UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst Diversity… · · 2016-06-15I. Establish$UMass$Amherst$as$a$destinationof$choice$for$students$of$color$and$other$ underrepresented$groups.$

University of Massachusetts Amherst Diversity Strategic Plan

Submitted: March 30, 2015 Steering Committee Membership: Robert S. Feldman (Chair) Bryan Beck Jasmine Bertrand-‐Halidy Mari Castañeda Debora Ferreira Enku Gelaye Adina Giannelli Bryan Harvey Jennifer Lundquist Mzamo Mangaliso Josh Odam Shelly Perdomo James Roche Vinayak Rao Amilcar Shabazz Rotating Graduate Student Representatives: Sumera Ahsan Durryle Brooks

Armanthia Duncan

Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee – March 30, 2015 Executive Summary – Page 1

Executive Summary

The following report presents information on the current state of diversity at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and puts forth recommendations based on available data and conversations with numerous constituencies on campus. The Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee was formed in the spring of 2014 and charged with articulating recommendations to Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy via a campus diversity strategic plan. The plan was to have a particular focus on increasing enrollment of underrepresented groups on campus and ensuring a positive experience for all members of the UMass Amherst campus community. Over the course of its initial meetings, the Steering Committee identified five thematic areas around which to organize its findings and recommendations:

I. Establish UMass Amherst as a destination of choice for students of color and other underrepresented groups.

II. Improve the campus climate of inclusion. III. Enhance effectiveness of curriculum and educational programs with regard to diversity

and inclusion. IV. Increase focus on recruiting, retention, and promotion of diverse faculty and staff. V. Increase outreach and engagement with external communities/schools with large

proportions of underrepresented minorities. For each area, the Steering Committee researched the current state of affairs on the campus based on available information and made a number of recommendations for future action. For each recommendation, the Steering Committee identified, when possible, the specific office, department, or organization on campus responsible for the necessary actions. Progress will be assessed by the existing groups whose charges include studying the state of diversity on campus, particularly the Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Council, whose membership includes faculty, staff, administration, and students at both the graduate and undergraduate level. Based on the work of the committee and the feedback received on earlier drafts, the Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee recommends the following.


• The Assistant Provost for Diversity, along with the Associate Provost for Enrollment

Management, develop a comprehensive action plan to coordinate and strengthen URM recruitment efforts and mobilize, wherever possible, existing campus groups and individual faculty, staff, and students to support that effort. Part of this effort should include the consideration of a secondary admissions office located in Boston to facilitate the recruitment of students living in that urban center.

• The Admissions Office, under the leadership of the Associate Provost for Enrollment Management, intensify efforts to expand the holistic consideration of applicants for admission, seeking out and applying best national practices, especially in terms of supplementing traditional indicators of college success. Part of this process will entail the undertaking of a careful and critical review of the role of test scores in the admissions decision.


• The Associate Provost for Enrollment Management immediately further target institutional financial aid toward low-‐income and other underrepresented groups and undertake further analysis of URM non-‐enrollees to identify additional actions needed with respect to cost, value, and program availability.

• Under the leadership of the Assistant Provost for Diversity, the Admissions Office be charged with coordinating yield enhancement activities for URM applicants across all areas of the campus (academic programs, administrative offices, student organizations, etc.) in order to better support efforts to reach out to students of color throughout the admissions process, and especially in the critical period between the offer of admission and the Candidate Reply Date.

• The Associate Provost for Enrollment Management consider necessary and appropriate investments in financial aid in all modeling, while assessing the impact on diversity in all calculations of net revenue; integrate availability of academic programs of choice into enrollment planning in order to expand capacity in programs where we are losing strong students, especially with respect to students of color and other underrepresented groups; and explore potential improvements in campus capacity to identify, attract, and enroll underrepresented students while establishing assumptions for modeling and decision making.

• The Graduate School, under the leadership of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School, explore new fellowship models for diverse students; identify options and develop a plan for diversifying applicant pools; support diverse graduate students throughout their educational experience; develop a process to explore the hire of an Assistant Dean for Inclusion; and encourage departments to provide annual updates on the standing of each graduate student in order to promote greater retention of all students through their degree programs.

II. Improve the campus climate of inclusion.

• The Chancellor appoint the appropriate leadership to begin the process of a

campus-‐wide climate survey. This survey would, ideally, include all students (undergraduate and graduate), faculty, staff, and administrators. While the existing sources of information provide much valuable insight into the campus climate, the Steering Committee acknowledges that each is limited to specific populations on campus and—even taken together—the data cannot reveal the general experience of all members of the campus community. Once completed, survey results should be consolidated and published on a centralized webpage. This webpage would become a valuable reference for information on the everyday experience of all members of the campus community. The University values should additionally be posted there, as well as an inventory of all the spaces on campus where students can receive support and resources for diversity related issues. Finally, the page should serve as a safe space for reporting incidents or actions that do not live up to the values of the institution.

• University Health Services and the Center for Counseling and Psychological Health review existing support for students of color at the Center for Counseling and Psychological Health and expand services related to treating students experiencing any discrimination, racism, or ethno-‐stress.

• Human Resources increase the focus on diversity training for staff in units that provide tangible services to students, such as admissions, financial aid, UMass Police, Registrar’s Office and Bursar’s Office.


• That Student Affairs and Campus Life increase the focus on and formalize diversity training for live-‐in Residence Life staff.

III. Enhance effectiveness of curriculum and educational programs with regard to

diversity and inclusion.

• The General Education Council, in collaboration with the Provost, reevaluate the diversity component of the General Education requirement both in terms of the number of courses offered and the time-‐to-‐completion of those courses in an undergraduate’s academic career. Additionally, it is recommended that the General Education Council consider revising the re-‐approval process for courses fulfilling the diversity requirement. Currently, there is a five-‐year cycle for re-‐approval. Reviewing courses more frequently could ensure that designated learning outcomes are achieved and that the content of the courses remains relevant.

• The Provost organize a discussion among departments and colleges to explore ways to incorporated elements of diversity content into formal and informal existing curriculum.

• The Graduate School begin discussions with deans and department heads regarding a campus-‐wide diversity training program to be required of all graduate student instructors, either through a new orientation program or via integration into existing programs for graduate student instructors at the department and college levels.

• Conversations begin between the Graduate School, the Provost, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, the Ombudsperson, and any other relevant parties exploring ways to minimize fear of repercussions that could result from reporting incidents of discrimination and micro-‐aggressions among graduate students and faculty members. IV. Increase focus on recruiting, retention, and promotion of diverse faculty and staff.

• Human Resources explore ways to implement a University-‐wide policy on exit

interviews to better determine perception among faculty and staff members leaving campus.

• The Provost continue efforts to evaluate the faculty mentoring and career development programs currently in effect in CNS and SBS to monitor efficacy and determine if similar programs would be beneficial at a campus-‐wide level.

• The Provost, the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development, and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity collaborate to explore the efficacy of campus-‐wide guidelines for diversity for faculty, instructors, and staff.

• The Provost and Deans explore ways to expand minority faculty pathways to increase racial and gender diversity. Outcomes from related practices in the STEM Diversity Institute and pathway programs at other Research I universities should be reviewed as part of the effort.

• The Provost and Deans examine the tenure and promotion processes for minority and women faculty, as gathered by the Office of Institutional Research, to prevent potential biases in the process.

• The Provost analyze spousal hiring data, again as documented by OIR, to determine what aspects of current practices have helped attract more diverse faculty pools.


• The Provost and the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development educate deans, chairs, and personnel committees about family friendly policies through the LEAD training program and by providing an appropriate toolkit.

• The Office of Institutional Research collect information on additional forms of faculty and staff diversity, such as LGBTQIA, disability, and first-‐generation college graduate status, and allow for data to be analyzed for intersections between multiple diversities.

V. Increase outreach and engagement with external communities/schools with large

proportions of underrepresented minorities.

• The Faculty Senate Outreach and Engagement Council and the Provost’s Council on Community Service Learning collaborate in order to conduct a full inventory of campus engagement programs and ensure that the resulting list is regularly updated and takes particular account of opportunities for interaction with diverse communities that are currently underway.

• The Office of Research and Engagement and CESL explore the development of an online registration for UMass Amherst faculty and students involved in external engagement projects. A registration such as this could make it easier for members of the campus community involved in similar engagement efforts to contact one another in order to share ideas and discuss best practices.

• The Chancellor explore offering diversity training workshops for all UMass Amherst students, faculty, and researchers participating in projects in off-‐campus and diverse communities, as is the practice for the Five College Holyoke and Springfield Bound Programs.

Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee – March 30, 2015 Page 1

Introduction and Background

In the fall of 2012, UMass Amherst embarked on a comprehensive strategic planning process intended to enable the campus community to come together to assess its situation in a rapidly changing environment, identify broad campus priorities for improvement, and set in motion specific actions to bring those priorities to life. The first step in the planning process was to define the institutional values that would guide choices and serve as touchstones in evaluating success. Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University (2014) identified several core values speaking to the campus’s enduring commitment to forming and strengthening “socially just learning and working environments that foster a culture of excellence through diverse people, ideas, and perspectives”1:

• Social progress and social justice. UMass Amherst has a profound legacy of and commitment to social justice, extending across generations and spanning disciplines. We accept for ourselves and instill in our students the ongoing commitment to create a better, more just world.

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness.2 By embracing diverse people, ideas, and perspectives we create a vibrant learning and working environment. Breaking down barriers to meaningful participation fosters a sense of belonging and treats all individuals with dignity and respect. In this environment we work toward an equitable society in which all enjoy equal rights and opportunities.

• Opportunity. A corollary to inclusiveness is opportunity, a commitment to welcoming all those who share our aspirations and high standards of performance.3

Equally important, the campus declared a commitment to action to advance its values:

• Responsibility and Stewardship. Leadership carries responsibility. As a community we set high standards for personal responsibility and institutional stewardship, recognizing that the integrity of our ideas, the strength of our society, and the sustainability of our planet rely on continuous creativity and commitment to act.4

As the first stages of planning unfolded, these and other identified values informed the work of the numerous planning committees that contributed to the Phase I report, Innovation and Impact. The planning guidelines explicitly identified diversity, equity, and inclusiveness as overarching themes that should be reflected in topical sections of the plan. While diversity considerations were reflected to some extent in the early rounds of planning, the Phase I and II reports did not produce a comprehensive and clearly-‐articulated diversity-‐oriented strategy for the campus. Recognizing this, on April 18, 2014 the Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight (JTFSO) agreed that a new subcommittee should be specifically charged with developing a campus diversity strategic plan with a focus on increasing enrollment of underrepresented

1 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University, 1. Retrieved at: 2 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness are wide-ranging terms with evolving definitions. The Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee broadly defines diversity as the presence of various and different characteristics, experiences, identities, and ideas within the community; equity as the opportunity and access for all individuals to achieve full potential; and inclusiveness as the opportunity for all individuals to join and participate fully within the community. 3 Innovation and Impact, 4. 4 Ibid.


groups on campus and ensuring a positive experience for all members of the UMass Amherst community.5 That group — the Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee — was appointed by Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy under the leadership of Deputy Chancellor Robert Feldman. It began meeting in June 2014. The Steering Committee met numerous times over the summer of 2014 and scheduled a Town Hall meeting for October 2014 to discuss the Steering Committee’s charge with the campus. Before that meeting took place, racist, threatening graffiti was discovered in the Southwest Residential Area, exponentially increasing the urgency of the Steering Committee’s work. Based on members’ perspectives; comments received in multiple public meetings and through online submissions, and through conversations with various groups and organizations on campus; and a review of past reports and plans including Phase I and II JTFSO reports, the Steering Committee identified five thematic areas around which to organize its findings and recommendations:

1. Establish UMass Amherst as a destination of choice for students of color and other underrepresented groups.

2. Improve the campus climate of inclusion. 3. Enhance effectiveness of curriculum and educational programs with regard to

diversity and inclusion. 4. Increase focus on recruiting, retention, and promotion of diverse faculty and staff. 5. Increase outreach and engagement with external communities/schools with large

proportions of underrepresented minorities. These themes and elaborating information were posted on the Steering Committee’s website6 and comments were solicited from the campus community. The Steering Committee’s work and opportunities to contribute to the process were highlighted in a campus-‐wide update on diversity issues from the Chancellor on November 4, 2014.7 In January 2015 a draft Diversity Strategic Plan was distributed with a call for responses. A public forum was held on February 5 and the Steering Committee continued conversations with various individuals, groups and organizations. Meetings were individually held with the Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Council, Student Government Association, Graduate Student Senate, Status of Diversity Council, and Status of Women Council, among others. Responding to Feedback From the forum and other conversations, the Steering Committee learned of a number of concerns regarding the draft plan. Among these, the Steering Committee identified four main areas:

(1) Primary Focus on Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Lack of Consideration of Intersecting Diversities. Many of the comments received by the Steering Committee noted the primary focus of the draft plan on racial/ethnic diversity at UMass Amherst—at the perceived expense of other forms of diversity. The focus on racial/ethnic diversity was in part by design, in part in response to events on

5 Independent of the work of JTFSO, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity has been compiling information on diversity at UMass Amherst for many years and has a number of important documents, including diversity and affirmative action plans for the campus, that are accessible via the Office’s website: http://www.umass.edu/eod. 6 http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/diversity-strategic-planning-steering-committee 7 https://www.umass.edu/chancellor/sites/default/files/Message-from-the-Chancellor-11-04-14.pdf


campus and throughout the nation, and in part based on data availability. The Steering Committee was charged to specifically address racial/ethnic diversity on campus, with particular concern for the experience of underrepresented minorities.8 Federal reporting requirements that must be followed by all colleges and universities include information on race and ethnicity with terminology that—although imperfect—is used as a national standard. Additionally, the Common Application includes information on race and ethnicity. Data, and in particular data that would allow for comparison between institutions, is not equally available for other forms of diversity such as sexual orientation, gender identity, religious identity, disability status, or veteran status. This presents a major obstacle for analysis that the Steering Committee acknowledges as a major problem that should be addressed. Encouragingly, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), in which UMass Amherst participates on three-‐year cycles, recently added a question on sexual orientation that will provide data that can be analyzed in future studies. In an upsetting parallel to the events of the fall, action to ensure the safe and positive experience of members of the LGBTQAI community on campus has been made imperative following the discovery of graffiti outside the office of the Graduate Employee Organization including hateful language directed at both the African American and LGBTQAI communities. The new information provided in the next NSSE survey will be essential in guiding action plans on that front.

The focus on racial and ethnic diversity additionally failed to articulate the fact that many individuals on campus belong to multiple diverse groups. For many, diversity is not singular, but intersecting. That is, a person who has non-‐majority status in terms of race/ethnicity and also sexual or gender identity will experience personal identity from multiple angles. The draft plan included language acknowledging that diversity encompasses a vast array of differences, from socio-‐economic status and religious belief to gender, sexual identity, disability, veteran status and beyond. Any and all of these groups may intersect in ways that must be considered during all steps of planning and implementation.

The Steering Committee’s focus on the experience of underrepresented minorities generated a dialogue around explicit acts of prejudice and also led to frank discussions around how inequality has been sustained by more implicit conditions in the community, such as institutional racism and unconscious bias.9 The Steering Committee deliberated deeply on ways to counter these implicit and explicit influences in establishing its originally stated aspirations to:

• Expand the pathways to higher education for communities that have been

historically excluded and/or underserved by our own institution and the academy at large;

• Increase the proportion of faculty and staff from diverse backgrounds to better represent our community, Commonwealth, and the nation; and

• Create a campus climate that actively supports diversity in all aspects of its mission.

(2) Centralized Values and Resources. During the feedback period following

the release of the draft Diversity Strategic Plan, the Steering Committee received many comments regarding the accessibility of University resources, including

8 For purposes of clarity and consistency, throughout this report the term “underrepresented minorities” (URM) will be used. Consistent with federal reporting requirements, URM indicates all U.S. citizens who self-identify as American Indian/Alaskan Native; Black/African American; Hispanic/Latino of any race; Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; and, since, 2010, Non-Hispanic/Latino students who identify with two or more races (except if the two races are Asian and white). Because various groups and documents use different terminology, within this document, the terms Black and African American will be used interchangeably, as will Hispanic and Latino. 9 See: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html.


support services, data and statistics on bias related incidents, and means for incident reporting. For a number of reasons (further elaborated in Section II), it is important to have a multiplicity of channels available for students to report incidents or receive support for diversity-‐related issues. However, it is also beneficial to have a centralized and widely accessed space where community members can find resources and report incidents. Additionally, while each organization that supports diverse groups on campus has specific goals and principles, there is no campus-‐wide statement of values. In order to effectively administer a centralized space for resources and reporting, an overarching set of values must be established. With that in mind, the Steering Committee, working with existing statements from various University documents including the Code of Student Conduct, Principles of Employee Conduct, the Diversity Mission Statement, and Innovation and Impact, set forth the following values: • The University of Massachusetts Amherst, as a public land grant institution,

has a responsibility to provide access and opportunities for all people while demonstrating a commitment to inclusion of historically underrepresented groups.

• The University of Massachusetts Amherst is committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue among diverse groups in a community defined by mutual respect.

• Historical and structural biases based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion exist in our nation and have influenced the history of our institution.

• Institutions of higher education are entrusted with significant resources and commensurably significant responsibilities. UMass Amherst affirms its responsibility by creating and ensuring a respectful, safe, and inclusive campus for all members of the community.

• The University of Massachusetts Amherst does not tolerate incidents of discrimination, assault, harassment, threats, intimidation, profiling, or coercion based on membership or perceived membership in a particular racial, religious, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation group nor based on color, national origin, disability, or veteran status. Such acts are antithetical to the values of the campus and damage individuals and the free and open environment of the University.

(3) Accountability. The Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee was

charged to study the current state of diversity on campus and to make recommendations to the Chancellor for future action. Wherever possible, this report identifies the unit responsible for acting on each recommendation. Progress will be assessed by the existing groups whose charges include assessing the state of diversity on campus, particularly the Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Council, whose charge states: “This Council serves as an advisory board on matters of diversity, and has been charged with reviewing campus policies and procedures related to diversity.”10

(4) Resource Considerations. This report is an integral part of the larger

campus strategic planning process, and therefore informs both ongoing expenditures by individual units and campus-‐level strategic investment. Recommendations arising under this plan will be considered in the context of the full set of campus strategic priorities. This process has already produced significant investment in response to diversity planning. For example, the Chancellor funded

10 http://www.umass.edu/diversity/committee.php


the recommended Assistant Provost for Diversity as a FY2015 strategic investment, and additionally authorized the use of campus financial aid funds for the expanded Community Scholars program, both early recommendations of the Steering Committee.

Going forward, the additional recommendations included in this report will also be considered for unit or campus investment, as appropriate. To support that process, recommendations for the five thematic areas have been presented within the following general context:

• Reasonable specificity with respect to the proposed change (the

action[s] needed to achieve the strategic purpose), with a focus on outcomes.

• Clear assignment of responsibility for that charge. • Priority/Impact: a sense of relative importance. • Timing/Sequence: What needs to happen first, and what steps

may be needed to achieve the goal?

These points of perspective will help focus on budgetary responsibility, and on the extent and timing of any new investments.

Based on the preceding guiding principles, the establishment of priority areas, and the feedback received by the Steering Committee on the earlier draft of the plan, the remainder of this report presents detailed recommendations for future actions.

Areas of Priority and Recommendations


Vision and Expectations An overriding theme of the campus’s strategic plan is to become established as a “destination of choice” for talented students of all backgrounds and socio-‐economic statuses. This priority reflects many factors, including intense and growing admissions competition, especially in the northeast; the extraordinary concentration of higher education opportunities in Massachusetts, which historically has attenuated demand for the public flagship; and the general, long-‐term priority to improve quality and expand contributions to the Commonwealth. Of particular concern is how to achieve this goal in a way that is consistent with our values of diversity, inclusion, and equity. As the Phase I report stressed, “We have taken pride in providing educational opportunity throughout our history. As we move forward we must take care to preserve that legacy, especially for students who may be vulnerable in the more challenging economic environment we face.”11 Recent economic trends are especially important in recruiting and supporting low-‐income and first-‐generation students who may not consider higher education an economically feasible option. The Steering Committee therefore looked carefully at the question of what actions are needed to ensure that the specific needs and interests of underrepresented students are integrated into the “destination of choice” strategy.

11 Innovation and Impact, 5.


In thinking about this, the Steering Committee was mindful that campus goals and performance with respect to diversity can be viewed from multiple perspectives. Often, discussions of diversity focus on a “representational” perspective; that is, the extent to which an institution’s diversity reflects that of the broader community it seeks to serve. This is clearly a key consideration, especially in terms of the campus’s values relating to social justice, equity, inclusion, and opportunity. Discussions of diversity also focus on the “educational” perspective; that is, the value of engagement within a diverse community to students’ intellectual and personal development. This perspective is captured in the campus’s value statement that “by embracing diverse people, ideas, and perspectives we create a vibrant learning and working environment.”12 The educational focus has become sharper in recent years, partly as a result of litigation at the federal level over admissions policies and practices limiting the extent to which institutions may pursue a representational approach. The landmark Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger established a powerful context for the value of educational diversity. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, speaking for the majority, established the value of “the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” and emphasized that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest.”13 II. Appraisal In developing a diversity strategic plan, the Steering Committee therefore considered institutional goals and performance from both perspectives. From the representational perspective, institutional performance has been shifting. For much of the past twenty years, the proportion of undergraduates from underrepresented groups at UMass Amherst fluctuated around a fairly stable plateau. During this period total undergraduate enrollment was also relatively stable. Beginning about ten years ago, however, the campus experienced modest but steady growth in undergraduate enrollment. Between 2004 and 2014, total undergraduate enrollment grew by 19%. During that same period, URM enrollments grew by 51%, and the URM proportion of undergraduates rose from 9% to 12%.14 While this disproportionate growth in URM enrollments is positive, to some extent it simply reflects the changing demographic composition of the state. The Steering Committee therefore sought to put the campus’s experience in a broader context. Given that the great majority of undergraduates — 77% in Fall 2014 — are residents of the Commonwealth, comparison with the state population serves as a starting point. In this light, several different comparisons are possible:

• Institution vs. state population. This provides a broad reference point, but may not fit well with the actual college-‐aged and college-‐going populations.

12 Ibid., 4. 13 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Many models based on this principle put the responsibility of broadening and supporting diversity on students, faculty, and staff of color. The Steering Committee wishes to make clear that the imperative to value diverse experiences and preemptively engage in conversations about diversity is shared equally among the entire campus population and should not disproportionately burden students, faculty, and staff of color. 14 This figure incorporates overall campus enrollment. Table 1, which indicates 10% proportion of URM students, is in reference to first-year students. The URM proportion of transfer students is 15%.


• Institution vs. High School seniors. This provides a better age-‐cohort comparison, but may not account for differences in student intentions or academic preparation.

• Institution vs. SAT test-‐takers. This is a reasonable proxy for the state’s college-‐bound population, but may not account for differences in academic preparation.

• Institution vs. admissions-‐eligible. This matches institutional representation with the general availability pool in terms of current admissions practices.

Table 1 shows these perspectives for UMass Amherst in Fall 2013. Massachusetts tends to be less diverse than the nation as a whole, particularly with respect to its African American and Hispanic/Latino populations. High school seniors have somewhat higher representation of Hispanics than the state’s total population, reflecting recent demographic trends. Test-‐takers, on the other hand, have lower representation of Hispanics/Latinos, and higher representation of Asians. Among the admissions-‐eligible, African American and Hispanic/Latino representation was considerably lower, while Asian representation was higher.15

Table 1. Percentages indicate the overall proportion of the specific group identifying as each listed race/ethnicity. The first column indicates the entire United States population, while the final represents the population of students enrolled at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy that in Fall 2013 UMass Amherst accepted and enrolled a class roughly comparable to the pool of URM admissions-‐eligible applicants in the state, yet less diverse than the overall state population. In this regard, the campus faces a challenge common to all selective universities: to the extent that underrepresented populations, on average, have lower profiles on admissions selection criteria, institutional enrollment will tend to be less diverse than the general population. It is important to note that the Steering Committee acknowledges that historical and structural legacies of bias and underrepresentation in education contribute to this context, and it is not merely the result of low test scores. Within this general pattern, the Steering Committee was also interested in understanding how UMass Amherst compares with other selective public universities across the country. Is the gap between institutional and state URM representation fairly consistent, or do some institutions come closer to reflecting their state populations than others? Using federal IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) data and data from the U.S. News and World Report ranking of colleges and universities, a rough comparison was made of the extent to which public

15 In this table, “admissions-eligible” was defined as applicants with high school GPAs greater than or equal to 3.0 and SAT scores of 1000 or better. This approximates UMass Amherst’s general admissions cut-off point for Fall 2013.

UMass%Amherst,%Class%Entering%Fall%2013

United'StatesMassa,chusetts MA'Grade'12

MA'SAT'Test,takers

MA'SAT'≥3.0'HSGAP,'1000'SAT Applied Accepted Enrolled

American%Indian/%Alaskan%Native 1.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Black/African%American 13.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 3.0% 7.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Hispanic/Latino%(any%race) 17.0% 10.0% 13.0% 8.0% 4.0% 7.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Asian/Native%Hawaiian/%Pacific%Islander 5.0% 6.0% 5.0% 8.0% 10.0% 10.0% 12.0% 12.0%

Two%or%more%races%(not%Hispanic,%white,%Asian) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0%

White 63.0% 76.0% 72.0% 71.0% 80.0% 71.0% 76.0% 77.0%


Figure 1. Comparison of the proportional population of URM students enrolled in public universities compared to the URM population of the respective state. Schools with bars extending to the left have proportional URM populations smaller than that of their respective states.

!30.0%& !25.0%& !20.0%& !15.0%& !10.0%& !5.0%& 0.0%& 5.0%&

Texas&A&&&M&University1College&Sta7on&University&of&California1Berkeley&

University&of&Georgia&University&of&California1San&Diego&

Georgia&Ins7tute&of&Technology1Main&Campus&University&of&California1Davis&

Clemson&University&The&University&of&Texas&at&Aus7n&

Auburn&University&University&of&California1Irvine&

University&of&California1Los&Angeles&University&of&Delaware&University&at&Buffalo&SUNY&at&Binghamton&

North&Carolina&State&University&at&Raleigh&Virginia&Polytechnic&Ins7tute&and&State&University&

Stony&Brook&University&University&of&Maryland1College&Park&

The&University&of&Alabama&University&of&Illinois&at&Urbana1Champaign&

University&of&Colorado&Boulder&University&of&California1Santa&Barbara&

Florida&State&University&University&of&Virginia1Main&Campus&University&of&California1Santa&Cruz&

University&of&North&Carolina&at&Chapel&Hill&Rutgers&University1New&Brunswick&

University&of&Florida&University&of&Connec7cut&

The&University&of&Tennessee&University&of&Michigan1Ann&Arbor&

University&of&PiPsburgh1PiPsburgh&Campus&University&of&MassachusePs&Amherst&

University&of&Nebraska1Lincoln&Michigan&State&University&

Purdue&University1Main&Campus&University&of&Oklahoma&Norman&Campus&

Pennsylvania&State&University1Main&Campus&University&of&Kansas&

Indiana&University1Bloomington&Ohio&State&University1Main&Campus&

University&of&Wisconsin1Madison&University&of&Washington1SeaPle&Campus&

University&of&Missouri1Columbia&University&of&Minnesota1Twin&Ci7es&

University&of&Oregon&Iowa&State&University&

University&of&New&Hampshire1Main&Campus&University&of&Iowa&

University&of&Vermont&

Ins7tu7onal&vs&State&URM:&US&News&Top&50&Publics&&


universities reflect their states’ URM populations. Figure 1 shows the top fifty “national” public universities according to the overall U.S. News ranking. For each, the graph plots the difference between the institution’s URM representation and that of its respective state. For example, UMass Amherst shows a value of -‐7.5%, which reflects the campus’s URM percentage (12.2%) minus that for the total state population (19.7%). This comparison indicates that nearly all leading public universities have URM representation below that of their states—in many cases substantially below. In fact, only three of these institutions have URM enrollments that equal or exceed those of their states, and all three are schools in states with very low URM populations and that enroll a large number of out-‐of-‐state students. On average, the difference between institutional URM representation and that of their respective states for these fifty institutions was more than twelve percentage points. In the national context, then, UMass Amherst, at -‐7.5%, has one of the lower URM representational differences. In purely representational terms, all of this suggests that UMass Amherst is an institution that is demonstrating rapid growth in both the number and proportion of URM students; reflecting the URM diversity of the state in terms of current admissions criteria; and more closely representing the overall URM diversity of its state than most other leading public universities. Still, the Steering Committee is unanimous in calling for aggressive action to further expand URM diversity on campus. Regardless of the state’s demographic makeup, the Steering Committee believes that the educational benefits of a diverse learning community demand new approaches that can attract and retain a more vibrant and diverse community of learners. In short, we must act to establish UMass Amherst as a “destination of choice” for students of color and other underrepresented groups. Opportunities to achieve this goal come in three principal areas: the admissions process, yield enhancement, and enrollment planning. All three are discussed below. 1. The Admissions Process Successful admissions recruiting relies on attracting the applicants the institution desires and applying the right criteria in evaluating those applicants. Applications. Over the past ten years UMass Amherst has seen a dramatic increase in applications for admission, from 20,207 in 2005 to 37,183 in 2014. The Office of Enrollment Management reports that this increase is largely a product of three factors: 1) expanded solicitation of applications on the part of the University (e.g., purchase of names of potential applicants from the College Board); 2) UMass Amherst’s participation in the Common Application; and 3) a general national upward trend in the number of institutions to which high school seniors apply. Of particular note to the Steering Committee is that by far the greatest growth in applications has come among URM applicants. During this period, while total applications grew by 184%, URM applications grew by a remarkable 335%. This impressive growth in URM applications is highly encouraging, but underscores the importance of converting applicants to enrollees (see discussion below). Even considering this increase in URM applications, it will be important to bring a sharper focus to a generation of diverse applicants with high potential for enrolling and succeeding at UMass Amherst. The campus has lacked consistent leadership infrastructure and logistical support for working with communities of color to promote early identification of qualified applicants and bring them successfully through all stages of the admissions process. For that reason, one of the first actions of the Steering Committee was to recommend that the Chancellor authorize creation of an


enrollment management diversity coordinator to lead and support recruitment and yield enhancement efforts for underrepresented groups, mobilizing existing campus resources and groups wherever possible. The Chancellor gave his immediate approval, and in subsequent discussion this position was defined as an Assistant Provost for Diversity. The search for that position has just been successfully completed and the Assistant Provost for Diversity will begin work in May 2015. Admissions Review. The relationship between institutional selectivity and URM representation cited earlier suggests that calibrating an effective admissions review process is very important in building a diverse student body. A vigorous, ongoing national debate centers on the appropriate factors to consider in admissions, with special focus on standardized test scores. The literature tends to acknowledge the centrality of high school performance in assessing likely college success, especially at the university level. Standardized test scores have not been shown to be powerful predictors of student success taken alone, but do seem to add some predictive power in combination with high school performance. On the other hand, many questions have been raised about persistent gaps in test scores between majority and minority students, and testing organizations are devoting considerable effort to understand and mitigate these differences. UMass Amherst has historically given high school performance — particularly in the form of high school GPA and the pattern of courses taken — the greatest weight in the admission decision. Test scores have also been consistently considered, although the relative weight between HSGPA and test scores has varied somewhat over time. For many years, UMass Amherst did not require an essay or other supplemental qualitative information from applicants. Recently, however, the campus introduced an essay requirement to permit a more holistic review of applications, particularly in terms of applicants’ personal experiences related to leadership, resiliency, and other factors demonstrated to contribute to college success. The Office of Enrollment Management reports that this broader approach has contributed to recent success in building undergraduate diversity. Looking ahead, Enrollment Management is seeking to further refine its holistic review of applications, based on lessons learned nationally and from our own campus experience. The Steering Committee believes that continued progress in this direction is essential, and that the campus should be a national leader in developing admissions standards and practices that effectively identify the potential for college success, especially among populations traditionally underrepresented at UMass and within higher education generally. It is therefore recommended that:

• The Assistant Provost for Diversity, along with the Associate Provost for Enrollment Management, develop a comprehensive action plan to coordinate and strengthen URM recruitment efforts and mobilize, wherever possible, existing campus groups and individual faculty, staff, and students to support that effort. Part of this effort should include the consideration of the establishment of a secondary admissions office located in Boston to facilitate the recruitment of students living in that urban center.

• The Admissions Office, under the leadership of the Associate Provost for Enrollment Management, intensify efforts to expand the holistic consideration of applicants for admission, seeking out and applying best national practices, especially in terms of supplementing traditional indicators of college success. Part of this process will entail the undertaking of a careful and critical review of the role of test scores in the admissions decision.


2. Yield Enhancement Despite the impressive growth in applications cited above, the campus admissions “yield” (the percentage of those accepted who choose to enroll at UMass Amherst) has not seen similar improvement. In fact, overall yield declined from 27.3% in 2005 to 20.4% in 2014. In large part this may be another effect of the rapid growth in applications, many of which represent casual interest. Of note, however, is that yield among URM applicants has fallen faster than the overall trend, from 29.5% in 2005 to 17.5% in 2014. In part, this is indicative of positive developments at the national level, in the form of increased options. In practical terms, this means that the campus had to make 5.7 offers of admission to yield one URM student in 2014, up from 3.4 offers in 2005. Yield is clearly a central challenge in expanding campus diversity. This is why the focus on being a destination of choice is critical. The Steering Committee was deeply interested in understanding both why such a large fraction of URM applicants who are admitted refuse our offer, and why that number is increasing. One source of insight is the National Student Clearinghouse, through which institutions share student enrollment data. The Clearinghouse makes it possible to track students who move from one institution to another. Using Clearinghouse data, the Steering Committee examined in-‐state URM applicants who were admitted to UMass Amherst but who chose to attend a different institution. In Fall 2013 there were a total of 646 such students. An analysis of that data placed the institutions in which these students did enroll into several broad categories. While these categories overlap to some extent, and could be differently configured, Figure 2 provides a reasonable entry point into the discussion of why so many Massachusetts URM students bypass their state’s public flagship when choosing a college.

Figure 2. Sections represent varying categories of institutions at which admitted URM students who chose not to enroll at UMass Amherst ended up attending.

Small/ethos+(7%)+

Other+(10%)+

Other+MA+public+(13%)+

Specialized+Major+(14%)+

Close+to+home+(15%)+

High+PresEge+(42%)+

InsEtuEons+AIended+by+Fall+2013+URM+NonOEnrollees+


By far the largest group chose to attend a variety of public and private institutions across the country with established reputations for academic excellence. Another significant group (15%) attended institutions with specialized curricula, suggesting that choice/availability of major may have been a factor (e.g., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Peabody Conservatory of Music). Another group (7%) attended what seem to be small but not conventionally prestigious out-‐of-‐state colleges, suggesting that institutional size and ethos may have been a factor. The analysis also revealed that many of these students remain close to home. It is not possible from these data alone to assess whether this is a function of cost, family connections/responsibilities, or other factors, but it is telling that 15% attended local, less prestigious institutions (largely private), and another 13% attended other Massachusetts public colleges or universities (and of these, 69% attended other UMass campuses). In fact, more than half (54%) of all the URM applicants who turned down an offer of admission to UMass Amherst remained in the state. This included nearly half of the students attending “high prestige” institutions. These data and perspectives from Steering Committee members and other ongoing campus discussions suggest several key questions and potential opportunities for action:

• To what extent does cost play a determining role in these students’ choices? This question has at least two dimensions: 1) net out-‐of-‐pocket cost (affordability); and 2) perceived “return on investment” (value).

• With respect to affordability, what is the “gap” between UMass Amherst and other choices? • With respect to value, what is causing students to conclude that their flagship public

university is not sufficiently competitive? • Regardless of cost considerations, what steps can UMass Amherst take to persuade these

URM applicants and their families to consider matriculation to UMass Amherst? Cost is a factor that cannot be ignored. First, the fact that a significant number of URM students choose colleges with a lower sticker price than UMass Amherst (particularly other in-‐state public institutions) suggests a net cost challenge for some. Second, enrollment management professionals report that other institutions — particularly prestigious privates with high sticker prices — can offer such steep discounts to URM students that UMass Amherst’s best offer can seem non-‐competitive. As noted in the Phase I report’s discussion of enrollment management, “the competition for highly qualified high school graduates from underrepresented groups is especially intense. In Massachusetts and the northeast in particular candidates are likely to receive multiple offers from excellent schools.”16 Federal regulations limit financial aid awards to the full “cost of attendance,” based primarily on the institution’s sticker price. For a Massachusetts resident, that cost at UMass Amherst is $25,415. At Boston University, that same student has a cost of attendance of $63,644. From one perspective, then, a 40% discount at BU, which is not uncommon (expressed in the form of need-‐ and merit-‐based aid) is “worth” more than the entire cost of a UMass Amherst education. But it also seems clear that increasing the perceived value of a UMass Amherst education is essential. We know from financial aid data and other sources that many applicants — including URM applicants — have the financial means to choose a college with relatively high out-‐of-‐pocket costs. As the Phase I report also noted, “out-‐of-‐pocket cost may not be the determining factor. Competing successfully in the coming years will require attention to students’ academic and career



goals and other factors that may differentiate UMass Amherst.”17 This observation is reinforced in the data examined above. The 271 URM applicants who passed over UMass Amherst in favor of a “more prestigious” college are certainly of interest here. In addition, how many of the URM students interested in Engineering who attended WPI, or those interested in management who attended Bentley, did so because their major of choice was not available to them at UMass Amherst? This question is of particular concern when viewed in concert with data that shows that our so-‐called “restricted” majors, such as the Isenberg BBAs, Engineering, and Nursing, have among the lowest URM student populations on campus. Transfer students account for nearly 20% of new enrollments at the University. The transfer student population contributes substantially to campus diversity, particularly in the proportion of non-‐traditional students and students with veteran status. Additionally, the overall percentage or underrepresented minorities among transfer students, at 15%, is well above that of incoming first year students, which is around 10%. Programs like MassTransfer, which allows students who have completed specific benchmarks to transfer into Massachusetts public universities having fulfilled essential requirements, have strengthened UMass Amherst’s ties to community college transfers. We applaud this idea and recognize that its genesis lies in opening greater opportunities at the flagship campus to students from low-‐income and first-‐generation households, who are often members of underrepresented groups as well. A number of initiatives have been recently undertaken to address some of these concerns, including the following:

• The University has initiated an Honors to Honors scholarship program for low-‐income and first-‐generation students graduating from Massachusetts community college honors programs who have been admitted to the Commonwealth Honors College. The “high prestige” element of this program will supplement the existing MassTransfer program, which allows students from Massachusetts community colleges to transfer to UMass Amherst upon completion of an associates degree.

• Based on an earlier recommendation, the existing institutionally funded Community Scholarship program has been expanded. This year, the University invested an additional $400,000 in the program, increasing the total number of scholarships from approximately 55 to 120. The scholarships are offered to freshmen from underrepresented or low-‐income backgrounds. Previously, the scholarships were $5,000; they are now tiered at $6,000, $8,000, and $10,000. The impact of this change will be evaluated and further expansion will be considered. In addition, as part of the ongoing capital campaign, a new “UMass Rising” scholarship fund is being established to help reach these same students.

• The Provost’s Undergraduate Research Fellowship program has been inaugurated. This is a $4,000 award for outstanding incoming freshmen, expended over four years to support original research by undergraduates working under faculty advisors. The definition of “outstanding” being utilized by the program includes students who are accomplished writers, artists, musicians, and community leaders, as well as those who have high grades and strong test scores.

• A program tentatively titled Senior Completion Support has been initiated. This program will identify seniors close to graduation struggling to complete their final requirements for either academic or financial reasons. The initiative should help retain students who—often for financial reasons—do not graduate.

17 Ibid.


It is further recommended that:

• The Associate Provost for Enrollment Management immediately further target institutional financial aid toward low-‐income and other underrepresented groups and undertake further analysis of URM non-‐enrollees to identify additional actions needed with respect to cost, value, and program availability.

• Under the leadership of the Assistant Provost for Diversity, the Admissions Office be charged with coordinating yield enhancement activities for URM applicants across all areas of the campus (academic programs, administrative offices, student organizations, etc.) in order to better support efforts to reach out to students of color throughout the admissions process, and especially in the critical period between the offer of admission and the Candidate Reply Date.

3. Overall Enrollment Planning

The Phase I report stressed the importance of developing an overall campus enrollment strategy respecting diversity as a key university priority:

Our initial enrollment growth goals were set four years ago in a different environment and with relatively little experience to draw on. It is time to reflect on our experience, take advantage of more powerful analysis now available, and recalibrate our enrollment management plan. The following should guide that effort:

• No enrollment goal stands alone: revenue exists in a balance with quality, selectivity, diversity and capacity. …

• Promoting diversity is a key goal that presents a special challenge. … • In particular, we need to ensure that our enrollment strategy supports the goal of

making UMass Amherst the destination of choice for the kinds of students we seek.18

Following on those recommendations, the campus has launched a fundamental review of its enrollment plans and goals. The Steering Committee applauds such a review, and urges that the considerations detailed in this report be fully incorporated into the campus enrollment plan. In particular, it is recommended that the Associate Provost for Enrollment Management:

• Consider necessary and appropriate investments in financial aid in all modeling while assessing the on diversity in all calculations of net revenue.

• Integrate availability of academic programs of choice into enrollment planning in order to expand our capacity in programs where we are losing strong students, especially with respect to students of color and other underrepresented groups.

• Explore potential improvements in campus capacity to identify, attract, and enroll underrepresented students while establishing assumptions for modeling and decision making.



4. Recruitment and Retention at the Graduate Level

At the graduate level, diversity efforts have primarily been focused on increasing the number of URM students pursuing research doctorates (PhD and EdD). The number of URM doctoral students rose from 8.3% of the overall graduate student population to in Fall 2003 to over 10% in Fall 2008, largely as a result of a significant institutional investment in increasing minority participation in STEM doctoral programs, in part through the STEM Diversity Institute, which built off of the work of the Northeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NEAGEP). This growth has not continued, however, and the URM portion of the graduate student population has plateaued around 10.5% for the past five years. Over that same period, the fraction of URM students in the doctoral entering cohort has averaged 9.4%, a number that has not improved the University’s performance in URM enrollment. Current graduate students have voiced concern over potential biases in the admissions process on campus. While undergraduate admissions are administered at a campus-‐wide level, the Graduate School determines its offers of admission based on the recommendation of the respective departments and colleges. This places the primary responsibility for all matters related to admissions at the department level. Because of this, admissions criteria vary widely across campus. To ensure that departments are held accountable for any unintended biases in their decisions, if such biases do indeed exist, central guidance and training are necessary. A first step in addressing potential biases is to consider the percent of applicants offered admission in each department. While potential biases in the admissions process is a serious concern, it is important to note that URM applicants are more likely to be offered enrollment than non-‐URM applicants. URM applicants constitute only 6.1% of the applicant pool, but represent 7.9% of those offered admission. It follows, then, that further improvements in URM enrollment will primarily have to come on the input and output sides of the admissions process: increasing the number of URM applicants and improving the yield on offers of admission. While numerous departments are serious about recruiting a greater number of minority graduate students, central guidance is necessary in order to synchronize efforts and share best practices across campus. To allow for such initiatives, many Research I institutions employ an Assistant Dean for Inclusion at the graduate level. The Graduate School is enthusiastic about the exploration of how resources may be reallocated to allow for such a position. Troublingly, the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to URM students is considerably lower than the current 10.4% enrollment. Over the past five years, the proportion of doctoral degrees awarded to URM students is only 8.4%. (That is, while 10.4% of all doctoral students are URM students, only 8.4% of graduates are.) This suggests that non-‐completion, a significant problem for all doctoral students, is particularly acute for URM students. Again, the first step in addressing this endemic problem is to study retention and attrition of all graduate students in each department, which will be integral to the strategic planning process to be conducted in Spring 2015. It has been recommended to the Steering Committee that exit interviews be taken of all graduate students who leave their program of study. The Steering Committee agrees that this is valuable information that helps the Graduate School better understand the difficulties of graduate students and the overall climate of the University. In any given semester, typically around 200 graduate students may drop out of their programs. Of those 200, fewer than ten will formally withdraw; the rest will simply fail to re-‐enroll. Additionally, since many students who drop out do so near the beginning of their programs, a large percentage will not have a formal advisor who can be


contacted regarding their status and reasons for leaving. These factors create difficulties in obtaining information. Determining why graduate students leave is an important initiative that should be pursued to the greatest effect. One possibility, recommended below, is to provide information to graduate students following their first and all subsequent years of study in order to clearly communicate their standing in their respective programs and preemptively identify issues that may lead students to leave their programs. An obvious factor in graduate student retention is the availability of funding in proportion to the size of the graduate student population. In response to concern over the potential of biases in the allocation of graduate assistantships, which could disproportionately affect URM or other diverse students, the Graduate School is forming a joint committee to study the issue. The committee will review current affirmative action and anti-‐discrimination measures affecting employment and make recommendations to ensure equal opportunity in recruitment, hiring, and retention19. Diverse students who complete doctorates at UMass Amherst have incredibly encouraging outcomes. Data for degrees conferred between 1999 and 2012 shows that 62% of African American students who completed a PhD or EdD at UMass Amherst have tenure-‐track appointments, compared to 48% for white graduates. Hispanic graduates, likewise, outperform their white counterparts, with 57% in tenure-‐track jobs. These data reiterate the importance of ensuring the retention and completion of all graduate students. Other Research I universities have followed a two-‐pronged approach to address enrollment and completion challenges among URM graduate students:

1. Offer fellowships that improve on standard assistantships. Currently, all diversity fellowship funding simply replaces assistantship funding dollar for dollar. This reduces costs for the department or PI, but it offers no additional value to the applicant. More effective fellowship programs top up assistantships or provide attractive features, such as summer funding and a non-‐teaching dissertation year in the humanities and social sciences. This funding structure has the added benefit of improving degree completion. Some funding at UMass Amherst is currently being allocated in this manner.

2. Assign staff with specific responsibility for helping doctoral programs to diversify their applicant pools and to organize recruitment events, administering the fellowship program, counseling URM students about how to navigate the academy, and training faculty to be better mentors to their URM advisees.

With these considerations in mind, it is recommended that the Graduate School, under the leadership of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School:

• Explore new fellowship models for diverse students. • Identify options and develop a plan for diversifying applicant pools and support diverse

graduate students throughout their educational experience. • Develop a process to explore the hire of an Assistant Dean for Inclusion. • Encourage departments to provide annual updates on the standing of each graduate

student in order to promote greater retention of all students through their degree programs.

19 Memorandum of Understanding between Graduate School and Graduate Employee Organization (GEO) dated February 13, 2015


II. Improve the campus climate of inclusion I. Vision and Expectations Campus climate is defined as “the current attitudes, behaviors and standards of faculty, staff, administrators and students concerning the level of respect for individual needs, abilities and potential.”20 Climate extends beyond individual experience and is an expression of the overarching attitude of an institution: “The Campus Climate is not only a function of what one has personally experienced, but also is influenced by perceptions of how members of the academy are regarded on campus.”21 The Phase I report articulates key values that inform our expectations for campus climate:

We advance socially just learning and working environments that foster a culture of excellence through diverse people, ideas, and perspectives.22 • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness. By embracing diverse people, ideas, and

perspectives we create a vibrant learning and working environment. Breaking down barriers to meaningful participation fosters a sense of belonging and treats all individuals with dignity and respect. In this environment we work toward an equitable society in which all enjoy equal rights and opportunities.

• Social progress and social justice. UMass Amherst has a profound legacy of and

commitment to social justice, extending across generations and spanning disciplines. We accept for ourselves and instill in our UMass Amherst students the ongoing commitment to create a better, more just world.23

It is critical to note that these values address both life within our community and our educational mission. Creating and maintaining a campus climate that supports and celebrates diversity is therefore a matter not only of what we experience while we are here, but also of why we are here. Achieving the University’s mission relies on success with respect to both. These values are important statements, but they must be reflected in the daily experience of students, faculty, staff, and visitors. We therefore focus here on the practical challenges of bringing these values to life and the opportunities to improve the campus climate. Many aspects of the overarching theme of campus climate, such as increasing diverse student enrollments, recruiting additional faculty of color, and reviewing diversity content in the curriculum, are addressed elsewhere in this document. II. Appraisal The campus has many sources of insight into the current state of the campus climate. We have ongoing, systematic research programs that gather general information about student attitudes and perceptions (ACE/CIRP annual freshman survey; National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE]; survey of graduating seniors); specialized research into specific aspects of campus climate (Student 20 Definition used by Rankin & Associates, a consulting group focused on campus climate whose clients include, among others, the University systems of California and Wisconsin. 21 Susan R. Rankin and Robert Dean Reason, “Differing Perceptions: How Students of Color and White Students Perceive Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups, Journal of College Student Development 46, no. 1 (2005), 52. 22 Innovation and Impact, 1. 23 Ibid., 4.


Affairs climate surveys, earlier survey work for the Community, Diversity and Social Justice initiative); and a wealth of input from individual members of the campus community. The latter includes perspectives of faculty and staff engaged in diversity-‐related programs as well as feedback gathered by existing groups and the forums sponsored by the Diversity Steering Committee. Looking broadly across these sources, the Steering Committee notes several important themes and patterns: experiences of entering students, student attitudes about the UMass experience, and negative experiences on campus. 1. Experiences of Entering Students Students come to UMass Amherst with widely varying experiences and attitudes. As shown in Table 2, the 2014 ACE/CIRP freshman survey indicates that the great majority of white students entering UMass Amherst have little personal experience with diverse communities; conversely, large numbers of minority students come to UMass having not previously been “in the minority.”

Table 2. Percentage of incoming freshman students representing each race/ethnicity who come from mostly or completely white schools and neighborhoods. These striking differences are also reflected in analysis of data from the Massachusetts Department of Education. While URM students make up roughly 13% of the total undergraduate population at UMass Amherst, well over half of entering UMass freshmen attended high schools with proportional URM populations that are even smaller. For many white students, UMass is the most diverse community they have ever been a part of. Cultural awareness and competency may be lacking in students with extremely low exposure to diverse environments and this can lead to inadvertent bias or unintentionally inappropriate behavior. Yet for many other students, especially URM students, UMass is startlingly less diverse than the communities from which they come, potentially leading some students to feel additionally marginalized. Asian Black Latino White

Ability to work cooperatively with diverse people is a personal “major strength.”

50%

67%

68%

51% Knowledge of people from different races/cultures is a personal “major strength.”

14%

23%

25%

8% Agree “somewhat” or “strongly” that “racial discrimination is no longer a major problem in America.”

20%

10%

17%

28% Helping to promote racial understanding is personally “very important” or “essential.”

41%

70%

54%

27% Table 3. Percentages of incoming freshman students who agree with the presented statements.

Came from… Asian Black Latino White Mostly or completely white high school

48% 39% 60% 79%

Mostly or completely white neighborhood

48% 38% 58% 87%


The ACE/CIRP survey also reveals some statistically significant differences in attitudes and perceptions among freshmen entering UMass Amherst in Fall 2014 (Table 3), differences that reinforce how different students may assess climate. A key finding, therefore, is that the campus climate — at least with respect to racial and ethnic diversity — may seem radically different for different students, and those differences in perception may not be appreciated or even comprehended across groups and individuals. This presents a major educational and developmental challenge for the campus. 2. Student Attitudes about UMass Experience At the most general level, across racial and ethnic groups, UMass Amherst undergraduate students have broadly similar attitudes about their overall experience. In the 2014 NSSE survey of seniors, there were no significant differences across groups in response to the question, “If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?” Responses were also similar for the question “How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution.” Similarly, in the 2014 Senior Survey students across all racial/ethnic groups expressed similar satisfaction with their majors in terms of academic advising, accessibility of faculty, and faculty concern for students’ progress. In terms of their experiences with students from different backgrounds, seniors responding to the NSSE survey were very similar in terms of reporting having had discussions with people of different economic backgrounds and with different religious and political beliefs while at UMass. However, there are differences regarding the perception of diversity on campus and the interactions of diverse students that must be addressed.

• White students were significantly less likely to have had discussions with people of a different race or ethnicity at UMass than Asian, Latino or multi-‐racial students.

• White students perceive UMass Amherst to be more committed to and appreciative of diversity than students of color.

• 32% of students of color somewhat or strongly agree that there is “a lot of racial tension at UMass,” compared to only 9% of white students.

While the overall experiences are promising, these discrepancies raise deep concerns over the experience of diverse undergraduate students on campus. Furthermore, the data we have focuses on undergraduates; we have relatively little information about the experiences of graduate students. Addressing the intensely residential nature of our campus, Residential Life has pursued and supported a number of initiatives to improve the experience of students from diverse backgrounds. A number of defined residential communities—each established by UMass Amherst students—exist to “encourage personal growth and academic achievement” among students from diverse backgrounds in the residence halls.24 These include Harambee, Kanonhsesne, Asian/Asian American Student Community, Nuance, Spectrum, and Veterans Community, each of which promotes explicitly defined goals and parameters regarding student diversity. As is apparent based on the preceding data on the pre-‐enrollment experience of UMass Amherst students, the composition of the residence halls varies greatly from most students’ hometowns. Live-‐in Residential Life staff, including the residence assistants, significantly influence the climate of the

24 http://www.housing.umass.edu/living/drc.html.


residence halls. While their work has been commendable in handling numerous residential situations involving diversity, there is an opportunity and need to formalize diversity training for these staff members. (Components of Residential Education that offer diversity content, such as RAPs and FYEs, are addressed in the priority area focusing on curriculum and other educational programs later in this report.) 3. Negative Experiences on Campus At the personal level, negative experiences related to diversity vary widely in terms of frequency, nature, and severity. The 2013 Student Life survey indicated that roughly one-‐quarter (26%) of UMass students “have ever felt uncomfortable at UMass Amherst for diversity-‐related reasons.” The number reporting discomfort related to race/ethnicity was 9%. Of the nine percent, 10% reported discomfort as an “almost daily” occurrence, while 69% reported occurrences “a few times per semester” or “only once or twice since I’ve been here.” Occurrences causing discomfort (related to any cause) were most likely to take the form of “jokes, teasing, or pranks” or “verbal harassment, catcalls, or intimidation.” Five percent of those reporting discomfort related to any cause described an incident involving physical violence. In response to an uncomfortable diversity-‐related occurrence students were most likely to ignore it, tell a UMass friend, avoid the person, or leave the situation. Few reported the occurrence to the University or other authorities. Most of those who did not report an occurrence said they “didn’t think the incident was significant enough to report” or “didn’t think it would make a difference.” In terms of assessing and addressing campus climate, these findings present two challenges. First, a relatively small number of students report experiencing relatively severe or frequent occurrences, and the campus must take immediate and effective measures to prevent and respond to those obvious challenges to our common expectations. Policies are in place to address hate crimes and hateful behavior. The UMass Police force views hate crimes very seriously. Its web site provides details on how hate crimes will be investigated and describes the consequences of such crimes.25 For hateful behavior, UMass community members can file a grievance with OEOD (which can be investigated formally or informally), or file an incident report through Student Affairs or the Dean of Students web site.26 In many of the most public instances of discrimination, including the events of this past fall, the University has been perceived as operating almost entirely from a position of reactivity or crisis management. The Steering Committee itself serves as an apt example: while the Committee had been meeting since the summer—and the Town Hall meeting following the events in the residence hall had already been scheduled—many on campus understood the Committee to have been formed only after the events in Southwest had occurred. While obviously far from accomplishing the larger goals surrounding the creation and fostering of a campus climate of inclusion, improving the messaging around diversity initiatives on campus could revise the perception that the University is only active about diversity in times of crisis. Second, a larger group experiences lower-‐level but more frequent micro-‐aggressions,27 which are often individually thought not to be severe enough to report, but which nonetheless fail to meet our standards as a community. Many of these seem to be more casual or thoughtless than targeted or 25 http://www.umass.edu/umpd/hate-crimes 26 https://www.housing.umass.edu/app/statement/statement.cgi 27 Everyday verbal and nonverbal interactions, sometimes intentional but most often unintentional, that communicate derogatory or negative messages to people based on their marginalized group membership, see http://www.iamsafezone.com/resources/Ally_Handouts_Microaggressions_Table.pdf.


planned. In the context of the data on students’ prior experience (or lack thereof) in diverse communities, this presents a special challenge: to articulate expectations clearly; to help students better understand themselves in a new environment; and to consistently and persistently educate students on what constitutes a supportive campus climate and their personal role in creating and maintaining it. A secondary problem regarding these incidents is confusion about how and where to report them. The University has made a decided effort to maintain multiple spaces where students can report incidents and receive support. This is an important measure that prevents students from perceiving that there is not a safe space for them and is consistent with multi-‐platform reporting systems outlined in best practice guidelines from state and federal agencies. Some students prefer to communicate directly with the Dean of Students Office, while others may prefer to consult an organization such as CEPA, Stonewall, or the Graduate Employee Organization. Maintaining an array of options will continue to be an important aspect of the University’s plan. However, the Steering Committee has received several reports of confusion over where and to whom specific student populations can make reports. In response to this, the Steering Committee has recommended the creation of a central website housing data on incidents of bias, an inventory of campus resources, and a clear channel for reporting incidents. A number of initiatives have recently been undertaken to improve campus climate:

• University Relations is working with the OEOD and Student Affairs and Campus Life to upgrade and centralize the diversity and inclusion website to create the capacity to engage in ongoing communication about diversity and inclusion values, outline available resources, and highlight programs intended to create learning opportunities and inclusive spaces.

• UMatter@UMass is in the process of launching an Active Inclusion campaign focusing on key practices of intersectional ally training, intergroup dialogue, messaging, and programming.

• UMass Amherst has a team participating in the Leading for Change Higher Education Diversity Consortium.28

• An Intergroup Dialogue Institute is under development to train Student Affairs and Campus Life staff.

• A working group has been developed to improve collaboration between academic departments, the defined residential communities, and the four cultural centers.

• The Men of Color Initiative presented a set of recommendations to the University regarding the recruitment and retention of men of color on campus, the results of which are being reviewed. The group was formed in September 2013 as the Black Men’s Initiative and is comprised of representatives from the Center for Counseling and Psychological Health, CMASS, the Men and Masculinity Center, the Dean of Students, the Athletic Department, and the Afro-‐American Studies Department. Initially, the group sought to identify African American men in the undergraduate population and study trends in enrollment, matriculation, and retention. The group then expanded to include all Men of Color.

• An Advocacy, Inclusion and Support cluster has been developed in Student Affairs and Campus Life to provide programs and services that increase connections and build community for marginalized students.

• The staff of the Graduate School has received training from the Stonewall Center in order to improve the interactions between staff and members of the LGBTQIA community. The Graduate School is additionally planning to participate in diversity training offered by Workplace Learning and Development.

• Residential Education is developing a diversity, equity and inclusion training module for its staff.

28 www.bridgew.edu/the-‐university/diversity-‐consortium/diversity-‐benchmarks


It is further recommended that: • The Chancellor appoint the appropriate leadership to begin the process of a campus-‐wide

climate survey. This survey would include all students (undergraduate and graduate), faculty, staff, and administrators. While the existing sources of information provide much valuable insight into the campus climate, the Steering Committee acknowledges that each is limited to specific populations on campus and—even taken together—the data cannot reveal the general experience of all members of the campus community. Once completed, survey results should be consolidated and published on a centralized webpage. This webpage would become a valuable reference for information on the everyday experience of all members of the campus community. The aforementioned University values should be posted there, as well as an inventory of all the spaces on campus where students can receive support and resources for diversity related issues. Finally, the page should serve as a safe space for reporting incidents or actions that do not live up to the values of the institution.

• University Health Services and the Center for Counseling and Psychological Health review existing support for students of color at the Center for Counseling and Psychological Health and expand services related to treating students experiencing any discrimination, racism, or ethno-‐stress.

• Human Resources increase the focus on diversity training for staff in units that provide tangible services to students, such as admissions, financial aid, UMass Police, Registrar’s Office and Bursar’s Office.

• That Student Affairs and Campus Life increase the focus on and formalize diversity training for live-‐in Residence Life staff.

III. Enhance effectiveness of curriculum and educational programs with

regard to diversity and inclusion. I. Vision and Expectations Along with the research and outreach initiatives integral to UMass Amherst’s land-‐grant heritage, the education of students is the primary goal and responsibility of the University. Necessarily, it follows that diversity must be fully incorporated into the educational mission of the University in order to foster the intellectual community described in Innovation and Impact. The education of students at UMass Amherst extends well beyond the classroom. The residential educational experience encompasses the entirety of a student’s life—from the dorms to the dining halls to student organizations and campus events. Therefore, the University must consider all the ways that diversity education can be incorporated into every aspect of its operation. II. Appraisal The formal curriculum of the University plays an essential role in the diversity education of our students. Additionally, a number of informal opportunities for exposure to diversity-‐related educational programs exist on campus. While some of these programs, such as New Student Orientation, are mandatory of all undergraduate students, and others, such as programming delivered by Residential Life, play a substantial role in the day-‐to-‐day experience of students, there are many opportunities to formalize a number of these programs and better incorporate them into


student life. Both of these areas must be actively utilized to prepare our students for the diverse professional and cultural landscape that awaits them. The Steering Committee has broadly identified a number of means for students to gain diversity education on campus: diversity education; diversity education in a major; orientation, residential education, and other diversity education opportunities on campus; graduate education; and diversity education for instructors. 1. General Education The University of Massachusetts Amherst has a long history of incorporating diversity into the formal course study for undergraduates. The diversity requirement of the General Education program has been in place since 1985, with a revision in 2001 that requires students to complete courses in both global and United States diversity. To give some perspective to the foresight of including such a requirement at UMass Amherst, the faculty senate at UCLA only voted to add a diversity requirement to their curriculum in 2014. As part of the ongoing unit planning, the General Education Council convened a Diversity Subcommittee to review the goals of the diversity requirement and assess if changes were needed. The newly clarified diversity guidelines for General Education Diversity Designation are as follows:

Guideline #1: Diversity courses prepare students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to appreciate, understand, and interact effectively with people from different cultures and backgrounds. Guideline #2: Courses that satisfy the overall diversity requirement will explore the dynamics that shape human experience, produce inequality, and inform social group differences. Guideline #3: Students in diversity courses examine their own social and cultural backgrounds and perspectives, their relationships to peoples with different backgrounds and perspectives, and the legacies that shape such differences.29

An array of courses may be used to fulfill these requirements. In Fall 2014, there were over 50 courses with “U” (United States diversity) designation and, similarly, over 50 with “G” (Global diversity) designation. Those course sections varied widely in size, with the smallest capped at 20 students and the largest at 369. Mean class size was 55. The Steering Committee expressed concern at the disparate experiences students have in fulfilling these requirements. The variety and abundance of courses allows for what could be a random experience. Additionally, the Committee was deeply concerned with the fact that students have until their junior year to fulfill the diversity requirement and urged consideration of a diversity requirement that must be fulfilled earlier in the student’s tenure on campus. The General Education Council, along with Provost Newman, is aware of these concerns and has initiated the process of self-‐assessment as part of its unit planning. The Steering Committee applauds these efforts to create more intentionality in the diversity requirement and to ensure that the desired learning outcomes, as articulated in the above guidelines, are achieved. 29 Further information on General Education designation is available at www.umass.edu/gened.


2. Diversity Education in the Major At the Fall 2014 Town Hall meeting, as well as at the forum with the Graduate Student Senate and through other avenues, the Steering Committee has heard a number of concerns and recommendations regarding incorporating elements of diversity education into either the curriculum of all majors (i.e., non-‐General Education curriculum) or even into every course on campus. The Steering Committee encourages instructors to consider the inclusion of diversity content in their courses in appropriate ways. Departments are now in the process of reviewing their curricula and the overall experience of their students through the unit planning process, which creates an opportunity for more intentional incorporation of diversity content into the existing formal and informal curriculum, and the Committee recommends that the Provost organize discussions with departments to explore this issue. 3. Orientation, Residential Education, and Other Diversity Education

Opportunities on Campus Beyond the formal curriculum, the University has substantial opportunities for students, particularly undergraduates, to receive training and other learning opportunities to become informed about diversity, including the following:

New Student Orientation: Before enrolling, students are required to attend a New Student Orientation (NSO) session. NSO 2014 included a formal welcome for veterans and active members of the military, and #WeAreUMass, an event with a focus on how students can contribute to an inclusive and socially just campus community. In addition, there is an annual Cultural Connections event that is part of First Week programming. The event is a collaborative effort of Center for Multicultural Advancement Student Success, Center for Student Development, staff, students, and alumni that highlights and supports diversity. Common Read: Prior to arriving on campus, first-‐year students are asked to read a book that they can critically discuss and share among other first-‐year students. Generally, the books include substantial themes relating to diversity, inclusion, equity, and community. All three finalists for the 2015-‐2016 Common Read, for instance, have explicit and complex themes surrounding diversity. Residence Hall Programming: Many undergraduate students are exposed to substantial diversity education in a First Year Experience (FYE) program or a Residential Academic Program (RAP). There are a number of topic RAPs open to all students that focus on elements of diversity and multiculturalism, such as the Cultural Explorations program and the Social Justice and Activism program. All topic RAPs contain the Global Pathways Student (GPS) component designed to “enable [students] to develop the skills, tools and knowledge to take charge of their college education and be an active and engaged member of the global community upon graduation.”30 Residential Life live-‐in staff and the faculty-‐in-‐residence program provide additional opportunities for education and engagement with diversity in the residence halls. As with many of the other potential educational and training experiences outside the formal curriculum, however, residential experiences vary greatly between students. Students in Residential Academic Programs (RAPs) with an explicitly cultural focus, such as the Global Pathways Student (GPS) program, will have much more diversity education in their residential experience. The Steering Committee endorses exploring ways to ensure and maintain a base level of diversity education in all residential experiences.

30 http://www.ualc.umass.edu/pathways.


Registered Student Organizations (RSOs): There are over 300 registered student organizations and co-‐curricular organizations at UMass Amherst, many of which are based on issues of diversity and community engagement. These organizations and their activities provide a vital space for students to connect to their own and other cultures, and with the University as a whole. Campus Speakers and Programs: The University offers a large number of speakers and other programs that incorporate topics related to diversity. In Fall 2014, campus speakers included Vijay Prashad (“Letter to a Wound: The World We Live in Today”), Laverne Cox (“Beyond Orange is the New Black”), Lee Badgett (“From the County Clerk to the World Bank: Internationalizing the Economic Cost of Homophobia and Transphobia”), Marjorie Agosinto (“The Aesthetics of Social Justice Activism through Literature”), and Turkish Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk. Collaboration with International Students: Although the percentage of undergraduate international students on campus is relatively small (564 students in Fall 2014), they are an integral part of the diverse experience of the campus. Programming that makes connections between domestic and international undergraduate students should be encouraged. Study Abroad: Over 1,000 UMass Amherst students participate in study abroad programs each year. The University sponsors over 400 programs in more than 50 countries. Events that highlight student experiences abroad would be an excellent method for sharing lessons learned and informing other students of study abroad.

These initiatives present a great starting point, but are by no means sufficient to address the entirety of this topic. It is therefore recommended that:

• The General Education Council, in collaboration with the Provost, reevaluate the diversity component of the General Education requirement both in terms of the number of courses offered and the time-‐to-‐completion of those courses in an undergraduate’s academic career. Additionally, it is recommended that the General Education Council consider revising the re-‐approval process for courses fulfilling the diversity requirement. Currently, there is a five-‐year cycle for re-‐approval. Reviewing courses more frequently could ensure that designated learning outcomes are achieved and that the content of the courses remains relevant.

• The Provost organize a discussion among departments and colleges to explore ways to incorporated elements of diversity content into formal and informal existing curriculum.

4. Graduate Education There is no formal, University-‐wide diversity component in the curriculum of the Graduate School. While a number of initiatives have been discussed relating to graduate education, including a University-‐wide diversity requirement at the graduate level, it is also understood that graduate students are admitted to the University having already completed an undergraduate degree that, ideally, would contain a diversity component preparing them for further experiences in an educational atmosphere. The issue of preparing graduate students to teach in diverse classrooms is discussed below.


5. Diversity Education for Instructors The ability of instructors to incorporate diversity into the curriculum and to effectively teach in diverse classrooms was repeatedly commented upon in the October Town Hall meeting. Students noted both insensitivity among some instructors towards concepts relating to institutionalized racism and white privilege, and the lack of expertise of some instructors to address sensitive race and gender discussions as they arise in the classroom. The University offers a number of programs to educate and train faculty, instructors (including graduate assistants), and resident assistants. The Center for Teaching and Faculty Development (CTFD) sponsors orientations required of all new faculty members. Acknowledging that diversity training for new faculty has been lacking in past years, the CTFD is currently hiring to replace a position previously dedicated to curriculum development. The new position will have a split emphasis on curriculum development and issues of diversity in teaching. This position is intended to provide individual and group consultations to faculty members and departments on how to consider multicultural issues when teaching and planning curriculum as well as offer workshops that can reach a broader audience. This staff addition will allow the CTFD to include a diversity component at New Faculty Orientation and perform crucial outreach on diversity to all faculty and instructors. Currently, the CTFD is engaged in a four-‐part speaker series, each with available individual consultations, to address racial climate and inclusion in the classroom, culminating in a faculty panel in Spring 2015.31 The relationship between graduate students and professors is quite different than that for undergraduates. While graduate students navigate similar student-‐teacher power dynamics in their coursework, they also work professionally with faculty as TAs and RAs and as their advisees and mentees in the dissertation process. Faculty influence on a graduate student’s professional and personal life is therefore significant. Graduate students have noted particular vulnerability with regard to faculty insensitivity because the power dynamics involved in the apprenticeship model of some graduate programs creates an atmosphere in which students are not comfortable reporting faculty misbehavior. Clearly such dynamics negatively impact graduate student retention and create a departmental climate of exclusion. Many graduate students, in addition to the dynamics that can relate to diversity above, are responsible for teaching in diverse classrooms. To address issues of diversity for graduate teaching assistants and associates, the Graduate School, beginning in Fall 2015, will be providing a one-‐day orientation the Friday before classes commence. The Graduate School is organizing the event in collaboration with the Graduate Student Senate, Student Affairs and Campus Life, and the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development. While there will be multiple workshop and orientation options during most hours of the event, the diversity component will be presented with no competing events and is scheduled immediately following the provided lunch, which should maximize participation. Additional training for TAs and TOs is offered through CTFD and includes workshops on teaching in diverse classrooms. However, to allow for individual orientations at the department or college level without overburdening new instructors, the CTFD teaching assistant orientation is not mandatory and therefore the experience and training of teaching assistants across departments and colleges can vary widely.

31 The list of speakers is accessible at: www.umass.edu/ctfd.


In the residence halls, Resident Assistants are charged with organizing a social program that often contains elements of diversity education. The Residential Life Statement on Multiculturalism emphasizes that unit’s commitment to diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice:

Residence Education contends multiculturalism as recognizing, acknowledging, and valuing the many cultural perspectives as represented by our residential students, staff, and campus communities. It is our understanding that multiculturalism transcends celebrating differences and should go beyond the recognition of any specific identities. We envision multiculturalism as an individual, group, professional, and organizational commitment. Accordingly, we commit to reflect upon and to exemplify the ways and means that members of our Residence Education staff add to a quality of life and satisfaction through articulated policies and procedures, and demonstrated performance.32

However, as with so many other campus programs, there is no formal requirement for diversity education in the residence halls, assessment is inconsistent, and experiences vary widely. Making changes to this area of campus could potentially improve the programming and its effectiveness. Additionally, the ad hoc approach that is currently in practice may leave a large number of instructors without the tools necessary to teach in a multicultural classroom. This is particularly concerning among TAs, whose training varies greatly between units. It is therefore recommended that: • The Graduate School begin discussions with deans and department heads regarding a

campus-‐wide diversity training program to be required of all graduate student instructors, either through a new orientation program or via integration into existing programs for graduate student instructors at the department and college levels.

• Conversations begin between the Graduate School, the Provost, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, the Ombudsperson, and any other relevant parties exploring ways to minimize fear of repercussions from reporting incidents of discrimination and micro-‐aggressions among graduate students and graduate faculty members.

IV. Increase focus on recruiting, retention, and promotion of diverse

faculty and staff I. Vision and Expectations As the student body becomes more diverse, UMass Amherst must embrace the responsibility to recruit and retain an equally diverse faculty and staff. The University has initiated a number of programs to recruit and retain a more diverse faculty as well as create pathways that will make it easier for a diverse faculty to come to the University, particularly in the STEM fields, where progress in diversifying the faculty has, historically, been much too slow.

32 http://www.housing.umass.edu/pdf/Multicultural%20Statement.pdf.


Having a diverse faculty and staff undoubtedly improves the overall campus climate by bringing the University closer to the “critical mass” emphasized in Grutter v. Bollinger and so many other reports stressing the importance of diversity for all large institutions. Additionally, our students benefit when faculty and staff span an array of backgrounds because it broadens student perspectives, and links our educational mission with the realities of a diverse world. II. Appraisal Attracting and retaining a diverse faculty and staff at UMass Amherst is challenging due, in part, to the University’s rural location and the majority white demographics of the surrounding population. Faculty and staff of color often feel that they lack a support community both in their UMass workplace, as well as in the local community. The Steering Committee acknowledges that the lack of diversity among faculty and staff—and the resulting burden placed on the small number of faculty and staff members of color to mentor and advise students of color, as well as to “represent” on committees, recruitment dinners, etc.—is of great concern. National studies have confirmed that minority faculty are more often called upon to do more service work and greater mentoring of students than their white colleagues.33 Yet credit for this additional work is often unacknowledged and unrecognized, particularly during tenure and promotion reviews. The Steering Committee endorses specific new policies put in place by Provost Newman to mitigate these problems, such as explicitly making all members of committees responsible for diversity and recognizing the importance of preserving research and teaching time for faculty of color. Concerns have also been raised about a chilly professional and campus climate produced by a racially homogenous faculty. The Steering Committee has heard reports of racial insensitivity and micro-‐aggressions by some members of the faculty towards students and colleagues. National studies of faculty have found that Latinos and African Americans have the lowest satisfaction levels in the academy, reporting institutional marginalization and harsher judgment by students in the classroom and by colleagues during academic review processes.34 Similar concerns have been voiced around gender and family work-‐life balance in campuses overrepresented by male faculty. Issues of staff recruitment are of equal importance, particularly among clinical staff of University Health Services, the Center for Counseling and Psychological Health, and the University of Massachusetts Police Department, where a shortage of staff members of color has been acknowledged as a major concern among students. The lack of diversity and sensitivity about difference within the ranks of professional and classified staff also affects the quality of education at the University, the inclusiveness of campus culture, and the productivity of work environments for employees at all levels. 1. Recruitment According to 2014 data from IPEDS, UMass Amherst has a tenured faculty that is 74% white (with 4% not reporting). Compared to peer institutions (Table 4), UMass Amherst is squarely in the middle of the pack. Peer campuses with the highest percentage of non-‐white faculty (Stony Brook, Rutgers, Maryland) are located much closer to urban centers than Amherst. Compared to peer campuses located in similarly rural areas, UMass Amherst has a slightly higher percentage of non-‐white faculty. It should be noted, however, that a full 56% of the non-‐white faculty at UMass 33 Anthony Lising Antonio, “Faculty of Color Reconsidered: Reassessing Contributions to Scholarship,” Higher Education 73, no. 5 (2002), 582-602. 34 Franklin Truitt, “Working with Underrepresented Faculty,” in A Guide to Faculty Development: Practical Advice, Examples, and Resources, eds. Kay Gillespie and Douglas Robertson, (Hoboken: 2010), 225-243.


Amherst are Asian and therefore not considered an underrepresented minority when using the aforementioned national standard. The college-‐level data that follows includes Asian faculty members in the minority faculty percentages. Although the available data do not allow for an intersectional perspective on race and gender, national data shows that most Asian faculty are men; Asian women continue to be underrepresented in the academy.35 But because the available data does not show ethnicity by gender, we must treat each category in the foregoing sections as though they are separate categories.

Table 4. Percentage of faculty members who identify as white at UMass Amherst and peer institutions.

Figure 3 shows racial/ethnic minority percentages for the faculty as a whole, while Figure 4 shows

racial/ethnic minority status for tenure-‐line faculty only. (All ethnicity data is voluntarily self-‐reported.) There is more Asian diversity among the tenure-‐stream faculty than among lecturers. The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences has the highest minority representation for all faculty, at 26%. This number increases to 30% when limited to tenure-‐line faculty. Nursing and the College of Natural Sciences have the lowest representation of all faculty, 6% and 12%, respectively, though those numbers increase to 30% and 18% when considering only tenure-‐line faculty. (The very small number of faculty in the School of Nursing should be weighed when considering these data.) Of course, the availability of viable minority candidates varies widely across academic disciplines, so a comparison between colleges can only go so far. In this regard, evaluating field availability data allows us to assess the performance of a given unit in recruiting minority candidates. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity estimates availability and utilization standards for faculty based on the available number of minority and women PhDs in the field of hire (estimated from the Survey of Earned Doctorates) and whether the make-‐up of a given department comes within 80% of the field’s corresponding numbers. As of 2013, 23% of all UMass Amherst departments fell below utilization standards for minority tenure-‐stream faculty representation. Table 5 breaks this down by college. Public Health and Health Sciences is the only college without minority utilization

35 Wu, Lilian and Wei Jing. 2013. “Real Numbers: Asian Women in STEM Careers: An Invisible Minority in a Double Bind.” Issues in Science and Technology. Fall 2011; Sotello, Caroline, and Viernes Turner. 2002. “Women of Color in Academe: Living with Multiple Marginality.” The Journal of Higher Education. 73(1): 74-93.

UMass Peer University % White Faculty, 2014 % White Stony Brook University 57% Rutgers University-‐New Brunswick 62% University of Maryland-‐College Park 68% University of Oregon 71% University of Connecticut 73% University of Massachusetts-‐Amherst 74% University of California-‐Santa Barbara 74% Iowa State University 76% University of Delaware 79% University of Colorado Boulder 80% Indiana University-‐Bloomington 81%


6%

16% 19% 19% 20%

21% 22%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

UMass Amherst Minority Faculty (adapted from OIR data, 2014)

Figure 3. Percentage of all faculty in each school/college Figure 4. Percentage of tenured or tenure-‐track faculty in who identify as minority. each school/college who identify as minority.

Table 5. Underutilization of minority tenure track faculty in each school/college at UMass Amherst. Underutilization figures are determined based on available hires in each field estimated from the Survey of Earned Doctorates.

deficits, as all four of its departments meet the aforementioned standards. HFA and SBS also have greater success in minority representation than other colleges. Estimates for utilization of minority non-‐tenure-‐track candidates meet full utilization standards in only two colleges, HFA and SBS. Figure 5 indicates how tenure-‐line UMass Amherst faculty self-‐identify into specific ethnic groups as of the 2013-‐2014 academic year. The largest ethnic minority group among campus faculty, as earlier noted, are Asian. Underrepresented minorities represent small percentages of the faculty, with 5% African American faculty and 4% Hispanic/Latino faculty. These figures are well below the nationwide population, which is 12.6% African American and 16.3% Latino. UMass Amherst representation is around half of Massachusetts state-‐level representation, which is 8.1% African American and 10.5% Latino. Figure 6 shows the same racial/ethnic breakdown for non-‐tenure track faculty.

Underutilization of Minority Tenure Track Faculty UMass, 2013-‐14

Depts. In College

Public Health 0 of 4

HFA 1 of 12

SBS 1 of 7

CNS 4 of 15

Isenberg 2 of 6

Education 1 of 3

Engineering 3 of 4

18% 22% 23% 23% 24%

26% 30% 30%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

UMass Amherst Minority Tenured/Tenure-‐Track Faculty

(adapted from 2014 Affirmative Action Report)


Am. Indian/Alaska Native 0%

Asian 12%

Black/African-‐American

5%

Hispanic/Latino 4% Two or More Races 1%

White, Non-‐

Hispanic 74%

Non-‐Reporting

4% UMass Tenure-‐Line Faculty by Self-‐Reported

Race/Ethnicity (Adapted from OIR 2014)

Am. Indian/Alaska Native 1%

Asian 4%

Black/African American

3%

Hispanic/Latino 3%

Two or More Races 1%

White, Non-‐Hispanic 83%

Non-‐Reporting

5% UMass Lecturer Faculty by Self-‐Reported

Race/Ethnicity (Adapted from OIR 2014)

Figure 5. Self-‐reported racial/ethnic status of tenure-‐line Figure 6. Self-‐reported racial/ethnic status of UMass faculty at UMass Amherst. Amherst lecturers.

UMass Peer University % Female Faculty, 2014 % Female Rutgers University-‐New Brunswick 44%

University of Oregon 42% University of Massachusetts-‐Amherst 42%

University of Delaware 40%

Stony Brook University 40% Indiana University-‐Bloomington 38%

University of Connecticut 38% University of Colorado Boulder 37%

University of Maryland-‐College Park 36% University of California-‐Santa Barbara 36%

Iowa State University 35% Table 6. Percentage of female faculty at UMass Amherst and peer institutions.

Minority faculty figures represent improvements that have taken place over the past five years. Overall minority representation increased campus-‐wide by three percentage points and improved in all colleges except Engineering and Education, which saw small decreases. Faculty diversity increased in every department in SBS, making it the only college to achieve such advancement. Yet if we disaggregate the data, as previously noted, URM faculty have not made as much headway in any college or school. Female faculty continue to be slightly underrepresented at UMass Amherst, with 42% of the total faculty population. Table 6 shows that, relative to designated peer institutions, UMass Amherst’s representation of female faculty is lower than only Rutgers.


Gender imbalance varies widely across colleges, as Figures 7 and 8 reveal. Tenure-‐stream faculty is slightly lower in terms of female faculty representation. The College of Natural Sciences, the largest on campus, has an overrepresentation of male faculty at 71% total faculty and 73% tenure-‐line faculty. The College of Engineering and the Isenberg School of Management both have very high male overrepresentation. Conversely, female faculty are overrepresented in the School of Public Health and Health Sciences, the College of Education, and the School of Nursing. (As earlier noted, Nursing has a very small number of faculty members.) Over the past five years, there has been an overall increase of female representation among tenure-‐track faculty of five percentage points. Over that time, female faculty representation increased in all colleges except Nursing, which has maintained a 100% female tenured teaching faculty.

Figure 7. Female representation among all teaching faculty. Figure 8. Female representation among tenure-‐track teaching faculty.

Table 7. Underutilization of minority tenure track faculty in each school/college at UMass Amherst. Underutilization figures are determined based on available hires in each field estimated from the Survey of Earned Doctorates.

These representations are in line with student majors and reflect national occupational segregation between genders. HFA and SBS have gender balances representative of the national population, though there is gender variation among departments within those schools. Table 7 shows availability and utilization standards for female faculty, based on the available number of women PhDs in the field. Overall, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity calculates that 42% of UMass Amherst departments fall below utilization standards for female

Underutilization of Female Tenure Track Faculty, UMass, 2013-‐14 Depts. In College

SBS 1 of 7 Public Health 1 of 5

HFA 3 of 12 Education 1 of 3 CNS 8 of 15

Engineering 3 of 4 Isenberg 5 of 6

EO&D, 2014. Adapted from AA Report 2013-‐14

11%

29% 35%

50% 51% 61% 65%

96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UMass Amherst 2013 % Female All Faculty (adapted from OIR 2013-‐14 Factbook)

15% 27% 27%

48% 49% 60% 63%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UMass Amherst % Female Tenured/Tenure-‐Track Teaching Faculty

(from 2014 Affirmative Action Report)


tenure-‐system faculty representation. There is no college that fully meets utilization criteria, though SBS and the School of Public Health and Health Sciences come closest. Non-‐tenure-‐track female faculty utilization standards, on the other hand, are met in all colleges. To improve performance in these areas, UMass Amherst has initiated a number of programs at the University-‐ and college-‐levels. The Campus High Impact Program (CHIP) was put into place in 2012-‐2013 to hire faculty who “1) possess a record or promise of academic excellence (teaching, research, service); 2) will enable a UMass Amherst department or program to improve undergraduate and/or graduate learning; 3) possess remarkable records or promise of advancing inclusion and diversity at a research intensive public university through their research, teaching, service, and/or community engagement.” Additionally, the program allows for an expedited search and hiring process. Beginning this year, the Provost’s Office is funding 50% of each line filled or created via the program, and its efforts are already beginning to produce success, including 12 offers for faculty positions made this spring to underrepresented minority candidates. 2. Retention There is little data available systematically examining minority and female faculty retention rates at UMass Amherst. Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity data shows that minority and women faculty members who are put forward for tenure and promotion are as likely to succeed as their white and male counterparts. However, this data does not account for junior faculty who may leave before the tenure review process. The Steering Committee believes that performing systematic exit interviews of faculty leaving the University would provide much useful information regarding the extent to which faculty may leave the University due to being courted by other universities, anticipation of a negative tenure review, or other reasons. Data obtained via exit interviews could provide insight into the campus climate for faculty of diverse backgrounds. We are pleased that this effort has just been assigned to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and is now underway. The extent to which faculty are promoted from Associate to Full Professor is another barometer of an equitable, diverse and, inclusive climate. National studies find that women associate professors are less likely to attain full professor rank than men and, on average, take between one and three-‐and-‐a-‐half years longer to do so when they are promoted. Data collected at UMass Amherst shows that men and women associate faculty work similar hours per week; however, women spend more time on service work than men do.36 This is especially pronounced among STEM faculty. Although the sample size is too small to make conclusive statements about minority faculty, it is often the case that these faculty members are disproportionately burdened with expectations such as mentoring students and colleagues of color and being asked to serve on committees to alleviate diversity representation concerns.37 During the October Town Hall meeting, a number of students voiced concerns regarding the burden placed on a disproportionately small number of minority faculty to mentor minority students, and the lack of recognition by colleagues for this additional work. Recent quantitative analysis of parents serving as UMass Amherst faculty found that STEM faculty, particularly in CNS and Engineering, were least likely of all faculty to utilize parental leave

36 Joya Misra, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and Stephanie Agiomavritis, “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work,” 2011, retrieved at: http://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceiling-of-service-work. 37 Antonio, “Faculty of Color Reconsidered.”


benefits.38 Focus group and interview data from the same study indicate that faculty in those areas perceive there is a chilly climate regarding gender and little support for issues of work-‐family balance. A number of non-‐STEM departments have rearranged regular faculty meetings so that they do not conflict with school and daycare schedules. The Steering Committee believes that expanding similar policies across the campus could create a more inclusive environment for faculty members with families, particularly for female faculty who are often tasked as primary caregivers in their families. Such changes would also benefit staff employees. Evidence shows that the course evaluation process may unfairly disadvantage women faculty and faculty of color due to unconscious bias among students.39 Recent student response to instruction (SRTI) evaluations by UMass OIR, however, reveal no evidence of systematic or significant differences by gender or race across any individual questions or overall SRTI scores. There has not yet been detailed analysis of the open-‐ended comment section of the STRI, which could provide departments and faculty members greater insight. The faculty union and administration agree that the campus should implement an expandable evaluation of teaching beyond the SRTI evaluations.40 The Office of Academic Planning and Assessment has detailed information regarding the development of the SRTI and issues clear guidance as to how student evaluations should be read and utilized by departments in faculty performance appraisal.41 Similar to students, faculty and staff retention is influenced by campus climate and inclusion. But even more so than students, the quality of faculty and staff life is influenced by the local community climate. Amherst, more so than Massachusetts overall, is comprised of a largely white school district and population. As a result, employees of color and their families often report a lack of community both at work and at home. Recent actions on faculty recruitment and retention include the following:

• Initiation of the Campus High Impact Program in 2012-‐2013 to hire well-‐qualified faculty, often from diverse backgrounds. The Provost’s Office funds 50% of each line filled or created by the program. In the spring of 2015, 12 offers have been made through the program to underrepresented candidates.

• New diversity, equity, inclusive statements have been added to faculty recruitment advertisements and a diversity question has been added to the standard interview process.

• The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity has expanded its existing training programs to include a Diversity Matters workshop series. Current offerings include training sessions on diversity; faculty search procedures; sexual harassment prevention; harassment and discrimination prevention; and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. (A Harassment Prevention Training workshop has been mandatory for all new faculty and staff since 2012.)

• Faculty peer-‐mentoring initiatives have been established in the College of Natural Sciences and the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

• Subsidized childcare is being offered by the Provost’s Office for new assistant faculty members to assist with work-‐life balance concerns.

• Following SBS’ example, HFA and CNS have also recently appointed faculty members to positions similar to the Director of Diversity Advancement in order to address faculty recruitment and retention.

38 Jennifer Lundquist, Joya Misra, and KerryAnn O’Meara, “Parental Leave Usage by Fathers and Mothers at an American University,” in Fathering: A Journal of Research, Theory, and Practice about Men as Fathers 10 no. 3 (2012): 337-363. 39 See https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html. 40 http://umassmsp.org/msp_settles_2014-2017_contract!! 41 http://ww.umass.edu/oapa/srti/pdf/srti_and_performance_appraisal.pdf


According to the Office of Institutional Research, the University has a classified staff population that is currently 19% minority and 52% female, while the professional staff is 14% minority and 54% female. 42 In both staff categories, underrepresented minority (URM) staff members continue to constitute a small portion of overall campus employees, although percentages have improved since 2005. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity supports a number of programs to increase access to staff positions to women and minorities, including an Apprenticeship Program initiated by the Physical Plant that provides opportunities for advancement in trades that have historical underrepresentation.43 A recent action aimed at addressing staff diversity more specifically is the formation of the “Diversity Marketing, Recruitment and Retention Initiative (DMRRI)” by the Five College consortium, in which UMass Amherst will be a core participant. This initiative will:

• Elucidate current trends and practices in staff hiring; • Make recommendations to improve the hiring and retention of diverse staff, particularly in

exempt positions; • Make recommendations to improve the reported levels of employee engagement and

participation in the community, and increase the experiences of membership and participation for underrepresented staff;

• Develop a plan for campus inclusion, including preliminary recommendations on marketing and community integration.

Additionally, the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences is beginning to host professional development training that includes discussions regarding diversity, equity and inclusion, especially as it relates to staff engagement with campus constituents and the treatment of colleagues. The 2012 Bullying Survey has also resulted in training sessions across campus to address the need for more supportive work environments, particularly for staff members, who constitute the majority of the workforce on campus.

42 http://www.umass.edu/oir/sites/default/files/publications/factbooks/facultystaff/FB_fs_06.pdf 43 Additional information on these programs, as well as workforce numbers broken down by protected category, is accessible at http://www.umass.edu/oed/AAPlan%2013-2014.pdf.


The Steering Committee acknowledges that much further research and action is required in this priority area. It is therefore recommended that:

• Human Resources explore ways to implement a University-‐wide policy on exit interviews to better determine perception among faculty and staff members leaving campus.

• The Provost continue efforts to evaluate the faculty mentoring and career development programs currently in effect in CNS and SBS to monitor efficacy and determine if similar programs would be beneficial at a campus-‐wide level.

• The Provost, the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development, and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity collaborate to explore the efficacy of campus-‐wide guidelines for diversity for faculty, instructors, and staff.

• The Provost and Deans explore ways to expand minority faculty pathways to increase racial and gender diversity. Outcomes from related practices in the STEM Diversity Institute and pathway programs at other Research I universities should be reviewed as part of the effort.

• The Provost and Deans examine the tenure and promotion processes for minority and women faculty, as gathered by the Office of Institutional Research, to prevent potential biases in the process.

• The Provost analyze spousal hiring data, again as documented by OIR, to determine what aspects of current practices have helped attract more diverse faculty pools.

• The Provost and the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development educate deans, chairs, and personnel committees about family friendly policies through the LEAD training program and by providing an appropriate toolkit.

• The Office of Institutional Research collect information on additional forms of faculty and staff diversity, such as LGBTQIA, disability, and firs-‐generation college graduate status, and allow for data to be analyzed for intersections between multiple diversities.

V. Increase outreach and engagement with external communities/schools with large proportions of underrepresented

minorities. I. Vision and Expectations The future viability of higher education will hinge on reckoning openly with the challenges and opportunities of accessibility, diversity, and inclusion. Cultural competency—the ability to interact fluently with people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives—is an integral component of higher education in the 21st century. Exposure to multiple cultures and contexts, and personal experience navigating issues of diversity, are increasingly important for all students, faculty, and staff as our daily interactions become more diverse and the world becomes increasingly interconnected. Commitment to inclusion and global perspectives promotes deeper thinking and enhances social development and self-‐awareness. Discoveries about commonalities and differences that are the result of working in diverse environments provide layers of intellectual and personal growth beyond the outcomes of typical classroom experiences. Additionally, engaging with local communities with large underrepresented populations creates valuable pathways to UMass Amherst and serves as a component in the University’s land grant obligation to the Commonwealth.


In the “Report of the JTFSO Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement,” from April of 2014, it is noted that although outreach and engagement activities permeate UMass Amherst, “because outreach and engagement are ‘everywhere,’ they run the risk of being ‘nowhere.’” It continues by stating: “Effective advocacy and coordination require sustained, defined institutional leadership.”44 The same report observes:

The core values of our institution include engagement, diversity, equity and inclusiveness, social progress, and social justice. Engagement is central to building a community reflects these values, both on campus and in the society we serve.45

In addition to these observations and external recognition, the Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Committee identified in its diversity planning work that community and outreach are priority areas for campus action, noting that University must do more to “provide services that promote diversity to the citizens of the Commonwealth.”46 Lastly, Innovation and Impact notes:

We produce value by learning and working collaboratively on campus and with community members and organizations. Effective engagement leads to partnerships that cultivate mutually beneficial relationships built upon trust, cooperation, and shared responsibility.47

Ultimately, UMass Amherst is deeply committed to addressing the needs of communities across the Commonwealth, but it is especially determined to work with underrepresented communities in more meaningful, relevant, mutually beneficial, and impactful ways than it has in the past. II. Appraisal The place of diversity within the University’s community engagement goals is clear, but as a campus UMass Amherst lacks a clear vision unifying community engagement and diversity with the ongoing work taking place within and in partnership with the University. While there are a number of overarching units on campus with engagement missions – such as CMASS, the Office of Research Engagement and Outreach, and the Civic Engagement and Service-‐Learning (CESL) program – much of the outreach work on campus is happening within individual departments and with little or no communication with other engagement programs. The Steering Committee endorses an immediate publicly available inventory of community engagement programs on campus with the goal of establishing a more unified engagement vision, increasing communication between programs, and complementing the community engaged learning database that currently exists. Additionally, creating a level of centrality, perhaps through the Faculty Senate’s Council on Public Engagement and Outreach and the Provost’s Committee on Service Learning, would allow for training strategies to be implemented at a campus-‐wide level. Specifically, the Committee recommends reviewing and expanding engagement opportunities with communities, K-‐12 schools and regional community colleges with the goal of cultivating relationships that will minimize cultural and other barriers that may prevent local populations from considering higher education at UMass Amherst a more accessible possibility.

44 “Draft Report of the JTFSO Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement,” 1. Retrieved at: http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/sites/default/files/strategic-planning/Outreach-and-Engagement-4-1-14.pdf. 45 Ibid., 2. 46University of Massachusetts Amherst Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity’s Diversity Plan, 10. Retrieved at: http://www.umass.edu/eod/DiversityPlan.pdf. 47 Innovation and Impact, 4.


The Civic Engagement and Service-‐Learning (CESL) is one unit deeply involved in engagement activities on campus. CESL offers a number of programs allowing students to connect with community partners and has specifically identified focus areas including Technology for Justice and Equity in Education. Additionally, CESL identifies a number of courses with engagement components that can be used to fulfill the requirements of a certificate in Civic Engagement and Public Service. Many of these courses engage students with communities and schools that may not otherwise have the kind of exposure to UMass Amherst that would encourage future engagement, including admission application and matriculation. The Steering Committee encourages the campus leadership to seriously examine how such service-‐learning and community-‐based research courses can further be rewarded so that it enhances a faculty member’s academic profile, especially during tenure and promotion reviews. Another unit on campus that is deeply involved in engagement issues is Student Bridges, a Registered Student Organization (RSO) advocacy group founded and largely funded by UMass Amherst students to increase enrollment of low income and minority students. Current Student Bridges projects include programs at Peck-‐Lawrence Full Service Community School in Holyoke, including an after-‐school program run in partnership with Holyoke Community College. The UMass Amherst Upward Bound program at Commerce High School in Springfield is also an important initiative that reinforces the university’s commitment to working closely with local communities. This program, along with others rooted in Community Service Learning, all build a culture emphasizing UMass Amherst’s presence in western Massachusetts communities while simultaneously bringing K-‐12 students to campus. Upward Bound is an example of the University’s engagement mission embodied by students working to increase educational awareness and construct a positive model for engaging with questions of poverty, marginalization, and isolation among young people. The newly formed Access Pathways Partnership (APP) will also work to bring underrepresented students to campus. A collaborative project between Student Affairs and Campus Life and the College of Education’s Urban Initiative, APP pursues educational programs and research activities designed to expand and enrich the opportunities for supporting underprepared, low-‐income, underrepresented, and first-‐generation college students seeking to gain entry into postsecondary institutions, succeed once enrolled, and move on to careers of significance. There is particular emphasis on admitting and enrolling these students at UMass Amherst. The program includes personnel from the UMass Amherst Upward Bound program, the Center for Multicultural Advancement and Student Success (CMASS), and the Center for Urban Education. The UMass Center at Springfield, which opened in the fall of 2014, also moves the University’s community engagement mission forward. The Center offers courses in downtown Springfield, increasing the University’s presence in the city and providing valuable educational programs to a population that may not otherwise have access to higher education. Like the Upward Bound program at Commerce, the Center exists as part of a larger partnership between UMass Amherst and the city of Springfield, formalized in the Greater Springfield-‐University of Massachusetts Amherst Partnership that was initiated in 2008. Numerous diverse communities in western Massachusetts have extensive experience with and knowledge of the engagement mission of the University, but it is also true that the campus is occasionally perceived as engaging with local communities only when it is beneficial to the University, remaining engaged only until grant funding runs out, the class ends, or the necessary research data is obtained. This perception, however, runs counter to the engagement mission of the


University; the Steering Committee supports the need for more proactive work in this priority area by CESL and the Office of Research and Engagement in order to more fully be successful and meaningful to the communities that UMass Amherst serves. Recent and Ongoing Actions:

• The UMass Center at Springfield opened and began offering courses and programming in the fall of 2014.

• The College of Education has hired a tenure-‐stream faculty member as Director of Urban Education with teaching and research emphases on increasing teachers or color, and engaging with and improving educational experiences in urban environments.

• The formation of the Access Pathways Partnership (APP) will support underrepresented students pursue postsecondary education.

• The Faculty Senate Council on Public Engagement and Outreach is involved in ongoing discussions on how to expand and improve the faculty’s role in engagement initiatives.

• The Provost’s Committee on Service-‐Learning promotes service-‐learning initiatives on campus. One aspect of their work is the awarding of the Academic Engagement and Community Transformation Award, which is presented to students who excel in three areas: leadership, academic excellence, and contributing to campus/community partnerships.

• The initiation of Honors to Honors scholarships will continue to strengthen the relationships between UMass Amherst and Massachusetts community colleges, already improved by the MassTransfer program.

It is further recommended that:

• The Faculty Senate Outreach and Engagement Council and the Provost’s Council on Community Service Learning collaborate in order to conduct a full inventory of campus engagement programs and ensure that it is regularly updated and takes particular account of opportunities for interaction with diverse communities that are currently underway.

• The Office of Research and Engagement and CESL explore the development of an online registration for UMass Amherst faculty and students involved in external engagement projects. A registration such as this could make it easier for members of the campus community involved in similar engagement efforts to contact one another in order to share ideas and discuss best practices.

• The Chancellor explore offering diversity training workshops for all UMass Amherst students, faculty, and researchers participating in projects in off-‐campus and diverse communities, as is the practice for the Five College Holyoke and Springfield Bound Programs.


Conclusion and Next Steps As with all other aspects of the campus’s strategic planning process, this initial document identifies key issues, sets broad directions, and launches specific immediate actions and further inquiries. It begins a systematic process of analysis and continuous improvement that will guide decision-‐making as the campus moves forward. We are optimistic that this Diversity Strategic Plan will have real impact and believe this is a strong first step towards truly becoming a diverse, equitable and inclusive university. The Steering Committee acknowledges that gaps still exist in this plan and it is additionally part of an iterative planning process. In light of this, we urge that the Chancellor develop a clear and transparent system of accountability so that the campus can be assured that the recommendations throughout this plan will be implemented and progress towards achieving benchmarks and goals will be measured annually. As mentioned throughout the report, a number of initiatives, some based directly upon recommendations by the Diversity Strategic Planning Steering Committee, are already underway. These include:

• Creation of the position of Assistant Provost for Diversity, which was filled in the spring of 2015 and will begin work in May 2015.

• Initiation of the Honors to Honors scholarship program for low-‐income and first-‐generation students graduating from Massachusetts community college honors programs who have been admitted to the Commonwealth Honors College. The “high prestige” element of this program will supplement the existing MassTransfer program, which allows students from Massachusetts community colleges to transfer to UMass Amherst upon completion of an associates degree.

• Expansion of the Community Scholarship program. This year, the University invested an additional $400,000 in the program, increasing the total number of scholarships from approximately 55 to 120. The scholarships are offered to freshmen from underrepresented or low-‐income backgrounds. Previously, the scholarships were $5,000; they are now tiered at $6,000, $8,000, and $10,000.

• Establishment of the “UMass Rising” scholarship fund to reach low-‐income and first-‐generation students.

• Inauguration of the $4,000 Provost’s Undergraduate Research Fellowship program. • Initiation of the tentatively titled Senior Completion Support program that identifies seniors

close to graduation struggling either academically or financially to complete the final requirements of their degrees.

• Expansion of admissions standards to better incorporate holistic criteria beyond high school grade point averages and standardized test scores.

• Development of a graduate student orientation to include a strong diversity component. The orientation is a collaboration between the Graduate School, the Graduate Student Senate, Student Affairs and Campus Life, and the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development.

• Creation of a new position in the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development with a primary responsibility of addressing diversity in teaching.

• Launch of an Active Inclusion campaign through UMatter@UMass. • Participation of UMass Amherst in the Leading for Change Higher Education Diversity

Consortium. • Development of an Intergroup Dialogue Institute to train Student Affairs and Campus Life

staff. • Establishment of an Advocacy, Inclusion and Support cluster in Residential Life. • Training in diversity, equity, and inclusion for Residential Education instructors. • Training for staff of the Graduate School through a collaboration with the Stonewall Center. • Exploration of clarification and/or revision of the General Education diversity requirement

by the General Education Council and the Provost. • Development of systematic exit reviews of faculty by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.


• Formation of faculty development and mentoring programs for diverse staff in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and the College of Natural Sciences.

These developments give the Steering Committee great hope that this Diversity Strategic Plan will make a serious contribution to the campus’s direction as a leader in higher education, as well as the University’s goals to continue planning, assessing, and improving the UMass Amherst experience as students and employees. Lastly, the Committee hopes this plan will foster a campus culture of care that recognizes the goal towards diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in all its policies and practices in a meaningful and equitable manner. It is also necessary to conduct a critical analysis of how our university develops, promotes, and applies these policies, practices, and initiatives. This means furthering our awareness of how bias and inequity are potentially interlaced in those same practices, in order to help create a culture of care in our academic environment for all members of our community. Building on earlier drafts of this Diversity Strategic Plan and taking into account feedback from the campus community, we are now in a position to begin immediate implementation of the recommendations. We believe implementation should occur in three broad ways:

1. The many specific action steps recommended herein should become the responsibility of specified individuals, units, and groups. Primary assessment of outcomes should be undertaken by a specific group; we recommend the Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Council, which reports to the Chancellor, would be the most appropriate body.

2. Progress must be assessed in the context of overall campus and unit plans on a regular basis by the campus leadership (especially the Chancellor and specific faculty and student groups), and any necessary follow-‐up or review should be incorporated into future rounds of planning. In this way, the community can keep a sharp focus on how diversity issues permeate overall planning.

3. Additional thought and analysis is called for in a number of areas. For example, as noted in

the body of the report, this foundational document places heavy emphasis on diversity as it relates to race, ethnicity, and gender among students, faculty, and staff who are U.S. citizens. The conversation must expand to more comprehensively reflect other dimensions of diversity such as sexual orientation and identity, internationalism, veteran status, family socioeconomic status, and others. Some perspectives that are introduced here—such as family income and parents’ educational attainment—deserve more extended consideration. The campus leadership must also assume responsibility for ensuring that future campus planning maintains the focus on diversity issues represented in this initial step. Ongoing responsibility for those conversations and suggestions for data collection should pass to the groups established for that purpose (e.g., the Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Council, the Faculty Senate Council on the Status of Diversity).

The strategic planning process began more than two years ago with the understanding that issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion permeate all aspects of campus life, and that they must be reflected in the functional plans produced at the campus and unit levels. That has been demonstrated in different ways and at different times throughout the process, and with this report the Steering Committee believes that the principle is now firmly embedded in the process going forward.

Documents

University*of*Massachusetts*Amherst* Diversity… · · 2016-06-15I. Establish$UMass$Amherst$as$a$destinationof$choice$for$students$of$color$and$other$ underrepresented$groups.$

UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst Diversity… · · 2016-06-15I. Establish$UMass$Amherst$as$a$destinationof$choice$for$students$of$color$and$other$ underrepresented$groups.$