 297) of employees “strongly agree/agree” that they are able to balance their professional and work lives.

46% (n = 228) find that UW-La Crosse is supportive of family leave.

34% (n = 171) of faculty and staff members have to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities.

24% (n = 109) of respondents felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities.

14% (n = 369) “strongly agree/agree” that they have equitable access to domestic partner benefits.

Work-Life Issues

67% (n = 341) of employee respondents believe that they have colleagues or peers at UW-La Crosse who give them career advice or guidance when they need it.

57% (n = 292) of employee respondents believe that they have support from decision makers/colleagues who support their career advancement.

37% (n = 190) of employee respondents reported that their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience.

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

Institutional Actions

Inclusive Curriculum

More than half of all students and faculty felt the courses they took or taught included materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on “difference”

The exceptions included learning disabilities and veteran/military status

Welcoming Classroom Climate

The majority of students found the classroom climate to be welcoming of “difference.” Several exceptions include:

Racial Differences White Students (73%); Students of Color (51%)

Sexual Orientation Differences Heterosexual (62%); LGBQ (43%)

Welcoming Workplace Climate

The majority of employees found the workplace climate to be welcoming of “difference.”

Women, respondents of color, and sexual minority respondents were less likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender, race and sexual orientation than their men, white, and heterosexual counterparts .

Next Steps…

Process ForwardFall/Winter 2008

Share report results with community Community dialogue regarding the assessment results Community feedback on recommended actions Executive Summary available at:

http://go.UW-La Crosse.edu/climate Full Report will be available at the Research & Resource Center for

Campus Climate and at Murphy Library

Recommended planning “advance” to begin a “call to action” regarding the challenges uncovered in the report

Tell Us What You Think…

Additional questions/comments on results?

Thoughts on process?Suggested actions?

Questions..? Other Ideas..?

Last Thoughts

“Resistance begins with people confronting pain, whether it’s theirs or somebody else’s, and wanting to do something to change it”

--- bell hooks,“Yearning”

Documents

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