1. Results from 2016-17 DEI Climate Survey for Faculty
Meeting of the Faculty Senate Assembly
November 20, 2017

2. Study Methodology

3. U-M Campuswide Climate Survey
Sampling Survey
Students Completed 1/17
Staff Completed 1/17
Faculty Completed 1/17
Census Survey
Students
In field 10/17
Staff
Completed 4/17
Faculty
There are actually 6 surveys.
The sampling surveys were all completed in Jan. and the Staff census was completed in April. We will collect data for student and faculty census in mid October until Thanksgiving.

4. U-M Campuswide Climate Survey
Sampling Survey
Students Completed 1/17
Staff Completed 1/17
Faculty Completed 1/17
Census Survey
Students
In field 10/17
Staff
Completed 4/17
Faculty

5. Sampling and Census Survey
The sampling approach provides the most representative picture of the U-M students, faculty, and staff reported feelings, beliefs, and experience related to the U-M climate. The focus is at the level of the university at large.
Provides important baseline data on where we are with respect to campus climate.
The census approach allows all students, faculty, and staff the opportunity share their feelings, beliefs, and experiences. The focus is at the level of their home unit.
The data will be shared at a unit level to help units address their specific areas of need.
Sampling
- Best representation of the University
- University level data.
- Will be used to provide baseline data and help in thinking of new initiatives.
Census
-Provides everyone an opportunity to participate
- Unit level data.
- Data will be provided to units to help them with their planning.
* In all cases, confidentiality will be assured.

6. Sampling Study Methodology
The research team utilized a faculty and a staff advisory committee as well as expertise from the Institute for Social Research to design the sample and census studies.
An outside vendor (Sound Rocket) was hired to conduct the study in order to insure confidentiality in survey responses.
A two phase, web based survey with multi- contact was employed in which participants received a $15 token of appreciation for a 12- minute survey.
The methodology yielded a highly representative sample and very strong response rates.

7. Sampling Survey Response Rates
Completed Surveys
Faculty
71%
1,040
Typical response rates for students are in the 20% range for climate surveys.
Today's presentation focuses only on students and staff. We will have the results for the faculty in a week.

8. Instructional, research, and clinical tracks by tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty
(TT)
(Non TT)
Total Faculty
Instructional Track
89%
28%
54%
Research Track
11%
23%
18%
Clinical Track
N/A
49%

9. The University of Michigan’s faculty vary on a number of dimensions

10. Faculty by Racial/Ethnic Identification
Faculty (TT)
Faculty (Non TT)
African American/ Black 3% 2%
Asian American/ Asian 4%
Hispanic/LatinX
Middle Eastern/ North African
< 1%
Native American/ Alaskan Native
White
55%
58%
Other 1%
More than 1 URM
International
32 %
32%

11. Faculty by Other Demographic Variables
(TT)
(Non TT)
Female
35%
48%
Heterosexual
93%
94%
W/ Disability 5% 2%
First Generation
N/A
Veteran 1% 3%
There is a lower percentage of women faculty in tenure tack positions as compared to non-tenure track positions.

12. Faculty by Religious Background
Faculty (TT)
Faculty (Non TT)
Agnostic, Atheist, None
25%
20%
Catholic
10%
14%
Protestant Christian
29%
26%
Jewish
12% 9%
Muslim 1% 3%
Hindu 5%
Buddhist 2%
Other 4%
This represents our best data regarding the religious backgrounds of students and staff.
- our students report being far less religious than our staff.
- Interestingly, we have more Hindu students on campus than Muslim students.

13. Overall, faculty report positive experiences at the University of Michigan
Conclusion 2: Overall our students and staff report positive experiences at U-M.

14. Percentage of individuals who report being satisfied or very satisfied with overall campus climate/environment that they experienced at U-M within the past 12 months.

15. Composite Measure of Institutional Commitment to DEI
U-M has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. (reverse)
U-M provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse student body.

16. Faculty’s assessment of U-M’s level of commitment to DEI

17. Composite Measure of Feeling Valued and Belonging
I feel valued as an individual at U-M.
I feel I belong at U-M.
I have considered leaving U-M because I felt isolated or unwelcomed. (Reverse)
I am treated with respect at U-M.
I feel others don’t value my opinions at U-M. (Reverse)
I have found one or more communities or groups where I belong at U-M.

18. Faculty’s perceptions that they are valued and belonging

19. Composite Measure of Feelings of Thriving and Growth
U-M is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential.
I have opportunities at U-M for academic success that are similar to those of my peers.
I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at U-M. (Reverse)
My experience at U-M has had a positive influence on my academic growth.

20. Students’ perceptions that they are thriving and growing at U-M
72% of folks report being satisfied or very satisfied with the overall campus climate/environment at U-M in the past 12 months.

21. Percent of individuals who interacted in a meaningful way with people who…..are different from them.
Faculty (TT)
Faculty (Non TT)
Political Orientation
31%
53%
Race/Ethnicity
84%
82%
Social Class
56%
60%
National Origin
89%
Sexual Orientation
64%
With regard to interacting with others who are different them.
- more than 2/3 of undergrads report interacting more with people of other races, national origins, and social class.
- roughly 1/2 of undergrads report interacting with people of different sexual orientations and different political orientations.
- Fewer grads report such interactions.

22. Faculty vary in the way in which they experience the U-M as a result of their social identities

23. Heterosexual > LGBTQ+ Several race differences
Faculty’s satisfaction with overall campus climate/environment that they experienced at U-M within the past 12 months by social identity groups.
Faculty
Age
41 and under > Over 41
Tenure Track vs. Non-TT
No difference
Gender
Male > Female
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual > LGBTQ+
Disability Status
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Several race differences

24. Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.
Odds ratios by race of faculty who report being satisfied or very satisfied with overall campus climate that they experienced at U-M within the past 12 months.
Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.

25. Faculty’s assessments of U-M’s level of commitment to DEI by social identity group.
Age
No difference
Tenure Track vs. Non-TT
Non-TT > Tenure Track
Gender
Male > Females
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual > LGBTQ+
Disability Status
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Several race differences

26. Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.
Mean differences by race in faculty’s assessments of U-M’s level of commitment to DEI.
Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.

27. Faculty’s perceptions that they are valued and belong at U-M by social identity group.
Age
No difference
Tenure Track vs. Non-TT
Gender
Male > Females
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual > LGBTQ+
Disability Status
w/o disabilities > w/ disabilities
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Several race differences

28. Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.
Mean differences by race in faculty’s perceptions that they are valued and belong at U-M.
Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.

29. Faculty’s perceptions that they are thriving and growing at U-M by social identity group.
Age
41 and under > Over 41
Tenure Track vs. Non-TT
Tenure Track > Non-TT
Gender
Male > Female
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual > LGBTQ+
Disability Status
w/o disabilities > w/ disabilities
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Several race differences

30. Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.
Mean differences by race in faculty’s perceptions that they are thriving and growing at U-M.
Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.

31. Many faculty report experiencing different forms of discrimination
Conclusion 4: many students and staff report experiencing discrimination in some form over the past 12 month.

32. Percentage of individuals who report having felt discriminated against at U-M at least once within the past 12 months.

33. Percent of individuals who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their….
Type of Discrimination Experienced…
Faculty (TT)
Faculty (Non TT)
Gender
23%
18%
Race/Ethnicity
15%
11%
Social Class 6% 5%
National Origin
10% 9%
Sexual Orientation 3% 2%
Political Orientation
Disability Status

34. Faculty’s experiences with different forms of discrimination differ by social identity groups
Conclusion 5:
These experiences of discrimination vary as a function of social identities.

35. Faculty who report having felt discriminated against at U-M within the past 12 months by social identity groups.
Faculty
Age
Over 41 > 41 and under
Tenure Track vs. Non-TT
Tenure Track > Non-TT
Gender
Female > Male
Sexual Orientation
LGBTQ+ > Heterosexual
Disability Status
w/ disabilities > w/o disabilities
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Several race differences

36. Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.
Odds ratios by race of faculty who report having felt discriminated against at U-M within the past 12 months.
Only significant differences at p. < .05 are displayed.

38. Percent of individuals who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their sex.

39. Percent of faculty who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their national origin.

40. Percent of faculty who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their sexual orientation.

41. Percent of individuals who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their disability status.

42. Percent of individuals who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their….
Gender
Faculty (TT)
Faculty (Non TT)
Females
50%
33%
Males 7% 3%
National Origin
Faculty
(TT)
(Non TT)
Not Born in US
23%
Born in US 5% 3%

43. Percent of individuals who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their….
Sexual Orientation
Faculty
(TT)
(Non TT)
LGBTQ+
33%
23%
Heterosexual 1% 0%
Disability Status
Faculty
(TT)
(Non TT)
With Disabilities
22%
28%
Without Disabilities 2%

44. Percent of individuals who report experiencing at least one discriminatory event at U-M in the past 12 months based on their race/ethnicity
Faculty
(TT)
(Non TT)
Underrepresented *
52%
34%
Asian Americans/Asian *
33%
15%
International
20%
18%
Whites 6% 4%
There is a problem with this slide.
Underrepresented should be 44%, 31%, and NA, while Whites should be 8%, 7%, and 4% respectively.
* Indicates significant differences between tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty at p. < .05.

45. Key Take Away Points
The high-quality data, provide improved estimates of the composition of our students, faculty, and staff on several variables (e.g., sexual orientation, disability status, MENA).
The census data will be provided to the individual units so that they can use it as a baseline and as a means for action planning.
The data provide a rich base-line assessment of where we are as a community and will serve as an important resource in the DEI planning process.
There is a lot more analyses to be done. This report barely scratches the surface regarding all that can be learned

46. Thoughts?

49. Faculty rank by tenure-track status for instructional faculty only
(TT)
(Non TT)
Total Faculty
Lecturer/Instructor
N/A
88%
25%
Assistant Professor
24% 4%
18%
Associate Professor
27%
21%
Professor
48%
36%

50. Faculty rank by tenure-track status for research faculty only
(TT)
(Non TT)
Total Faculty
Research Investigator
N/A
30%
22%
Research
Scientist
36%
26%
Research Assistant Professor
24%
14%
17%
Research Associate Professor
10%
Professor
40%
18%