GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY 3 CAMPUSES TOWARDS AT GA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY By Damon A. Williams, Brandy Bryson, Caitlin Fass, Derrick Jenkins, Raul Leon, Sallye McKee, Deiadra Gardner, BS June 2019 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP SOCIAL INNOVATION TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 THE GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE PARTNERSHIP .................................................... 7 Responding to Diversity Flashpoints ................................................................................................................... 7 SPARKING DIALOGUE TO BEGIN CHANGE ................................................................................................................ 8 REPORT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 1: WHAT IS CAMPUS CLIMATE? A FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY ......................... 9 CAMPUS CLIMATE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 9 External Factors ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Internal Factors ................................................................................................................................................. 10 STUDY FOCUS ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 DATA SOURCES AND TRIANGULATION .................................................................................................................. 10 THE CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE SURVEY ................................................................................................................. 12 Research Instrument .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Survey Deployment and Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 12 Survey Respondents............................................................................................................................................ 12 Study Limitations................................................................................................................................................ 13 SECTION 2: THE GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE ........................... 14 THREE CAMPUSES, ONE INSTITUTION .................................................................................................................... 14 OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE.................................................................................... 14 The Pain of Consolidation ................................................................................................................................. 15 Institutional Diversity Flashpoints: Triggerish, Free Speech and Inclusion Leadership .................................. 15 A Need for Stronger Leadership on Issues of Diversity and Inclusion .............................................................. 15 THE INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE GENERATED POSITIVE ENERGY AND MOMENTUM .............................. 16 FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 16 RACIAL AND ETHNIC IDENTITY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 17 Low Scores Overall ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Dissatisfied Diverse Community Members and Traditions of Exclusion ........................................................... 18 A Perceived Lack of Commitment ...................................................................................................................... 18 GENDER IDENTITY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 19 Gender Nonconforming Differences .................................................................................................................. 19 Low Perceptions of Valued and Belonging for All Gender Identities ................................................................ 19 LGBTQIA IDENTITY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 20 A Need to Expand the Definition of Diversity .................................................................................................... 21 ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 21 SECTION 3: THE STATESBORO CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE..................................................................... 23 DIVERSITY BACKLASH: A TOP THEME AT STATESBORO ....................................................................................... 24 The “Us Versus Them” Mentality of Backlash .................................................................................................. 25 Micro-Aggressions and Backlash ...................................................................................................................... 25 THE STATESBORO CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE SURVEY RESULTS............................................................................ 26 FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 26 RACIAL AND ETHNIC IDENTITY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 27 GENDER IDENTITY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 27 LGBTQIA IDENTITY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 27 THE SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT OF STATESBORO ............................................................................................... 28 STATESBORO: ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................... 28 i SECTION 4: THE ARMSTRONG CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE ..................................................................... 29 Developing a New Culture Through the Pain of Consolidation ........................................................................ 30 FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 31 RACIAL AND ETHNIC IDENTITY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 32 GENDER IDENTITY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 32 LGBTQIA IDENTITY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 32 ARMSTRONG: ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................... 33 SECTION 5: THE LIBERTY CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE .............................................................................. 34 FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 34 RACIAL AND ETHNIC IDENTITY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 34 GENDER IDENTITY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 35 LGBTQIA IDENTITY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 35 LIBERTY: ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 35 SECTION 6: INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY CAPABILITIES AUDIT .......................................................... 36 GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY’S ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY AUDIT ......................................................... 36 Audit Research Questions .................................................................................................................................. 37 KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 37 ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 39 SECTION 7: SEVEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACCELERATE INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE ............. 40 Vision, Personnel, Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 40 First Priorities.................................................................................................................................................... 41 Implementation................................................................................................................................................... 41 RECOMMENDATION 1: RAPIDLY PROTOTYPE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK, ACCOUNTABILITY AND LAUNCH PLAN TO GUIDE YOUR WORK .................................................... 42 Drive Inclusive Excellence ................................................................................................................................. 42 Focus on Accountability..................................................................................................................................... 42 Faculty Turnover Quotient................................................................................................................................. 42 Accountability in Hiring and Performance Review ........................................................................................... 43 Rapid Prototyping to Drive Action and Engagement......................................................................................... 43 Developing a Big-Bet Launch Plan for the Framework .................................................................................... 43 RECOMMENDATION 2: CHOOSE BIG-BET ACTION STEPS TO DRIVE CHANGE ....................................................... 44 RECOMMENDATION 3: DEVELOP YOUR AVP CDO ROLE AND THE OFFICE OF INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE ............ 45 The Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence and Chief Diversity Officer ......................................... 46 Strategic Span: A Focus on Strategic Diversity Leadership .............................................................................. 46 Associate Vice President Operative Priorities ................................................................................................... 47 The Office of Inclusive Excellence ..................................................................................................................... 47 A Tripartite Strategic Diversity Leadership Budget .......................................................................................... 48 Reorganization of Current Campus Units.......................................................................................................... 50 Why Create a More Vertically Integrated CDO Portfolio ................................................................................. 50 Important Characteristics for A New Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence ................................. 51 RECOMMENDATION 4: STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONAL BRANDING IN THE AREA OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................................. 52 RECOMMENDATION 5: ELEVATE THE STRATEGIC CAMPUS INTEGRATION JOURNEY ............................................ 52 RECOMMENDATION 6: DEVELOP THE LATERAL DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION INFRASTRUCTURE ........... 53 RECOMMENDATION 7: IMPLEMENT A CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY IN THE FALL OF 2020...................................... 55 SECTION 8: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................... 56 CITED WORKS ....................................................................................................................................................... 58 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ........................................................................................................................................ 59 THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP & SOCIAL INNOVATION: RESEARCH TEAM..................... 59 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP & SOCIAL INNOVATION (CSDLSI) ..................... 60 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Georgia Southern University Inclusive Excellence Partnership In the fall of 2018, senior leadership asked researchers from the Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership and Social Innovation to provide an objective third-party assessment of diversity and inclusion at GSU as well as recommendations to help the university. The goal behind this directive was to begin building momentum for inclusive excellence as the university envisions a new unified heartbeat for the combined university. Based on broad and deep data collection, this report provides insights and recommendations to empower Georgia Southern to step forward as a cohesive GSU community and enter the national dialogue on promising and best practices. As we began our partnership, we quickly learned that Georgia Southern’s three individual campus cultures are completing a challenging pathway toward organizational integration. Not yet one culture, GSU’s primary task is to continue visioning the core heartbeat of the newly combined institution and attuning each campus to a common pulse via policies, practices, systems and values that bring the three campuses together as one. Diversity, equity, and inclusion must be a major part of this journey, as we embrace inclusive excellence at the highest levels of leadership, priorities and practice, building an amazing future out of the diversity flashpoints that in some ways launched our work together. Research Methodology This study leverages the well-respected model from Hurtado and Associates (1999) to examine, with both breadth and depth, Georgia Southern’s campus climate and the lived experiences of diversity and inclusion. What follows is a top-level assessment of the psychological, socio-historical and behavioral dimensions of the campus climate, and strategic diversity leadership capabilities, using a multi-method approach. These analyses are built upon a foundation of triangulation across many sources of data, both quantitative and qualitative, using both in-person and online methodologies. In gathering data, we achieved about a 17% response rate to the campus climate pulse survey, with participants numbering 1,171 (23.2%) on the Armstrong campus, 124 (2.4%) on the Liberty campus and 3,768 (74.4%) on the Statesboro campus. Across our data collection processes, we achieved the following levels of participation in these activities: (1) A Campus Climate Pulse Survey leveraging select items from the 2016 University of Michigan campus climate survey. More specifically, we asked both open- and close-ended questions that gathered demographic information about respondents and generated over 5,000 responses and nearly 3,000 freeform comments that we coded and sorted. (2) Campus Listening Sessions and Interviews that asked open-ended questions designed to gain insight into climate and gather recommendations for change from those on the ground, involving nearly 250 participants. (3) Campus-wide Community Forums by select departments, social identity groups and leadership communities that gave us a depth of understanding of key diversity leadership strengths, weaknesses and issues active on campus. This activity involved more than 500 participants who shared their perspectives and insights on the current state of diversity as well as the pathway forward. (4) An Organizational Diversity Audit assessed the university’s formal diversity and inclusion infrastructure, systems and initiatives as they exist today at the campus, college and unit levels, giving us the starting point necessary for our action-step recommendations. Major Concepts. The campus climate pulse survey tapped into three related concepts: (1) “satisfaction with climate,” (2) feeling “valued and belonging” and (3) “institutional commitment” to diversity and inclusion. We then crossexamined these data across all our demographic variables, leveraging our qualitative data to better understand the plausible root cause of these responses. 1 Limitations. This study is not a full campus climate survey. It is just a pulse. As a result, we were guided by senior leaders at GSU to present a high-level understanding of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, positional role and primary campus affiliation perspectives. The formal survey does not focus on religion, age, academic major, politics, military status, or other variables that are all part of a complete campus conversation of diversity and inclusion. This study was also limited by the relatively small number of items included in the formal pulse survey. It is our recommendation that additional variables be considered in a fully designed and implemented campus climate study, as part of your continuing efforts to drive inclusive excellence on campus. Given this study’s focus, however, it does provide a strong benchmark for measuring progress on diversity efforts at a high level and an evidence-based start for a strategic conversation at Georgia Southern. We will explore insights from this report in the fall of 2019 during a two-day Strategic Diversity Leadership Training Institute for key campus communities (hosted by The Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership and Social Innovation) that will begin building GSU’s leadership capacity to drive inclusive excellence. Overall, the Inclusive Excellence Initiative generated positive energy and momentum for GSU. Participants felt “relief and excitement” that the university was opening a long-missing dialogue. The questions for Georgia Southern leadership are now how to build upon this start, creating programs and implementation energy that community members across all three campuses can see and get behind. Summary of Key Findings This study looked at the perceptions, behaviors and values that contribute to the lived experiences of students, faculty and staff at GA Southern University. Campus Divergence • Of concern in our findings at GSU were the generally low marks in all three dimensions of general satisfaction, feeling valued and belonging, and institutional commitment to diversity. Liberty generally reported the most positive responses across all demographics, followed by Statesboro and then Armstrong. • Notably, the three campuses differ significantly in their perceptions of the campus climate and institutional commitment, with only Liberty consistently reporting a positive opinion, 84% for campus climate and 80% for institutional commitment, compared to their peer campuses, where scores were 67% and 59% for Statesboro and 55% and 50% for Armstrong, respectively. • The valued and belonging scores were particularly low across all three campuses (36-55%) and represent a finding that should be pondered closely by campus leadership. Across all three dimensions of the campus climate assessed in this study, irrespective of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and campus role, Liberty reported 60% feeling valued and belonging, Statesboro 49% and Armstrong 36%. Overall, fewer than half of all participants (46%) felt like they belonged on campus. Data by Campus Roles • In terms of campus role, faculty and staff responded statistically similarly as a group, but notably lower than students in satisfaction with climate (faculty/staff: 48%, students: 67-9%) and institutional commitment (faculty/staff: 45-48%, students: 58-61%). Consistent with overall scores, both groups (faculty/staff and grad/undergrad students) responded poorly to feeling valued and belonging (37-40% and 47-54%, respectively). Data by Racial/Ethnic Identity • By racial and ethnic identity, we saw low overall scores, with no group scoring 70% on any indicator, save Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents (72%) in terms of general satisfaction with climate. 2 • Race differences abounded in the way groups experience the campus climate. Whites, Blacks/African Americans, Hispanic/Latino(a), and other groups all reported statistically significant differences across groups, ranging from a low of 45% to a high of 72% for satisfaction with climate, 45% to 66% for institutional commitment and 30% to 50% for valued and belonging. • In perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity, scores by racial and ethnic identity ranged from a percentage low in the 40s among Blacks and those not racially identified, to a high of only 66% among the relatively small number of Asian American/Asian respondents. • Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher (72%) than Black respondents (59%) and higher than respondents whose preferred response was not listed (45%). • White respondents felt significantly higher value and belonging (50%) compared to Black respondents (37%) and compared to respondents whose preferred identity was not listed (30%). White respondents also rated institutional commitment significantly higher (62%) than Multi-Racial/Ethnic respondents (55%), Black respondents (48%), and non-identified respondents (45%). • One qualitative theme that consistently emerged in listening sessions, open-ended comments, community forums and interviews was the hurtful impact of leadership’s response to the “triggerish” incident as well as “the use of the n-word in the classroom.” We believe these incidents created a suppression of campus climate generally, but especially on the Statesboro campus. Participants also identified as troublesome some hallowed campus racial traditions (watermelon ceremony) and challenges with the broader town community, again especially at Statesboro. • On a positive note, while far from conclusive, a number of international Asian students who participated in our listening sessions lauded the university’s support of their experience, an insight possibly relevant to Asians’ higher, but still low, perception of institutional commitment (66%) when compared to other groups that generally scored lower. Data by Gender Identity • Men reported significantly more positive experiences compared to other gender groups while gender nonconforming community members reported the most challenging experiences and significantly reduced perception across all measures, including institutional commitment (nonconforming 40% positive, women 56%, men 63%). Interestingly, gender did not make a statistically significant difference for the consistently low marks (35-48%) in valued and belonging. • Heterosexual respondents rated all three measures significantly higher (65%, 48%, 60%) than LGBTQIA respondents (56%, 36%, 47%). • While many listening-session participants were quick to note the importance of race and ethnicity, they also mentioned the need for the university to frame diversity and inclusion work in ways that embrace issues of sexuality, gender and intersectionality. LGBTQIA-identified session participants and others argued for a more prominent inclusion of not only these dimensions of diversity, but also age, disability and religion. • A prominent theme that we note in the report is the presence of micro- and other aggressions against community members of color as well as members of the LGBTQIA community. This was especially expressed as part of the climate dynamics of Statesboro campus, with many discussing the challenges of living in the region. 3 The Diversity Capabilities Audit • Critical to building a strong and robust diversity strategy is having a clear diversity infrastructure that includes plans, policies, committees, point leadership, spaces for shared dialogue, financing and a consistent review of what is happening at peer, competitor and aspirant institutions. Our audit took a snapshot of GSU’s diversity and inclusion infrastructure. • With few exceptions, the clear majority of units that responded to our survey did not have any appreciable diversity and inclusion strategy, infrastructure, accountability systems, discretionary resources, or focused programs and initiatives. The greatest positive response was 14% and the lowest 0% across our assessment of the 48 reporting units. Put simply, no strategic infrastructure exists. • Disengagement with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts was a common theme with a number of listeningsession participants (specifically, with chairs and directors, student affairs leaders and faculty). Some movement has happened in pockets or silos, but most of it has been reactionary. Participants indicated that little follow-through or strategic planning has occurred and noted a lack of (and a longing for) visible leadership, clear messaging or development and implementation in this area. At the same time, an absence of women and people of color in campus leadership and faculty positions was noted. A great deal of development is needed in this area. As GSU matures into a unified whole with a single heartbeat, a strong and consistent message of inclusion can go a long way toward establishing a culture of diversity and acceptance and toward uplifting the hearts of community participants to improve the GSU experience for all who pass through its campuses. Seven Recommendations to Accelerate Inclusive Excellence We offer seven key recommendations to jump-start the Inclusive Excellence process that was begun during the 2018/2019 academic year at Georgia Southern. It helps to understand that expanding an institution’s diversity commitment is about more than one hire, more than a new diversity officer. This effort must center on collaborative and collective work that recruits many others and touches every person across the university, from administrators to students, on every campus. The more people activated by this infrastructure and activity, the more this work will accelerate in positive and beneficial results for the university, both internally and externally, and into the future. (Exhibit I, next page.) Conclusion and Next Steps Culture change is difficult, and to master it successfully requires great clarity of focus. This report outlined a detailed roadmap to better position Georgia Southern as a leader around growing issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. We provided insights about your current campus climate as well as promising practices for building a clear framework of action, rapidly moving forward, establishing a campus-wide diversity, equity and inclusion infrastructure, and easing the lingering pain and challenges from your recent merger and consolidation. This report and its seven major recommendations can be further tapped to develop a myriad of effective action steps and to foster open communication with the campus community about your next steps. 4 Exhibit I. Inclusive Excellence: seven recommendations for Georgia Southern University Context: Recommendation #1 is the foundation for the success of Inclusive Excellence efforts at Georgia Southern. While the three categories below are discrete units, they all depend directly on the effective implementation of recommendation #1, and the impact of recommendation #1 will factor into each category in various ways. Recommendation Recommendation #1: Rapidly prototype a new strategic diversity leadership framework, accountability system and launch plan to guide your work. Description Move fast and create vision and architecture for change that activates as part of your new strategic plan and demonstrates action to the campus community. Potential Tactics • Develop a broad and inclusive definition of diversity. • Establish a vision for Inclusive Excellence as the overall leadership for your work. • Include a multidimensional framework for developing campus diversity goals and a plan. • Include a scorecard tool to track progress. • Use accountability tactics to ensure implementation and success. • Generate fast energy and movement to quiet the naysayers who say Georgia Southern is not committed. • Align with the campus strategic plan including Inclusive Excellence as a core pillar of that plan. Vision, Personnel, Infrastructure Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2: Choose big-bet action steps to drive change. As described above. Put in place several big-picture initiatives that can spark real change over time. Recommendation #3: Develop the role of AVP for Inclusive Excellence and build an Office of Inclusive Excellence. Establish a meaningful diversity and inclusion role that is more than a symbolic figurehead and is well positioned to support DE&I efforts on all three campuses. Continued on next page As described above. • Choose big-bet action steps that can lead to meaningful change. • Training and professional development. • Intergroup dialogue program. • Cultural competence into curriculum and co-curriculum. • Annual inclusive excellence forum. • Faculty and staff diversity program. • New Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence and diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) infrastructure. • Faculty mentoring and recognition initiative. • Title: “Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence.” o Holds AVP operative priorities. o Manages Office of Inclusive Excellence. o Establishes tripartite Strategic Diversity Leadership budget. • Consider important background characteristics for your new AVP. • Consider developing a divisional portfolio for the new diversity office. • Develop diversity crisis advisory team. 5 First Priorities Recommendation #1 Recommendation #4: Strengthen GSU’s institutional diversity brand in the area of diversity, equity and inclusion. As described above. Create communication strategies to tell the positive narrative of diversity, with transparency and authenticity. Recommendation #5: Elevate the strategic campus integration journey across Statesboro, Armstrong and Liberty campuses. Develop an approach to heal through the pain of consolidation, creating a new narrative that dovetails with this report and the new strategic plan. As described above. • Benchmark institutions with strong websites, including U of M, RIT, Case, American. • Shift to more story-based, less crisis-response communication approach. • Build a campaign around the new narrative of inclusive excellence. • Regularly highlight stories of diversity, equity and inclusion. • Develop a clear plan for managing DE&I crisis communication. • Support the new AVP/Diversity Officer in messaging. • Use the new AVP hire to galvanize energy and excitement. • Establish a podcast, newsletters and other platforms to specifically drive the culture of Inclusive Excellence. • Get senior leadership engaged in conversation about Inclusive Excellence, particularly at Armstrong. • Establish a working group to identify five greatest sticking points and work the challenge. • Leaders create forums for community members to discuss challenges and to problem-solve. Implementation Recommendation #6: Develop a campuswide lateral diversity infrastructure in every school, college and divisional area. Recommendation #7: Engage the campuses to develop a campus climate survey. Build a campus-wide infrastructure of DE&I roles, processes and expectations to activate a consistent and meaningful commitment to change. Gather follow-up data to benchmark for the winter 2019 survey, to assess change and progress. • Implement a campus diversity crisis advisory team. • Establish point leaders on campus diversity, equity and inclusion by school, college and division on each campus. • Establish committees by school, college and division. • Set alignment plans by school, college and division. • Create support in both the offices of Development and Alumni Affairs. • Develop a campus climate study • Set up legacy measures to establish time-based indicators to monitor progress. • Integrate this survey into the campus activation strategy. 6 INTRODUCTION In 2005, the American Association of Colleges and Universities published a white paper entitled Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions (Williams, Berger, McClendon, 2005). The central call of this paper was for institutions of higher education to view demographic representation as only the beginning to more fully integrate diversity, inclusion and equity work into the core of their policy and practices. Embedding such a commitment will assist in shifting campus culture to more effectively prepare students for an increasingly global and integrated world. Doing so will also facilitate the creation of campus climates that are fully welcoming to students, staff and faculty who experience oppression and marginalization. A key to creating an inclusive and high-performing institution is to strive to operate as a learning organization concerned with building real solutions to deeply and permanently “interrupt the usual” dynamics that may stand in the way of becoming a diverse and inclusive community. A critical building block toward creating such an organization and driving change towards that goal is having a clear understanding of how diverse community members experience the campus and the types of diversity and inclusion capabilities that exist across campus. This sort of clear understanding cannot occur without a willingness to engage in an unflinching assessment of the successes and challenges at all levels of the organization. Georgia Southern University has stepped forward to take on that responsibility. The Georgia Southern University Inclusive Excellence Partnership The Georgia Southern University Inclusive Excellence Initiative emerged in the fall of 2018 when senior leadership asked researchers from the Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership and Social Innovation to help jump-start the campus’s diversity, equity and inclusion work by providing an objective third-party assessment. This assessment would not only gather data, but provide recommendations and, along the way, engage the entire campus community in the process of envisioning its collective future. As we began our partnership, we quickly learned that Georgia Southern University is comprised of three wonderful, individual institutional cultures that are all progressing on a pathway toward organizational integration—attuning their separate hearts to beat as a single institution. That they are not one culture yet, but three, each trying to understand the types of policies, practices, systems and values that can bring them together cohesively as one. These three institutions are today in different places on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion, but they are on the same evolutionary path to join together with a common heartbeat that embraces these values at the highest levels of leadership, priorities and practice. Responding to Diversity Flashpoints As we began our work with the University, we did so knowing that the challenge would be difficult, not only because of the newness and uncertainty of the recent consolidation and senior leadership transitions, but also because our work began following a series of difficult diversity flashpoints that had left many on campus questioning the university’s commitment to and understanding of how to create a culture of inclusive excellence, even though GSU is more diverse now than it has ever been historically. Garcia and Hoelscher (2010) define a diversity flashpoint as a potentially explosive interpersonal situation between community members that arises out of identity differences and the conflict that can emerge as a result. In these scenarios, there is a broken connection, or disruption of the shared covenant that exists on campus around dynamics of teaching and learning in the classroom, expectations of civility and community in the residence halls, or even expectations of punishment and accountability, when individuals are perceived as crossing over a cultural line of acceptability in terms of race, gender, sexuality, religion, or some other aspect of diversity on campus. As a community, Georgia Southern University is experiencing the painful growing stages that reveal how establishing demographic diversity is not the end-all be-all of inclusion. In many ways, it is just the beginning. The greater challenge is to create educational and work environments that allow that diversity to thrive—to create a broad-based, secure feeling of community, inclusion and belonging. How the institution works to manage diversity flashpoints, which 7 are inevitable yet are not deterministic in defining a culture of exclusion or negativity, when these events happen in performance reviews, classrooms, social events and with ever-increasing frequency in social moments and as part of our digital lives experienced across so many screens: via social media, text message, video, phone and the Internet. The way in which these difficult moments are addressed can lead to outcomes that range from pain and suffering and erosion of the institution’s diversity brand, to more positive feelings of self-worth, enhanced learning and a widespread belief that the university is deeply committed to and working on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion as a top institutional priority, even though the current reality is far from perfect. Sparking Dialogue to Begin Change At Georgia Southern, these flashpoints had unfortunately gone viral, creating an immediate need for an expansive set of interlocking activities to spark dialogue, engagement, capacity-building and development—to begin changing the narrative and, more importantly, the lived experience on the ground. This call to action framed the work for our team as we engaged with thousands of community members across the life of the project. The specific goals of our partnership were to: • • • • • Seed understanding of the Inclusive Excellence Model in American higher education as well as best practices of diversity and inclusion; Establish a campus-wide conversation about issues of diversity, equity and inclusion dynamics across the Statesboro, Armstrong and Liberty campuses; Develop a grounded understanding of campus diversity, equity and inclusion dynamics at Georgia Southern University, using best-in-class qualitative research techniques; Offer clear recommendations to support your efforts to build an environment that is inclusive and excellent for all; and Support the capacity-building efforts of the University by engaging in an intensive set of programs with students, faculty, staff and administrators, to build from the recommendations that emerged during the campus engagement program. As this project evolved, we later added a campus-wide campus climate pulse survey data collection, to generate a quantitative baseline of perceptions of the institutional climate for diversity and inclusion across Georgia Southern’s three locations. Report Overview This report summarizes the approach, findings and recommendations of our work. We offer this report as a means for Georgia Southern towards increasing commitment; clarifying next steps; enhancing training, professional development and learning; diagnosing the climate for diversity; and establishing a baseline for measuring progress. It is organized into eight major sections that focus on: • • • • • • • • Section 1: What is Campus Climate? A Framework and Methodology Section 2: The Campus Climate Pulse Overview Section 3: The Statesboro Campus Climate Pulse Section 4: The Armstrong Climate Pulse Section 5: The Liberty Climate Pulse Section 6: Institutional Diversity Capabilities Audit Section 7: Strategic Diversity Leadership Recommendations Section 8: Concluding Thoughts & Next Steps 8 SECTION 1: WHAT IS CAMPUS CLIMATE? A FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY We have used the term “campus climate” for many years in higher education and, more broadly, “organizational climate” in the corporate and nonprofit worlds. Because the term is used so often and by so many, it often feels like members of our community know what we mean when we discuss an organization’s climate, but occasionally, someone will stop and ask, “Climate? What do you mean by that? Are you talking about the weather?” Although we most definitely do not mean the physical temperature, in some ways we do mean the psychological temperature on campus, the feeling as if the campus is “chilly” or hostile to the presence of individuals who are different along any host of identity dimensions. On a college or university campus, “climate” is used to discuss how individuals and groups experience membership in the campus community (Hurtado, 2005). It’s a general term that quickly summarizes the inclusivity dynamics of the organization and the degree to which various stakeholders feel included in or excluded from the environment. Because conversations around climate are inherently concerned with real and perceived realities of different groups, this concept always is nested in broader socio-historical context of difference defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability and a near limitless range of social identities. Campus climate is about moving beyond the numbers (Hurtado, 2005). The very presence of individuals from different backgrounds results in diversity. Climate, on the other hand, refers to the experience of those diverse individuals and groups on a campus—and the extent and quality of the interactions among those various groups and individuals. Diversity and inclusion efforts are simply not complete unless they also address climate. Stated another way, addressing campus climate is an important and necessary component in any comprehensive plan for diversity. To provide a foundation for a vital community of learning, one primary mission of the academy must be to create a climate that cultivates diversity and celebrates difference. Because of the inherent complexity of the topic of diversity, it is crucial to examine the multiple dimensions that comprise campus climate on college and university campuses. Campus Climate Conceptual Framework Hurtado and Associates (1998) offers a multi-dimensional framework to understand the concept of campus climate for diversity and inclusion. Their framework informed the data collection activities of this study (Exhibit 1.1). Exhibit 1.1. Multi-dimensional model for understanding the campus climate for diversity in higher education Source: Adapted from Hurtado and Associates (1998). 9 External Factors Hurtado and Associates argue that institutional climates are shaped by both Government/Policy Context and SocioHistorical Context Dynamics. For example, when state policy changes regarding race-conscious admissions law, or even when a statewide system of higher education creates policy around a particular diversity and inclusion topic such as protected speech, this policy impacts the campus climate. Campus climate is also influenced by the sociohistorical dynamics of the region you live in, for example in this context the US South and Georgia. The politics, values, symbols and history of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious exclusion and so much more pervade what happens on campus in ways that are nearly impossible for institutions to control and even influence in some ways. These twin forces directly influence the institution’s campus climate and, as you will discover in the paragraphs that follow, these environmental dynamics are exerting a significant influence on perceptions of the campus climate at Georgia Southern. Internal Factors Within institutional environments, five key dimensions of climate are important for consideration: • • • • • The Historical Context of Exclusion or Inclusion refers to the legacy of different groups on campus and the incidents that may have impacted the campus’s collective memory, whether it is a high-profile sexist chalking issue, a class-action lawsuit claiming relational violence and sexual harassment, or some other type of diversity flashpoint. The Demographic Dimension is defined as the numbers of minorities, women, LGTBQIA, members of the disability community, etc. It is their absolute number relative to the whole that plays a role in shaping the type of community that exists and the experiences those group members have on campus. The Psychological Dimension refers to perceptions of alienation, discrimination, belonging, being valued— in short how individuals feel about their campus experience. The Behavioral Dimension is operationalized as the patterns of interaction across and between groups, in student organizations, in class, etc. It is the self-reported ways that we behave on campus. Strategic Diversity Leadership Dimension of the campus climate refers to the organizational dimensions of the campus in terms of formal plans, policies, departments, committees, job roles, programs and initiatives designed to impact the campus climate. Study Focus This study leveraged the model from Hurtado and Associates (1999) to examine Georgia Southern’s campus climate of diversity and inclusion. While this study does not focus into the demographic diversity of the campus, it does provides a benchmark for measuring progress on diversity efforts at a high level, in terms of a deep assessment of Georgia Southern University’s campus climate (Psychological dimension), institutional commitment to diversity and the presence of institutional diversity capabilities (both Strategic Diversity Leadership dimension) using a multimethod approach to gathering the type of information that can be used to develop solid, evidence-inspired strategy (Exhibit 1.2). Four key research questions guided our efforts across all research efforts: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the lived experience of diverse groups at Georgia Southern University? What are the key challenges and opportunities of diversity, equity and inclusion at Georgia Southern? What are the organizational diversity capabilities of the university and how can they be strengthened? What are the most important recommendations to help Georgia Southern University move forward to support inclusive excellence? Data Sources and Triangulation These analyses are built upon a foundation of triangulation across many sources of data. Specifically, we used data from interviews, online surveys, listening sessions and community forums to power this assessment. Exhibit 1.2 10 outlines the numerous ways that we “listened to the campus community” to hear their perspectives, codify their challenges and present some of their best thinking about what should be done to drive inclusive excellence at Georgia Southern University. This report combines a multitude of data into a general story to help the campus community gain a bird’s-eye understanding of the lived experience of diverse groups, as well as key areas of both strength and improvement moving forward. Exhibit 1.2. Research: key data sources and their descriptions, research variables and participation levels Data Source Description Campus Climate Pulse Survey 1 A high-level assessment of the campus climate at Georgia Southern University, using a micro-survey instrument, with limited variables and methodologies to drive survey response and understanding while generating a credible baseline for understanding campus climate dynamics at Georgia Southern University. Campus Climate Pulse Survey: Open-Ended Campus Listening Sessions Open-ended questions designed to gain more insight into the campus climate as well as any recommendation for change. Campus-wide listening sessions by select departments, social identity groups and leadership communities. Half-day forum designed to create an interactive opportunity to learn more about the Inclusive Excellence Initiative, while contributing to learning, understanding and making recommendations for change. Organizational assessment of the formal diversity and inclusion infrastructure, systems and initiatives that exist campus-wide at the school, college and unit levels. Campus-Wide Community Forum Organizational Diversity Audit Research Variables Demographic Variables • Primary Campus Affiliation • Primary Campus Role • Race and Ethnicity • Gendered Identity • Sexuality Satisfaction with Climate (one question) • How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall campus climate/environment that you have experienced at GSU within the past 12 months? Feeling Valued and Belonging (six questions, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) • I feel valued as an individual at GSU. • I feel like I belong at GSU. • I have considered leaving GSU because I felt isolated or not welcomed. (reverse-coded) • I am treated with respect at GSU. • I feel others don’t value my opinions at GSU. (reverse-coded) • I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at GSU. Institutional Commitment (one question) • GSU has a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. • Strategic diversity leadership themes • Build spaces for community: programs and organizations • Diversity backlash • Pain of consolidation • Diversity and inclusion strengths at GSU • Diversity and inclusion challenges at GSU • Areas to improve diversity and inclusion at GSU Participation N=5,063 2 N=2,725 N=230 • • • Diversity and inclusion strengths at GSU Diversity and inclusion challenges at GSU Areas to improve diversity and inclusion at GSU N=550 • • • • • • • • • Diversity statement Diversity committees Diversity point leaders Accountability: Annual diversity report Accountability: Annual diversity performance review Diversity plans Recruitment and retention Campus climate improvement Diversity-focused curriculum and scholarship N=43 units Question-by-question analyses are available in the full data report, included as a supplemental document to this final report. This total reflects the number of usable responses in the analysis: individuals who completed all 18 quantitative survey items plus those who did not complete one question. Missing data was treated using an imputed data procedure, creating a total usable file of 5,063 Respondents. 1 2 11 The Campus Climate Pulse Survey Although a conclusive campus climate assessment was beyond the scope of this project, our research does apply several well-respected and -validated campus climate research frameworks, questions and methodologies to establish a baseline understanding of the lived experience of diverse groups at Georgia Southern University. Research Instrument Questions for this Campus Climate Pulse Survey were developed and validated by researchers at the University of Michigan and SoundRocket (University of Michigan DE&I Campus Climate Team, 2016). In close consultation with leadership from Georgia Southern University, the research team developed a tight subset of questions from the University of Michigan Survey to create a pulse survey that could be completed in five minutes or less. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) at Georgia Southern University provided the statistics for each campus related to enrollment numbers by campus role, sex identification and race/ethnicity group identification, in addition to email addresses that allowed us to send a general link for the survey to all campus community members defined by OIR. Senior leadership sent e-mail reminders to all campus in an effort to drive response rates across the nearly eight weeks of data collection. Because this was a campus pulse survey, specific follow-up e-mails to non-respondents and incentives were not available to drive response rate. Survey Deployment and Analyses The inclusion questions were originally asked to participants with response options falling on a Likert scale (1-5). For the Satisfaction with Climate question, the responses were about their level of satisfaction (i.e., very dissatisfied to very satisfied). All other questions used responses about their level of agreement (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree). For simplification and ease of understanding, the responses were then collapsed into categorical variables. For Satisfaction with Climate, the responses were collapsed into 0 (very dissatisfied, dissatisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) or 1 (satisfied or very satisfied). For the other questions, the responses were collapsed into 0 (strongly disagree, disagree or neither agree nor disagree) or 1 (agree or strongly agree). This method of collapsing matches what the University of Michigan reported in their similar 2016 Campus Climate Survey. We ran descriptive analyses on the 5,063 people who answered demographic questions and answered some of the inclusion questions. The missing data was not at random (MNAR) because of the patterns in which participants missed items. Therefore, multiple imputation was used on Q7 about satisfaction. What this means is that if a participant was missing Q7 (N = 480), all their other answers were used to compute a response to Q7 for them. Multiple imputation allowed for the retention of those participants. It did not change the average on Q7. SPSS software was used for all quantitative data analyses. Survey Respondents Approximately 17% of GSU community members responded to the Campus Climate Pulse Survey administered in Spring 2019, with most coming from the Statesboro campus. Participants numbered 1,171 (23.2%) on the Armstrong campus, 124 (2.4%) on the Liberty campus and 3,768 (74.4%) on the Statesboro campus. Exhibit 1.3. Campus role (faculty, staff, undergraduate student, graduate student) by study participation level and percentage of the university overall GSU Community Role Faculty Staff Undergraduate Students Graduate Students # of Respondents 445 634 3,429 555 % in Study 8.8% 12.5% 67.7% 11.0% % of University 32% 28% 15% 17% 12 Some specific findings: • Respondents reported “current sex” as male (37.2%), female (62.0%) or transgender/non-identified (0.9%). • They reported gender identity as 1,856 (36.8%) man, 3,095 (61.1%) woman, 112 (2.2%) gender nonconforming. • OIR data reports that females at GSU make up the majority of undergraduate students (54.6%), graduate students (69.2%), faculty (54.1%) and staff (58.1%) across all campuses. • The majority of respondents to the survey identified their sexual orientation as heterosexual (85.8%) compared to LGBTQIA 1(14.2%). Exhibit 1.4. Study participants by racial and ethnic identity Participant Identity Asian American/Asian Black Hispanic/Latino(a) Middle Eastern/North African Native American/Alaskan Native OR Native American/Other Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial/Ethnic Preferred Response Not Listed # of Respondents 157 1,288 178 20 16 % in Study 3.1% 25.4% 3.5% 0.4% 0.3% 2,952 364 88 58.3% 7.2% 1.7% Some specific findings according to OIR: • White people make up the majority of undergraduate students (60.0%), graduate students (62.9%), faculty (75.8%) and staff (65.1%). • Black or African American people make up the next highest portion of undergraduate students (25.2%), graduate students (25.0%), faculty (8.3%) and staff (29.8%). Study Limitations This study has several limitations. First, it only asked demographic questions focused race, ethnicity, gendered identity, sexuality, positional role and primary campus affiliation. This focus is both a strength and a limitation, since the scope of this project did not allow for us to use a full battery of demographic variables that are important to consider when engaging in a deep dive into the campus climate. Some of these other variables include, and are not limited to, disability, economic background, academic major, positional rank and role, international affiliation, religion and military status. It is our recommendation that these variables be considered in a fully designed and implemented campus climate study, as part of your continuing efforts to drive inclusive excellence on campus. This study is also limited by the relatively small number of concepts probed in the study. We did not look specifically at experience with discrimination, workplace conflict, student involvement and engagement, relationships among and between peers, subordinates and students, perceptions of alienation, or specific thermometer measures analyzing racism, homophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, classism, ableism and other issues that fit into the general framework of campus climate research. While a 17% response rate is respectable, this study was limited by our inability to conduct intensive follow-up work to drive an even higher response rate. At the same time, these data are highly credible, as they are grounded in best-in-class measures, in conservative but adequate analysis techniques and in strong response rates, particularly at the Statesboro and Armstrong campuses. Further, the inclusion of so many different types of data offers several important benefits that further validate this research. One such benefit is the ability to clarify the meaning of responses to closed-end survey items, to allow us to probe beyond the numbers and generate further depth of information. The goal is to not just clarify what people said, but, hopefully, to understand root causes behind how different groups are experiencing the campus climate across social identity groups. You will find that we try to make clear what we believe the data mean, providing a starting point for making sense of the information and building the recommendations offered here as well as, centrally, for molding the strategy the University will put into place moving forward. 13 SECTION 2: THE GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE Three Campuses, One Institution Campus climate is best understood by looking at the perceptions, behaviors and values—the lived experiences of diverse groups who are bound together in a given organizational and cultural context. This discussion teases out these differences and more, relying upon the quantitative and qualitative responses to the campus climate pulse survey, to campus-wide listening sessions and to the institutional design forum to provide a top-level understanding of the experience of Georgia Southern University faculty, staff and students. More specifically, we grapple with similarities and differences by major campus affiliation (Statesboro, Armstrong, Liberty), campus role (faculty, staff, student), gendered identity (male, female, gender nonbinary), racial identity (Black, White, Asian, etc.) and LGBTQIA identity (heterosexual, LGBTQIA). 2 Overall Perceptions of the Institutional Climate Overall findings were low in the three dimensions of General Satisfaction with Climate, Feeling Valued and Belonging and Institutional Commitment to Diversity. Only the Liberty campus had any responses to these indicators that were over 67% when examined at the campus level across all identity groups (Exhibit 2.1). Exhibit 2.1. Overall perceptions of the institutional climate by primary campus affiliation Participants Overall Armstrong (n = 1,171) Liberty (n = 124) Statesboro (n = 3,768) Satisfaction with Climate 64% 55% A 84% B 67% C Valued and Belonging 46% 36% A 60% B 49% C Institutional Commitment 58% 50% A 80% B 59% C Note: Letters (A, B, C) indicate significant statistical differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. A consistent pattern exists across the three sets of data points that power this pulse discussion. Liberty had the most positive perceptions of the campus climate and Armstrong had the least positive perceptions of the campus climate, with Statesboro falling in the middle. Specific findings about campus affiliation include: • • • • • • • 64% of respondents said they were satisfied with the overall campus climate/environment that they had experienced at Georgia Southern within the past 12 months. Less than half of overall respondents, 46%, felt valued and like they belonged on campus. 58% of respondents believed GSU had a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. The belonging scores were particularly low across all three campuses (36-55%) and represent a finding that should be pondered closely by campus leadership. Overall, the Armstrong campus responses were the least positive. Only 36% of respondents felt a sense of value and belonging; only 55% felt a positive sense of satisfaction with the campus climate. On the other end of the spectrum, 84 and 80% of Liberty survey respondents, respectively, were satisfied with the campus climate and feel that Georgia Southern University is institutionally committed to issues of diversity and inclusion. The Statesboro campus fell between the other two campuses on all three dimensions, with scores ranging from a low of 49% expressing a sense of value and belonging, to 67% reflecting positive experiences with the campus climate over the last 12 months. 14 The Pain of Consolidation Whenever an organization engages in a realignment of any kind, fear, paranoia, uncertainty and distraction are sure to result. This phenomenon is particularly active when people feel disengaged and dictated-to in the process. We believe GSU’s overall low scores in general campus climate, in belonging and valued and in institutional commitment are in part indicative of the pain, confusion and lack of understanding that resulted with the consolidation of the three institutions into one Georgia Southern University infrastructure. Combined with a destabilized and transitioning senior leadership team, the consolidation experience created a reality where many students, faculty and staff were questioning everything from the loss of identity (Armstrong), to what does this mean for me operationally (Statesboro), to how do we fit into the big picture, don’t lose sight of us (Liberty). One stakeholder referred to the process as a “reality show contest.” The narrative that employees from both campuses (Armstrong and Statesboro) were put into a room and told to figure out who will keep their jobs was pervasive throughout our listening sessions. Whether this narrative is accurately consistent with events or not, the optics and perception reveal employees who feel significantly challenged by the consolidation process. Another issue related to the consolidation of, specifically, the Armstrong and Statesboro campuses is the feeling that Armstrong has lost its identity to the larger Statesboro campus (e.g., its mascot and fight song as well as faculty and staff). A few stakeholders expressed displeasure in now having to commute between campuses. A comment pertaining to students in particular from the Armstrong campus in Savannah, Georgia, (a moderately larger town perceived to be a more progressive environment than Statesboro, Georgia) is that they could experience trauma when leaving Savannah and having to pass multiple Confederate flags and other emblems of overt racism on the route between the two cities and in Statesboro. Institutional Diversity Flashpoints: Triggerish, Free Speech and Inclusion Leadership The low levels of perceived institutional commitment to diversity reflect a campus narrative which, accurate or not, fair or unfair, is dominated by themes like “lack of diversity leadership,” “lack of accountability for inclusion,” “racism running rampant,” as well as feelings of pain, particularly among those who take issues of diversity, equity and inclusion personally. Some also feel that the campuses’ diversity, equity and inclusion conversation is too narrow, focusing nearly exclusively on race and ethnicity, minimizing the need to engage with LGBTQIA, religion and even diversity of thought as important aspects of Georgia Southern University’s institutional diversity focus. Probably more than any other, the most powerful force suppressing overall perceptions of climate, belonging and institutional commitment to diversity was how the campus community responded to a series of diversity flashpoints over a three-year period. In our listening sessions, surveys and interviews with key stakeholders, these incidents came up regularly as dynamics that have smeared the university’s image and shaped how many of GSU’s community members define diversity and view institutional commitment to diversity. Members consistently mentioned diversity flashpoints like the “triggerish” student athlete incident and the classroom use of the “n” word by a respected faculty member and others as having a devastating effect on perceptions of the campus climate institutionally, and particularly at Statesboro, where racial divisions and diversity dynamics seem most tenuous. A Need for Stronger Leadership on Issues of Diversity and Inclusion Many participants believed that leadership offered a soft response to these incidents, arguing that the campus voice was “too sterile” in reducing “triggerish” and other events to a question of legality. Many called for a stronger stand from leadership that would emphatically label these types of behaviors as heinous and outside the principles, values and expectations of Georgia Southern University in general and the athletic department in specific. In the future, community members want leadership to act with speed, empathy, vision, decisiveness and transparency when these incidents occur. This expectation is challenged by the constraints of a broader Georgia higher education governance system that may need to be consulted for guidance and clarification of system-wide policy and procedural jurisprudence. It was also clear that many leaders were unclear about how to independently work through the conundrums of “following the 15 law,” “protecting free speech,” “supporting academic freedom” and sending messages of “inclusion across campus.” Participants in some of the most essential functional areas seemed to have difficulty answering questions when asked about the systems and processes that currently exist to respond to these difficult issues. The narrative of institutional commitment to diversity is built over time and is defined by your messaging as well as your programs and actions before, after and during moments of crisis. Many argued that they were not confident in the university’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Students, faculty and leaders in different areas of the university shared this perspective. The Inclusive Excellence Initiative Generated Positive Energy and Momentum At the same time, many felt that the listening sessions and the chance to come out to the Inclusive Excellence launch event with its open forums had opened up a positive energy and dialogue long missing at Georgia Southern. They talked of “relief and excitement” that the conversation was beginning to open at the university leadership and administrative level. Stakeholders also reported a level of hopefulness that diversity, equity and inclusion efforts will become a deep commitment for the institution. Multiple listening-session groups indicated that one strength in the institutional DE&I work was the search for a senior level Chief Diversity Officer role. On the Armstrong campus in particular, there has been a recent history of hosting monthly DE&I events; a campus climate assessment had been conducted to inform those events. Since the merger, these efforts have been paused so the three institutions can create a combined plan and move forward in collaboration. In terms of accessibility, participants on the Armstrong campus reported that they were able to use the technology that the Statesboro campus purchased to do an inventory of their website accessibility. Another strength is the research auxiliary that is assessing women’s issues on campus, but there is concern that the results of this assessment may not be shared or taken seriously. While commitment to diversity may have been perceived as low, many felt that the energy and momentum could be turned in a positive direction, with a commitment of leaders to move from dialogue to transparency and visible action. The question for leadership is how to build from this start, creating programs and implementation energy that campus community members can see and feel. Almost all groups reported that the opportunity to participate in the listening sessions was a major positive step toward diversity, equity and inclusion efforts on campus. Consequently, participants reported some relief and excitement in relation to this event. As we continue to work our way through this discussion of the GSU campus climate and as we outline differences and similarities that exist along the dimensions of campus role/identity, race/ethnicity, gender and sexuality, we will return to these guiding insights. Faculty, Staff and Student Findings Less than half of faculty and staff were satisfied with their general experience at Georgia Southern. Faculty and staff also rated their experiences with campus climate significantly lower than both undergraduate and graduate students when examined at the institutional level, implying an alarmingly low level of employee morale and a general institutional morass that leadership should prioritize addressing in the future(Exhibit 2.2). Exhibit 2.2 Perceptions of institutional climate by campus role All Campuses Faculty (n = 445) Staff (n = 634) Undergrad. (n = 3,249) Graduate (n = 555) Satisfaction with Climate 48% A 48% A 69% B 67% B Valued and Belonging 40% A 37% A 47% B 54% C Institutional Commitment 45% A 48% A 61% B 58% B Note: Letters (A, B, C) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. 16 Specific findings about faculty and staff include: • • • • • • Overall, faculty and staff both rated their satisfaction with climate at the same level (48%). Undergraduate students and graduate students rated their satisfaction with climate at the same level (about 69%). Faculty (48%) and staff (48%) rated their satisfaction with climate significantly lower than undergraduate (69%) and graduate students (67%). Faculty (40%) and staff (37%) felt a similarly low level of valued and belonging. Undergraduate students felt valued and belonging to a significantly greater degree than faculty and staff, but significantly lower than graduate students, who felt the greatest levels of valued and belonging. Faculty (45%) and staff (48%) both rated a low level of institutional commitment, significantly lower than students did. Undergraduate students (61%) and graduate students (58%) both rated a modest level of institutional commitment. Racial and Ethnic Identity Findings The majority of extant research on perceptions of the campus climate has focused on issues of race and ethnicity and on understanding the different experiences of, first, Black students and, later, other racial and ethnically diverse students, faculty and staff. Across nearly 50 years of research, a consistent theme of these studies is that racial and ethnic groups generally experience the same environment in radically different and racially ordered ways. Our Georgia Southern University data reflects these findings as well in that statistically significant differences exist between respondents whose preferred identity was African American/Black, Asian American/Asian, Hispanic/Latino/a, Multi-Racial/Ethnic, White and unindicated (Exhibit 2.3). Put simply, different racial and ethnic groups are having different experiences within the campus climate. Exhibit 2.3. Perceptions of institutional climate by racial and ethnic identity 3 All Campuses Asian American/Asian (n = 157) Black (n = 1,288) Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 178) White (2,952) Multi-Racial/Ethnic (n = 364) Preferred Response Not Listed (n = 88) Satisfaction with Climate 66% A 59% B 72% C 66% D 62% A 45% E Valued and Belonging 48% A 37% B 46% A 50% C 46% A 30% D Institutional Commitment 66% A 48% B 60% C 62% E 55% D 45% F Note: Letters (A, B, C, etc) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some of the most damaging and consistent affronts against diverse communities are subtle and take place within the classrooms in which these individuals often constitute a small minority, particularly when diversity is defined only in terms of race and ethnicity. Despite the fact that most Whites openly espouse support for general principles of diversity, a prevalent current on campus involves tacit and at times overt messages that students of color are “affirmative action admits” who do not deserve their place in the school. Efforts to increase the presence of historically underrepresented groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, are often interpreted by majority students as “reverse-racism” decisions made outside the boundaries of merit and fair competition. Many such students are compelled to defend their existence in school and defend the merits of their identity as members of a particular racial or ethnic group, all concepts that we highlight in the next section of this report, as we talk about the Diversity Backlash effect that is prevalent, particularly at the Statesboro campus, and particularly against racial minorities. Low Scores Overall Disappointingly, no groups reported a campus experience where 80 or 90% of the group were satisfied with the campus climate, felt a sense of value and belonging on campus, or an overall perception of institutional commitment 17 to diversity. While it is not uncommon for communities of color to have perceptions of the campus climate in the 60% level or below, it is surprising that the majority White population of students, faculty and staff communities did not have stronger perceptions of the campus environment (especially in Satisfaction and Belonging). This example is another that illustrates the general challenges of community and inclusion that many may be experiencing as a result of consolidation, a destabilized senior leadership team, shifting policies and practices, campus racial incidents and uncertainty about the future. Dissatisfied Diverse Community Members and Traditions of Exclusion Black/African American, Multi-Racial respondents and those who did not choose a primary racial or ethnic identity were least satisfied with the campus climate (Exhibit 2.3). Listening sessions where participants described a challenged and at times hostile campus racial climate amplified these findings. Qualitative data collection activities implied that some diverse community members often experience racial micro-aggression and challenges in their experiences on campus, with many identifying hallowed campus racial traditions, diversity and inclusion flashpoints like “triggerish” and problems with the broader community, in particular among those students located on the Statesboro campus. Listening session with faculty, staff and students consistently noted certain campus traditions as a source of tension that consistently send underlying messages of discrimination and racism. The most discussed tradition was the annual watermelon-cutting ceremony, held since 1948, and started on the Armstrong campus in 2017. Study participants were adamant that campus leadership should discontinue this tradition, developing a new tradition that does not carry with it any cultural stigma, as a way of building a more inclusive community environment. Establishing a sense of belonging to a place can influence an individual’s sense of acceptance within the community and culture while a sense of opposition can enhance their sense of isolation and alienation. While the overall finding of lower scores on value and belonging is not new, a robust clarification of what these scores imply becomes apparent when viewed through a lens of racial and ethnic identity. That is, diverse respondents expressed dangerously low scores, as low as 30% for those who did not choose an identity and 37% across the nearly 1,300 Black/African American community members that responded to the survey. These findings, combined with scores under 50% for other constituent groups (White, Asian, Hispanic, etc.), should elicit a priority of extreme importance as leadership plans for the 2019/2020 academic year and beyond. A Perceived Lack of Commitment In terms of perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity, scores ranged from a percentage low in the 40s among Black and those not racially identified, to a high of only 66% among the relatively small number of Asian American/Asian respondents (Exhibit 2.3). While far from conclusive, several international Asian students participated in our listening sessions, lauding the university’s support of their experience, an insight that may have some relevance to their relatively higher perception of institutional commitment reflected in these data. These participants noted that one of the most positive experiences of enrolling at GSU has been finding a community of international students that is active on campus. In particular they praised the efforts from Residential Life and its living-learning communities as spaces designed for international students to connect and learn along with domestic students. International students also felt that the campus has several spaces where visual representations with a focus on international themes makes their experience at GSU a positive one. In addition, international students voiced they had encountered a number of supporting faculty and staff who are also from an international background. For them this experience was a strength of their educational experience. Some specific findings around racial and ethnic issues include: • More than 66% of White, Asian American/Asian and Hispanic/Latinos were satisfied with the campus climate over the last 12 months, suggesting that these groups’ experiences are significantly different and, as judged by these data, better than other racial groups at Georgia Southern. 18 • • • • • • Among bounded social identity groups, Black/African American respondents often had the least positive experience compared to other racial/ethnic groups (59%, 37%, 48%). Respondents whose preferred identity was not listed felt significantly lower value and belonging compared to multi-racial/ethnic respondents or Asian American/Asian respondents. White respondents rated satisfaction with climate significantly (66%) higher than Black respondents (59%) and higher than respondents whose preferred identity was not listed (45%). Black respondents also rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher than the respondents whose preferred response was not listed. Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher (72%) than Black respondents (59%) and higher than respondents whose preferred response was not listed. This finding is surprising, but not totally unexpected. Hispanic/Latino/a identity is a pan-ethnic identity that, while discussed in the aggregate, reflects tremendous diversity in terms of racial phenotype, immigration experience, nationality and economic background. It is not uncommon for greater variance to exist in their experience, where their findings at times reflect more towards Blacks/African Americans and historically disparaged groups, and in other instances reflect more towards White and historically lauded racial groups. White respondents felt significantly higher value and belonging compared to Black respondents and respondents whose preferred identity was not listed. White respondents rated institutional commitment significantly higher than Black respondents, MultiRacial/Ethnic respondents and non-identified respondents. Asian American/Asian respondents rated institutional commitment significantly higher than Black respondents and respondents whose preferred identity was not listed. Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents rated institutional commitment significantly higher than Black respondents. Gender Identity Findings Men had significantly more positive experiences compared to all other gender groups while gender nonconforming community members reported the most challenging experiences and the least perception of institutional commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (Exhibit 2.4). This finding is not surprising since men generally have a more positive perceptions of the campus climate, rooted in their historical position of power and privilege in society and, by extension, within organizations, where patriarchal dynamics remain pervasive. Indeed, research on gendered perceptions of the campus climate has found a number of patterns that may point towards what this gender difference means, particularly among faculty and staff. In professional environments, women often experience discrimination as an extensive source of stress, far more than men. And because of persistent stereotypes against women and their trailblazing status in certain fields and roles, they also feel a need to work harder than their male peers to be perceived as legitimate professionals. These factors, in addition to women’s continuing salary inequity perceptions, differing patterns to opportunity, and unwanted relational advances and predation experiences that far exceed those of their male counterparts at the student, faculty and staff levels, may all have something to do with the findings reported here. Gender Nonconforming Differences More than 100 individuals identified as gender nonconforming in their response to the survey, indicating that they may self-identity as transmasculine, transfeminine, or simply not view themselves as confirming in any way to the binary gendered conventions of men and women (Exhibit 2.4). The lack overall dissatisfaction with the campus climate reported by gender nonconforming participants is consistent with the literature in this area, as perceptions of the campus climate are often significantly worse for gender non-confirming individuals than for their cisgender 4 counterparts, regardless of sexuality. Low Perceptions of Valued and Belonging for All Gender Identities No statistically significant differences exist across Valued and Belonging for men, women and gender nonconforming groups. Consistent with trends that we found among previous identity groups, the majority of respondents, however, do not express a sense of belonging and value on campus. Scores on this dimension of our assessment were very low, across all three groups, ranging from 35-48% agreement that they feel a sense of Value and Belonging on campus. 19 Exhibit 2.4. Perceptions of institutional climate by gendered identity All Campuses Men (n = 1,856) Women (n = 3,095) Gender Nonconforming (n = 112) Satisfaction with Climate 67% A 63% B 45% C Valued and Belonging 48% A 45% A 35% A Institutional Commitment 63% A 56% B 40% C Note: Letters (A, B, C) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. In contributions from open-ended survey comments, these individuals reported such experiences as “being called slurs on campus,” “having been misgendered over and over again,” and “wondering if there is a place for them at Georgia Southern.” Listening session participants noted that some “pockets of the campus” are making efforts to support transgender students, but there is a general lack of understanding about transgender issues. A common example was that transgender students may have a different name in the system that their faculty ignores. Refusing to use the name these students prefer and generally refusing to affirm the importance of names and pronouns were key aspects of feeling included and having a sense of belonging, for some. Some specific findings by gender identity: • • • • • • Men rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher (67%) than both women (63%) and gender nonconforming respondents (45%). Women rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher (63%) than gender nonconforming respondents (45%). Men (48%), women (45%) and gender nonconforming (35%) respondents all rated valued and belonging at the same low level. Men rated institutional commitment significantly higher (63%) than both women and gender nonconforming (56%) respondents. Women rated institutional commitment significantly higher than gender nonconforming respondents. More than 30% of men and approaching 40% of women are not satisfied with the campus climate at GSU. This finding is made even more pointed by the fact that more than half of men, women and nearly 2/3rds of gender nonconforming individuals do not feel valued and a sense of belonging on campus. LGBTQIA Identity Findings The LGBTQIA community had significantly fewer positive experiences compared to heterosexual peers, extending the discussion of gender nonconforming individuals outlined previously (Exhibit 2.5). Exhibit 2.5. Perceptions of institutional climate by sexuality All Campuses LGBTQIA ( n = 720) Heterosexual (n = 4,343) Satisfaction with Climate 56% A 65% B Valued and Belonging Institutional Commitment 36% A 48% B 47% A 60% B Note: Letters (A, B) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings about LGBTQIA data include: • • • Heterosexual respondents rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher (65%) than LGBTQIA respondents (56%). Heterosexual respondents rated value and belonging significantly higher (48%) than LGBTQIA respondents (36%), although both scores are very low. Heterosexual respondents rated institutional commitment significantly higher (60%) than LGBTQIA respondents (47 %). 20 A Need to Expand the Definition of Diversity LGBTQIA campus climate measures may have been suppressed by the fact that many expressed a need for Georgia Southern to expand their definition of diversity. While many listening session participants were quick to note the importance of race and ethnicity, they also mentioned the need for the university to frame diversity and inclusion work in ways that embrace issues of sexuality, gender and intersectionality. LGBTQIA-identified session participants and others argued for a more prominent inclusion of not only these dimensions of diversity, but also age, disability and religion. They called for these themes to be part of any diversity plans and as part of the portfolio of any diversity officers that are hired to help steward diversity and inclusion issues moving forward. Participants also talked about the need to engage diversity in less monolithic ways, attending to the unique realities of diverse groups and intersectional dynamics that exist across campus. Some reflective comments on diversity: • • • • • “Most of the diversity at Georgia Southern is geared towards the black community. Diversity, this word means to have this variety of things. But I feel like even though there is tons of diversity throughout the campuses, every club, each activity is a minority or a black group, what about others?” “I honestly feel like the school climate is geared towards either black/African American or Caucasian peoples.” “As a gender nonconforming individual, I feel that I need more options for non-gendered restrooms and organizations.” “Instead of focusing your efforts strictly on the Millennials (and what sex, gender, sexual orientation they want to be considered) and race—please consider age a focus for inclusion. As a middle-aged student, frankly I believe I am way more disenfranchised than these other groups.” “Offer more help to students with ADHD and/or clinical depression—and make it known that you offer that help in the first place. We are here and we need help!” Organizational Implications Reflecting upon the wide range of data collected, the following responses to the campus climate at Georgia Southern University jump out as important: • • • • • • • • • The need to create a diversity and inclusion vision statement to shape campus policies, frameworks and learning initiatives. The need to infuse diversity and inclusion as a top priority in all schools, colleges and units at the level of concept, leadership, policy and operations; The need for the university’s communications to tell positive stories of diversity and inclusion and commitment, featuring campus units like the Department of Athletics that have been miscast in recent campus diversity flashpoint scenarios. The need to ensure that university communications, legal, audit, Student Affairs and other relevant areas have a clear understanding of how to respond at a high level when the next diversity and inclusion flashpoint happens and begins to go viral. The need to create strong Title IX, sexual harassment and violence against women training, as well as everyday inclusion trainings that address how women and others experience micro-aggressions. The need to create diversity and inclusion learning programs that help the campus community to understand the experiences of diverse groups, defined by race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality, age and religion. The need to create a more expansive definition of diversity and inclusion that dramatically extends beyond race and ethnicity, while also strengthening focus of these dynamics. The need to develop a stronger commitment to supporting LGBTQIA programs and initiatives, normalizing concepts like alternate gender pronouns and gender-neutral facilities while establishing safe spaces for brave conversations of difference and community within and across the LGBTQIA community. The need to embrace intersectional dynamics of race and sexuality, a reality embedded in these data and requiring more training and elevation of the conversation. 21 • • The need to create affinity organizations for diverse employees (e.g., a Black Faculty and Staff Association) that can serve as a space for mentoring, sharing, sponsorship and coaching on how to be successful at Georgia Southern University. The need to consider creative ways to strengthen support for diverse student organizations at Georgia Southern, particularly Black-themed organizations that can play a strong role in creating identity-affirming affinity spaces for these community members and others. While the overall campus climate data can be perceived as bleak at first, this information truly marks an opportunity for Georgia Southern. Amid continuing consolidation efforts that strive to bring the three campuses into harmony with each other, measures to address diversity and inclusion issues can go hand-in-hand with the establishment of other processes. Blending these efforts can go a long way toward establishing a strong culture of acceptance and inclusion as GSU matures into a unified whole. A strong inclusion message can reach across all three campuses and uplift and join the hearts of campus participants to improve the GSU experience for all. 22 SECTION 3: THE STATESBORO CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE To enter a more specific discussion of the Statesboro campus community, it’s important to begin with a presentation of the top themes that emerged from our analysis of the nearly 3,000 open-ended comments offered across survey respondents. The Statesboro campus’s top three themes fell into three general categories that in some ways exist at opposite ends of the spectrum (Exhibit 3.1). They are: 1. A Call for Strategic Diversity Leadership: We need to improve the campus community by developing a more strategic approach to diversity and inclusion. This element is the need for strategic diversity leadership to drive a stronger program of diversity, equity and inclusion in the form of plans, training, leadership, diverse faculty and staff, and curriculum innovation, a point that we build from in Sections 6 and 7 of this report. 2. More Programs and Opportunities for Community: We need more opportunities for community through new diversity programs and organizations. The need to create more inclusion energy across campus in the form of events, programs and organizations that bring community members together across differences, again points that we emphasize in Sections 6 and 7 of this report. 3. Addressing Diversity Backlash: We need to prioritize diversity and focus on what matters most—the need to stop wasting time and energy with diversity and inclusion issues and focus on what really matters in terms of merit, individual hard work and educational outcomes. Exhibit 3.1. Top Statesboro open-ended comments summary Theme Strategic Diversity Leadership Strategic diversity leadership is foundational to improving the campus climate. Opportunities for Community More campus-wide diversity programs, celebrations and support for student organizations will create opportunities for greater community and the chance to build a more inclusive environment. Diversity Backlash We need to stop catering to diverse communities and focus on what really matters at Statesboro: academics, merit and hard work. Description Statements calling for: a clear diversity plan, leadership that knows how to prioritize diversity and inclusion, more leadership and faculty diversity, and a dedicated commitment to diversity training and education as a major priority for students, faculty and staff, plus readiness for a campus diversity crisis. Statements affirming the importance of campus-wide diversity programming, unity across student organizations, and supporting diverse student organizations and employee affinity groups and creating intersectional programming. Number Reflective Comments 549 • “We have to create a real diversity, equity and inclusion plan.” • “Everyone needs to be doing diversity training, not just students.” • “Diversity training for fraternities, athletes & first-year experience has go to be a priority.” • “Students are already diverse, where are the leaders and where are the faculty—I want to see myself!” 234 • “We need more campus programs where we come together and not just when it’s bad!” • “We need to mix the student groups up more, that is the key to getting more inclusion.” • “We need more social programs that bring people together across difference like concerts and gatherings.” • “Offer more support to diverse student organizations and social groups for Black students in particular, so we can be part of it all.” Statements ranging from outright racism to those questioning the legitimacy of diverse students being on campus, to diversity fatigue and a call to focus on the “real” mission of the university over wasted energy on issues of diversity and inclusion. 218 • “Drop all of the diversity politics and horse manure leftist crap and judge people based on the content of their character” • “Build that wall Trump!” • “Focus on merit, all other considerations just don’t matter!” • “The need to please everyone is disgusting, grow-up and stop focusing on all of these minority issues.” 23 The strength of a call for Strategic Diversity Leadership and more Opportunities for Community illustrate how many are supportive of the need for Georgia Southern University to shift into a higher gear on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. Respondents prioritized the importance of the university building strong systems, training programs and innovations that would strengthen the strategy, policies and educational capabilities of the university as well as create a culture of accountability and high-level engagement with issues of campus climate and inclusion. They also championed the importance of developing programs, events and organizations that can create spaces for supporting diverse groups and interactions across differences, fostering a stronger community overall. Diversity Backlash: A Top Theme at Statesboro While all three elements, a call for Strategic Diversity Leadership, Opportunities to Build Community and Diversity Backlash, were present at all three campuses, Diversity Backlash rose to the top only at the Statesboro campus. While the first two themes reveal that many believe in a deeper commitment to diversity and inclusion, there is a strong presence of pushback that must be acknowledged as part of the culture at Georgia Southern generally, and, in a more pointed fashion, at Statesboro. Statesboro respondents freely offered more than 200 backlash comments against diversity and inclusion in the openended aspect of the survey, a statistically significant finding, when analyzed against the total body of open-ended comments. While none of the comments were calling for violence against any particular group, a number were highly inflammatory. For example, serious comments included calling for “the building of walls,” comparing “diversity and inclusion to a mental disorder” and calling for a stop to any conversations—for “racial and gender equality to be stamped from existence.” The majority of these comments converged across five sub-themes: One, that we need to be colorblind and move beyond race and diversity. Two, that we need to stop reverse-discriminating and embrace meritocracy. Three, that diversity of thought is just as important as any other aspect of diversity and that other notions of recognizing diversity should be eliminated. Four, that conservative ideologies are being suppressed and deserve equal voice on campus and, five, that the Georgia Southern needs to embrace a broader definition of diversity that includes conservative values not included in the traditional diversity and inclusion discussion. Some reflective comments that are powerful for understanding this perspective are: • “Don't discriminate against white people by provisionally accepting them even though they have an outstanding application. Then turn around and then fully accept minorities with no experience or related coursework and basic applications. I am a white female with Native American heritage however, I choose not to use that as a way to gain acceptance.” • “Drop all the diversity horse manure and leftist politics, judge people based on the content of their character, not skin color, ethnicity or gender, sexuality or whatever. It is over the top. Focus more on educating the individual rather than concerns with how we feel about ourselves. My personal needs should be my own and I shouldn't need some external factor involved. Treat us fairly and with equal respect and regard. No single group should be treated differently or given greater consideration. While our society (and campuses) are largely hetero-normative, that doesn't give that group especial powers of dominance—nor does that mean any homosexual or transgender group be allowed consideration to compensate.” • “There is more to diversity than accommodating the weird outsider kids, the gender non-specific and nonwhites. I feel like, Georgia Southern, what about my diversity as an adult.” • “I think it is a shame that being a white male at GSU has been degraded to a point that we are talked down to, set up as examples and generally treated as the ‘Bad Guys.’ We are quickly being relegated to a second class here and in the higher education system as a whole simply for being Caucasian. Simply put, if you are a Caucasian Male heterosexual you are treated as the problem. I have no biases and do not judge people based on skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or religious orientation but I on the other hand, am constantly being judged by this criteria.” 24 • “Diversity is important and I strongly support equal treatment of all genders and race. However, Georgia Southern does not support equal treatment of those with different political views. It’s understandable that most public colleges are liberal and I support them voicing their opinions. I and many students with shared beliefs did not feel welcome to civilly discuss my views from a right-wing perspective.” • “Seems as if the campus is falling victim to the whole sensitive liberal movement. Accepting others is a very good practice and should be continued to be practiced like it is currently, but gender and sexual orientation is a bunch of bull. You are either man or woman and either like the opposite sex or the same or a combo of both. Recognizing yourself as a cat is very dumb and suggests some sort of mental illness.” The “Us Versus Them” Mentality of Backlash The Diversity Backlash perspective is often defined by an “us versus them” mentality that generally ignores the question of inclusion and focuses solely on “diversity of representation.” From this vantage, a focus on diversity is viewed as a zero-sum game of acquiring opportunity and intergroup conflict between those who are legitimate or meritocratic and those who are seeking opportunity through illegitimate means, based on group identity (Bobo and Hutchins, 1996). According to this calculus, if you enroll or hire more diverse [insert group] people by having an organizational commitment to diversity, then you must be stripping opportunity away from deserving [insert other group] individuals as defined by their meritocratic abilities and actions. These voices of backlash often view diversity and inclusion as a distraction from the educational mission of the institution, viewing diversity as a worthless sidebar discussion that has no place at Georgia Southern and framing it as a “leftist-liberal-political-agenda” that makes it difficult for merit to thrive on campus. Understanding this backlash dynamic is important, particularly as leadership considers different approaches to diversity and inclusion training and professional development as well as the way that these issues are addressed in the curriculum and co-curriculum. It’s also important to recognize these dynamics and the way that they may manifest themselves in micro-aggressive dynamics that suppress how racial, ethnic and sexual minority groups feel about the campus climate (Wing-Sue and Associates, 2011). Our listening sessions with diverse groups plus open-ended survey comments were clear in pointing out how many students in particular had experienced racial hate speech, homophobic taunts, sexual slurs and otherwise demeaning and disrespectful treatment on campus, creating a hostile climate and making it difficult for them to thrive and grow. Micro-Aggressions and Backlash While exclusionary dynamics are not always delivered in hateful words and slurs, the element of campus hostility is often felt through small daily insults and indignities perpetrated against diverse groups, in which they are made to feel less than, alien, that they are “affirmative action admits,” that they are not normal and that their presence is not merited on campus, all concepts bound within the Diversity Backlash perspective noted above. But micro-aggressions are more than just annoyances. The cumulative effect of these constant reminders that you are “less than” does real psychological damage (Wing-Sue and Associates, 2011). Regular exposure to microaggressions can cause diverse communities to feel isolated and invalidated. These dynamics are subtle, difficult to see and easily explained away as a misunderstanding or simply one’s perspective. But when put into the world over and again, they can have a cumulative negative effect that can damage the campus climate. The inability to know when and where microaggressions may occur can also result in a hypervigilant stance by members of diverse groups, creating even more tension on campus as historically excluded group members may be on edge and ready to pounce or defend themselves (Wing-Sue and Associates, 2011). As we look towards the upcoming US presidential election season in 2020 and even the university rolling out new programs to improve the campus climate, these issues and others will surely rise to the surface, creating the potential for more diversity and inclusion tensions on campus. At the same time, Georgia Southern should create a space for inclusion to be broadly defined, including the creation of a space for conservative and controversial perspectives that may not conventionally support diversity and inclusion. The key here is to ensure that individual perspectives are 25 shared respectfully, and that students, faculty and staff understand the principles of how to dialogue with one another, points we return to in the recommendations section of this report. The Statesboro Campus Climate Pulse Survey Results Statesboro data followed the same pattern as the overall data discussed in the previous section of this report and are reflected in Exhibits 3.2 through 3.5. Namely, we again saw that students were more satisfied with their experience than employees of the university, with more than 70% of undergraduate and graduate students satisfied with the campus climate. Secondly, we saw that a clear majority of faculty and staff don’t feel a sense of belonging on campus and a large number of students feel similarly, with many questioning the level of institutional commitment across campus irrespective of positional role, race/ethnicity, gendered identity or sexuality. The lack of feeling valued and belonging among Black/African American, Multi-Racial/Ethnic and those who did not choose a primary racial identity follows the same general pattern as the overall data, becoming even sharper due to student, faculty and staff community members in these groups feeling highly marginalized. These similar feelings of being unvalued and not belonging are reflected among gender nonconforming individuals and LGBTQIA respondents, many of who are also persons of color, particularly among student respondents. In our open-ended listening session and interviews, many respondents attributed their perception of a less than positive campus climate to a fear of venturing into the Statesboro community and engaging with local community members, with law enforcement and even at retail facilities. This issue was prevalent for Black and LGBTQIA community members and for those who shared membership across both of these communities. Faculty, Staff and Student Findings Exhibit 3.2. Statesboro perceptions of campus climate by role and identity Statesboro Faculty (n = 313) Staff (n = 509) Undergraduate Students (n = 2,521) Graduate Students (n = 425) Satisfaction with Climate 50% A 51% A 71% B 68% B Valued and Belonging 43% A 39% A 50% B 56% B Institutional Commitment 47% A 51% A 62% B 59% B Note: Letters (A, B) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings regarding faculty, staff and students at Statesboro: • • • • • At the Statesboro campus, faculty and staff rated satisfaction with climate at the same level. Undergraduate and graduate students rated satisfaction with climate at the same level as each other. There was a significant difference between the two groupings with faculty and staff rating satisfaction with climate significantly lower than students. There was no significant difference on value and belonging. At Statesboro, graduate students rated value and belonging significantly higher than faculty and staff. At Statesboro, students rated institutional commitment significantly higher than faculty and staff. 26 Racial and Ethnic Identity Findings Exhibit 3.3. Statesboro perceptions of campus climate by race and ethnicity Statesboro White (n = 2,263) Asian American/Asian (n = 115) Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 112) Black (n = 946) Multi-Racial/Ethnic (n = 247) Preferred Response Not Listed (n = 60) Satisfaction with Climate 70% C 69% A 73% A 60% B 61% D 45% D Valued and Belonging 53% C 52% A 46% A 39% B 47% D 28% D Institutional Commitment 65% C 67% A 57% A 46% B 55% D 45% D Note: Letters (A, B, C, etc.) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings regarding racial and ethnic identity: • • • At the Statesboro campus, White respondents rated satisfaction with climate significantly higher than Black respondents, Multi-Racial/Ethnic respondents and respondents whose preferred race was not listed. At Statesboro, White respondents rated value and belonging significantly higher than Black respondents and respondents whose preferred response was not listed. The latter rated value and belonging significantly lower than Multi-Racial/Ethnic respondents and Asian American/Asian respondents. At Statesboro, White respondents rated institutional commitment significantly higher than Black respondents, Multi-Racial/Ethnic respondents and respondents whose preferred response was not listed. Gender Identity Findings Exhibit 3.4. Statesboro perceptions of campus climate by gendered identity Statesboro Men (n = 1,500) Women (n = 2,184) Non-Gender Conforming (n = 84) Satisfaction with Climate 68% A 66% A 43% B Valued and Belonging 50% A 48% A 33% B Institutional Commitment 64% A 57% A 37% B Note: Letters (A, B) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings: • At the Statesboro campus, gender nonconforming respondents rated satisfaction with climate, value and belonging and institutional commitment significantly lower than men and women. Men and women rated satisfaction with climate, value and belonging and institutional commitment at the same level as each other. LGBTQIA Identity Findings Exhibit 3.5. Statesboro perceptions of campus climate by LGBTQIA respondents Statesboro LGBTQIA (n = 490) Heterosexual (n = 3,278) Satisfaction with Climate 58% A 68% B Valued and Belonging 38% A 50% B Institutional Commitment 46% A 61% B Note: Letters (A, B) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. 27 Some specific findings: • At the Statesboro campus, heterosexual respondents rated satisfaction with climate, value and belonging and institutional commitment significantly higher than LGBTQIA respondents. The Socio-Cultural Context of Statesboro Many session participants argued that the Statesboro campus exists in a duality that is no doubt related to the campus climate scores presented here. Clashes in the connection between the community and the college were reported, or at least they exist in an incommodious relationship since participants argued that there are often ideological incongruences between Georgia Southern and the community. While the university is progressive, the community is conservative and in the words of some “resistant to progressive” dialogue and actions that would benefit historically underrepresented groups. Participants argued that “Confederate flags” and “community racism” have real-life consequences on potential faculty and staff choosing to not take employment or leaving shortly after being employed. While the university has little control over what happens off campus, many in the listening sessions argued that Georgia Southern experiences challenges around recruiting and retaining faculty of color, in part because of these broader socio-geographic dynamics. They argued that this context worsens the lack of mentorship for faculty of color, perceptions of “unfair promotion and advancement” for non-faculty of color and more. One faculty stakeholder suggested that this is the reason that “many faculty of color do not actually live in the Statesboro or the Savannah community.” Whether a perception or reality, it is believed that many faculty of color receive tenure and move away from the surrounding communities, electing to teach online classes and return for mandatory department meetings. They went on to argue that the Statesboro community provided very little opportunities of interest for single faculty of color and possibly even fewer for the for ethnic and racially diverse faculty. It was suggested that faculty moving to Savannah would find more diversity and opportunities for support. The downside of moving to Savannah and working in Statesboro is that it is a nearly two-hour round-trip commute. Statesboro: Organizational Implications Reflecting upon the data collected, the following responses to the campus climate at GSU Statesboro jump out as important: • • • • • • The need to develop a broad and inclusive definition of diversity including diversity of thought and conservative perspectives. The need to carefully frame campus-wide diversity and inclusion priorities as driving learning, leadership and readiness for a diverse and global world. The need to create learning programs for students, faculty and staff that clarify difficult topics like freedom of speech, hate speech, hate crimes, academic freedom, micro-aggressions, unconscious bias, everyday inclusion, and the realities of group identity and power dynamics on campus and in society. The need to help campus community members develop everyday skills of inclusion and foster spaces for intergroup dialogue inside and outside of the classroom. The need to create specific training programs designed to strengthen the ability of white male faculty, staff and students to engage and be included in diversity and inclusion dialogues and training programs as full participants and not as “the enemy.” The need to consider how to create learning moments to handle the complexity and challenges that may emerge during the 2020 Presidential election season. 28 SECTION 4: THE ARMSTRONG CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE Much like at Statesboro, two of the top three qualitative themes at the Armstrong campus were to build out a Strategic Diversity Leadership agenda and to create opportunities for Community and Engagement (Exhibit 4.1). The unique theme of the Armstrong campus that cracked into the top three was the Pain of Consolidation, a finding noted earlier. While present at all three campuses, it was strongest at Armstrong, where it was mentioned some 91 times by online survey respondents and consistently across listening sessions and interviews with campus stakeholders (Exhibit 4.1). Exhibit 4.1. Top Armstrong open-ended comments summary Theme Strategic Diversity Leadership Description Statements calling for a clear diversity plan, leadership that knows how to make diversity & inclusion a priority, more leadership and faculty diversity, and a dedicated commitment to diversity training and education as a major priority for students, faculty and staff, along with readiness for campus diversity crises. Number 119 Pain of Consolidation Statements criticizing consolidation, calling for an affirmation of the culture, professionalism and history of the Armstrong campus, as a full and equal partner in creating a new Georgia Southern University. 91 Opportunities for Community and Engagement Statements mostly from students, but some employees, affirming the importance of campus-wide diversity programming, unity across student organizations, supporting diverse student organizations and creating intersectional programming. 58 Strategic diversity leadership is foundational to improving the campus climate. More campuswide diversity programs, celebrations and support for student organizations will improve the campus climate. Reflective Comments • “We need to stop reacting and create standard operating procedures for dealing with issues of diversity.” • “We need to integrate diversity and inclusion initiatives and plans into our departmental meetings to so everyone at the front lines can really move the work along.” • “We need action, there is too much talk. We need to action to root out the bigotry, racism, homophobia and prejudice against those with disability.” • “We need a faculty diversity initiative with special funds to really have the money you need to make a difference.” • “The university should prioritize diversity and inclusion systematically. Everything we do should be filtered through all the points outlined in our mission statement. Faculty and staff should be properly trained and acclimated to serve the needs of a student population that is diverse and increasingly non-traditional.” • “We are being treated like the step-child campus and it’s just getting old, I’m about sick of it.” • “I can get to what is required, but I am going to need money, research support and a different teaching load then what I’m looking at now.” • “The new Georgia Southern is a non-inclusive place to work. The campus does focus on diversity, but I feel this was because of the work of Armstrong and incidents that have happened on the Statesboro campus. Armstrong had a director of diversity. This position was taken away with the merger and then brought back. The events that are happening are reactive, not proactive, and focused on only two groups of people, racial and sexual. This is great for these groups of students, but I take inclusion to be all.” • “We need to get more vocal about diversity clubs and organizations on campus and make sure that people know everyone can be involved in any club. I think we need a special push to help.” • “I’m a shy person and I need help building relationships outside of my race. I want friends who are Asian or White, but I just don’t know how. Perhaps we can create a buddy program or some-thing to give the relationships a push, especially for freshman.” • “Greek life is such a staple here, we have to do something about making it more inclusive. I mean put the Black Greeks on fraternity row and push the whites to be more accepting and open up. This is the root of our community’s problems.” • “We need regular forums where faculty and staff just come together to talk about the issues and build out the culture. Whether it’s in my department or campus-wide, I just think we need more spaces to get together.” • “Social time. People don’t have social time that are on the faculty and staff, especially with the crazy schedule going from campus to campus. Build events to get us together.” 29 Developing a New Culture Through the Pain of Consolidation As quantitative data on the perceptions of feeling valued and belonging may reflect, many at Armstrong are grappling with the realities of an evolving organizational culture at Georgia Southern University. These changes are having a deleterious effect on their feelings towards the campus climate. Cultures helps us to understand the hidden and complex aspects of organizational life; they have many hidden and often unspoken underlying dynamics (Schein, 1992). Culture and how we experience cultures shape the performance, persistence and morale of an organization’s citizens. Adapting to a new culture requires emotional, cognitive and behavioral shifts—of the mind, the heart and the hands (Schein, 1992). What many are thinking and how they are feeling and behaving on a day-to-day basis has been tossed akilter following consolidation, particularly at the Armstrong campus. Here are a few comments that illustrate the situation: • “Consolidation was a hard blow for all members of the three campuses. However, I feel that the morale is spiraling out of control. When reports of declining enrollment (primarily from losing Armstrong students) results in budget cuts and layoffs on both campuses, I feel there is finger-pointing. Telling faculty at Armstrong that they need to do more to retain and recruit students when we have lost our identity is not fair. Who are we now? We need to find a niche. At this point, I feel a little lost. More concerning is the inequities in the expectations for scholarship, teaching loads and service. While Armstrong faculty have had a history of putting teaching first, overnight those expectations seems to have shifted to a ‘publish or perish’ mode. Most concerning is the elitist attitude that is expressed by some Statesboro faculty, saying that we brought down the standards of the university. Ouch. Without graduate students, research space, with a lack of startup funds and heavy teaching loads, this is like comparing apples to oranges. Talk about a blow to already low morale.” • “Two universities, three campuses, were forced to come together. Rather than starting with a clean slate and evaluating what could be changed for the best on these campuses, we just continued to do what the large institution had always done. Many of these practices are traditions, and some feel those traditions do not create an inclusive environment. We could have done a survey like this and changed many things during the consolidation and come out on the other end with a great product. We didn’t. Now we live with practices that divide us and are seen as offensive. I can’t believe our school chant. And I am tired of being told that it means something else. If my 12-year-old can see how offensive that is at a football game, then the rest of the school should be able to see that. I am sure the watermelon cutting has a great history, but it has never been told to those of us that are unfamiliar and from the outside it sounds like a practice that started during segregation. The school has not done enough to deal with the racially charged issues that have occurred on the Statesboro campus. If action is not going to be taken, then communication needs to occur that explains why students remain at the school. The lack of transparency is difficult for students. What happened to campus conversations? Why did we stop things that were working?” • “The differences between how faculty on the two campuses interact is striking. On the Armstrong campus, it does not feel at all as though we became a ‘new’ university, but became the satellite campus of Georgia Southern. We have had to adapt to many, many more ways of the Statesboro Georgia Southern, yet when we want to maintain elements of the culture of Armstrong, we are told we can’t because it’s not possible to have on both campuses. The lack of transparency is discouraging considering that was one of the promises from administration when the consolidation process began. Meeting via WebEx, Google Hangouts, etc., DOES NOT WORK! Furthermore, it creates an even wider divide between the campuses, especially when Statesboro dominates every meeting due to the fact that there is a tremendous imbalance of Statesboro vs. Armstrong membership on committees. This has created an incredibly hierarchical atmosphere. I can’t imagine how much money was spent on the technology, but it does not function well, creating even more frustration. I realize my comments pertain to inclusion relating to consolidation, rather than issues relating diversity, however these issues are important to my colleagues and me and we want to be proud of our institution again.” 30 • “During the last 12 months, I have truly started to feel that I am the child that is hidden under the stairs so that no one can see. Included? Not at all. How can I feel included when I am sitting in front of a screen during a department meeting? My colleagues on the Statesboro campus are talking and making decisions, but never look at the camera and ask for our opinion. How can I feel included when we have a department meeting scheduled at 1:45, but get an email at 1:04 stating we are starting the meeting now? How can I feel included when comments are made by faculty in public demeaning everything we have been doing at Armstrong? How can I feel included when students and alums regularly make comments in public that this merger was to save Armstrong and that I should be grateful to have a job? How can I feel included when my students are now classified as transfer students—many struggling with getting classes they need and even having their GPA drop with no explanation? How can I feel included when it is the Statesboro way or no way at all? I have been teaching at Armstrong since 1999. This is the first year I have not wanted to go to work. Every day is a punch in the stomach. I understand no one wanted this merger, but I do not feel included at my own workplace anymore.” We offer these block quotes to amplify the perspectives that we heard regarding consolidation and its negative implications for the campus culture, climate and spirits of the Armstrong community specifically. The campus culture is evolving, and, as indicated by these comments, in some negative ways. Shifting expectations, new policies, different norms and traditions, and even a lack of civility and open hostility towards faculty, staff and students from different campuses have emerged. As we look at these comments, it is obvious that consolidation remains top-of-mind for many and should be a priority of leadership as you move forward with the recommendations of this report. There should be a broader focus as you forge a new strategic plan and, most importantly, articulate a shared vision for the entire Georgia Southern University community. To make this issue a focus means leaders at all levels must own the challenging dynamics of the shift and lift them up with empathy, forethought and clarity in articulating the what, why and how of the path forward. Faculty, Staff and Student Findings Exhibit 4.2. Armstrong perceptions of campus climate by students, faculty and staff Armstrong Faculty (n = 123) Staff (n = 122) Undergraduate Students (n = 801) Graduate Students (n = 125) Satisfaction with Climate 43% A 34% A 59% B 61% B Valued and Belonging 31% A 30% A 35% A 49% B Institutional Commitment 37% A 33% A 55% B 52% A Note: Letters (A, B) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings: • • • • • At the Armstrong campus, faculty and staff rated satisfaction with climate at the at 43 and 34% respectively, with no significant statistical difference between these groups. Undergraduate and graduate students also rated satisfaction with climate in similar ways, at 59 and 61%, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between employees and students. with faculty and staff rating satisfaction with climate lower than students. At Armstrong, graduate students rated value and belonging significantly higher than faculty, staff and undergraduate students did. Those three rated value and belonging at a similarly low level of 35% or below. At Armstrong, undergraduate students rated institutional commitment significantly higher than faculty, staff and graduate students. Faculty and staff rated institutional commitment at about the same level, while graduate students rated institutional commitment significantly higher than staff but not significantly. 31 Racial and Ethnic Identity Findings Exhibit 4.3. Armstrong perceptions of campus climate by race and ethnicity Armstrong Asian American/Asian (n = 39) Black (n = 289) Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 55) White (n = 652) Multi-Racial/Ethnic (n = 100) Preferred Response Not Listed (n = 25) Satisfaction with Climate 56% A 52% A 65% A 54% A 61% A 44% A Valued and Belonging 33% A 31% A 45% A 37% A 38% A 28% A Institutional Commitment 62% A 47% A 62% A 51% A 49% A 44% A Note: Letters (A, B, C, etc.) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings: • • At the Armstrong campus, there were no statistically significant differences across different racial/ethnic groups on satisfaction with climate, value and belonging, or institutional commitment. The sample size represented in each group is not necessarily representative of the campus. Gender Identity Findings Exhibit 4.4. Armstrong perceptions of campus climate by gendered identity Armstrong Men (n = 323) Women (n = 822) Non-Gender Conforming (n = 26) Satisfaction with Climate 59% A 53% A 46% A Valued and Belonging 37% A 36% A 35% A Institutional Commitment 55% A 49% A 46% A Note: Letters (A, B, C, etc) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings: • • At the Armstrong campus, men, women and gender nonconforming respondents rated satisfaction with climate, value and belonging and institutional commitment at the same level. The sample size was not necessarily representative of the campus. LGBTQIA Identity Findings Exhibit 4.5. Armstrong perceptions of campus climate by LGBTQIA Armstrong LGBTQIA (n = 216) Heterosexual (n = 955) Satisfaction with Climate 52% A 55% A Valued and Belonging 30% A 37% A Institutional Commitment 46% A 51% A Note: Letters (A, B, C, etc) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings: • At the Armstrong campus, there were no significant differences between heterosexual and LGBTQIA respondents. The sample size was not necessarily representative of the campus. 32 Armstrong: Organizational Implications Reflecting upon the data collected, the following responses to the campus climate at GSU Armstrong jump out as important: • • • • • The need to launch a relentless communication campaign focused on building one Georgia Southern University culture across all three campuses. The need to create spaces for leadership to engage in empathetic listening with the Armstrong community to engender a feeling of being heard. The need to elevate the concept that consolidation is a journey that is, so far, incomplete and to consider different techniques for strengthening community members’ understanding of the new values, behaviors and perspectives that will be required to create a stronger common culture. The need to create a training program for administrative and governance leaders on how to foster a stronger and unified approach to consolidation. The need to identify the top five policy changes and shifts related to consolidation and ensure that key communities have granular clarity on the what, why and how of this change. 33 SECTION 5: THE LIBERTY CAMPUS CLIMATE PULSE Open-ended comments by the Liberty campus survey respondents did not yield clear themes for discussion, although the theme of Strategic Diversity Leadership was prevalent. At the same time, listening sessions and other qualitative data suggested that many participants from the Liberty campus are concerned about “making sure that their presence is not lost in the mix,” that they “are included in campus events and convenings” and that they are a “priority for Georgia Southern leadership.” It was also obvious in our listening sessions that Liberty has an expressed comfort and organic approach to diversity and inclusion that is no doubt influenced by the diversity of their student body, proximity to local military bases and their roots serving nontraditional students. These factors, no doubt, have contributed to their relatively stronger response to questions of satisfaction with the campus climate and institutional commitment to diversity, when compared to peer campuses. This case study presentation of quantitative survey data is limited by the low number of respondents that we received at Liberty. What follows is available data telling the story of Liberty’s campus climate pulse. Faculty, Staff and Student Findings Exhibit 5.1. Liberty perceptions of campus climate by faculty, staff and student identity Liberty Faculty Staff Undergraduate Students (n = 107) Graduate Students Satisfaction with Climate NA NA 88% NA NA indicates the sample size was too small to report (n < 10). Valued and Belonging NA NA 63% NA Institutional Commitment NA NA 81% NA Some specific findings: • At the Liberty campus, there was not enough representation by campus role to make comparisons. Racial and Ethnic Identity Findings Exhibit 5.2. Liberty perceptions of campus climate by race and ethnicity Liberty Asian American/Asian Black (n = 53) Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 11) White (n = 37) Multi-Racial/Ethnic (n = 17) Preferred Response Not Listed Satisfaction with Climate NA 83% A 91% A 84% A 88% A NA Valued and Belonging NA 51% A 45% A 76% A 65% A NA Institutional Commitment NA 75% A 82% A 86% A 82% A NA Note: Letters (A) indicate statistically significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. NA indicates the sample size was too small to report (n < 10). Some specific findings: • At the Liberty campus, there were no statistically significant differences across different racial/ethnic groups on satisfaction with climate, value and belonging, or institutional commitment. The sample size represented in each group is not necessarily representative of the campus. 34 Gender Identity Findings Exhibit 5.3. Liberty perceptions of campus climate by gender identity Liberty Men (n = 33) Women (n = 89) Gender Nonconforming Satisfaction with Climate 79% A 85% A NA Valued and Belonging 55% A 62% A NA Institutional Commitment 79% A 80% A NA Note: Letters (e.g., A) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. NA indicates the sample size was too small to report (n < 10). Some specific findings: • • At the Liberty campus, men and women rated satisfaction with climate, value and belonging and institutional commitment at the same level. There were not enough participants to report gender nonconforming rates. The sample size was not necessarily representative of the campus. LGBTQIA Identity Findings Exhibit 5.4. Liberty perceptions of campus climate by LGBTQIA identity Liberty LGBTQIA (n = 14) Heterosexual (n = 110) Satisfaction with Climate 71% A 85% A Valued and Belonging 57% A 61% A Institutional Commitment 64% A 82% A Note: Letters (e.g., A) indicate significant differences between groups. If two groups have different letters, they are significantly different (p < 0.05). If two groups have the same letter, they are not significantly different. Some specific findings: • At the Liberty campus, there were no significant differences between the heterosexual and LGBTQIA respondents. The sample size was not necessarily representative of the campus. Liberty: Organizational Implications Reflecting upon the data collected, the following responses to the campus climate at GSU Liberty jump out as important: • • The need to ensure high-level engagement with Liberty as an equal contributor in all decisions of Georgia Southern University. The need to explore what lessons can be learned from Liberty’s satisfied atmosphere regarding issues of diversity, equity and inclusion that can inform strategy and practice at other campuses. 35 SECTION 6: INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY CAPABILITIES AUDIT Change happens campus-wide when led by senior leadership, governance committees, deans, department chairs, unit leaders, faculty, staff and students. To better understand the organizational diversity capabilities at Georgia Southern University, we implemented a high-level diversity capabilities audit survey that captured the degree to which the university had invested in strategic diversity leadership capabilities. What follows is a discussion of the philosophy guiding this audit and findings that emerged in response to the audit. Strategic Diversity Leadership Philosophy The philosophy that guides this work is that institutions need to build a campus-wide strategic diversity leadership infrastructure to articulate and ultimately advance a diversity, equity and inclusion agenda. Five key principles capture the strategic diversity leadership philosophy: 5 • Principle 1: Redefine issues of diversity, equity and inclusion as fundamental to the organizational bottom line of mission fulfillment and institutional excellence. • Principle 2: Focus on creating systems that enable all students, faculty and staff to thrive and achieve their individual maximum potentials within the supportive and enriching environment of the university. • Principle 3: Achieve a more robust and integrated diversity approach that builds on prior diversity models and operates in a strategic, evidence-based and data-driven manner where accountability is of paramount importance. • Principle 4: Focus on diversity-related efforts that innovate and transform the institutional culture, rather than merely making tactical moves that lead to poorly integrated efforts and symbolic implementation. • Principle 5: Lead with a high degree of cultural intelligence and awareness of different identities and their significance in higher education. The degree to which an institution has embedded these principles into its approaches to strategy, structure and leadership will play a key role in defining its ability to respond to institutional diversity crises, to proactively create new campus climate and inclusion initiatives, to advance diversity in its curriculum and co-curriculum, to pursue diverse areas of scholarship and inquiry, and to recruit and retain diverse students, faculty and staff. Such an approach means building out plans, committees, initiatives, leadership roles, units and more infrastructures that live centrally as well as at the school, college, division and unit levels of the institution. Georgia Southern University’s Organizational Diversity Audit Having a clear diversity infrastructure that includes plans, policies, committees, point leadership, spaces for shared dialogue and a consistent review of what is happening at peer, competitor and aspirant institutions is critical to building a strong and robust diversity strategy. Diversity plans are the GPS or road map for an institution’s diversity commitment. Such plans provide a shared vision of change, shape how institutional resources are applied and articulate the key action steps that should be put in place to advance diversity. Absent a well-designed campus diversity plan, many campuses struggle to realize true progress, because there are no goals, no road map for implementation, no infrastructure nor plans to make intelligent financial investments to create change over time. These plans can exist as integrated elements of an institutions strategic plan, as well as in dedicated diversity plans, and/or at the school, college and unit level as decentralized activation plans that live closer to the day-to-day action. 36 Audit Research Questions Our audit focused on the decentralized diversity and inclusion infrastructure that exists campus-wide at GSU. More specifically we asked campus leaders: • • • • • • Does your unit have a diversity and inclusion strategic plan? Does your unit have a dedicated point leader (e.g., an associate dean for diversity, a director of inclusion, an assistant dean for inclusive excellence, etc.) who is focused on issues of diversity and inclusion as a strategic priority? Does your unit have a diversity and inclusion committee, task force or working group focused on these matters as a strategic priority? Does your unit have any discretionary resources (e.g., internal grant, diversity and inclusion grant program, funding for a new diversity course, etc.) that members of your community can tap into to drive diversity and inclusion efforts? Does your unit annually prepare a diversity and inclusion report to track and monitor progress? Is diversity and inclusion engagement included as a part of your unit’s annual employee performance review for merit, promotion and advancement? Key Research Findings This audit resulted in 43 usable surveys. Six surveys were eliminated from our analyses because they were too incomplete for inclusion. Findings from this aspect of our review suggest that the campus has little to no strategic diversity, equity and inclusion capabilities. With few exceptions, the clear majority of units that responded to our survey did not have any appreciable diversity and inclusion strategy, infrastructure, accountability systems, discretionary resources, or focused programs and initiatives (Exhibit 6.1.). Some specific findings include: • • • • Just 14% of respondents had a diversity committee, taskforce, or point group tasked with providing strategic thinking for the campus community. Only 12% of respondents had a diversity and inclusion statement that provides a high-level conceptual framework and orientation for why diversity and inclusion is important to their area. Only 7% of respondents noted diversity and inclusion point leadership, to provide leadership in their unit or in area around issues of diversity. Only 2% of respondents had a diversity and inclusion plan, annual report or any level of discretionary resources focused on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. 37 Exhibit 6.1. Georgia Southern University?s Campus-Wide Diversity Audit 16Campus Wide Diversity Audit 14% 12% 7% 2% 2% 2% Strategic Diversity Leadership Capabilities I Diversity Inclusion Statement I Diversity Inclusion Plan I Diversity 3: Inclusion Committee or Taskforce Diversity I1 Inclusion Point Leadership I Diversity Inclusion Annual Report I Diversity Inclusion Performance Review I Diversity 3: Inclusion Discretionary Resources 38 A Lack of Strategic Investment into Diversity Issues at GSU These audit findings are not surprising, knowing that disengagement with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts was a common theme with a number of listening-session participants (specifically, with chairs and directors, student affairs leaders and faculty). They noted that conversations on campus have happened in pockets or silos, but most of those have been reactionary to incidents on campus. Further, they indicated that very little follow-through or strategic planning has occurred in light of these incidents and conversations. Also reported was very little faculty participation in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Indeed, the campus-wide community design forum event featured more than 500 people in attendance, with few from the faculty. Staff noted that there is a lack of leadership as it pertains to the campuses’ diversity agenda. Stakeholders were not able to identify a clear message, plans or actions that align with the development or implementation of DE&I work as a university priority, all themes driven home by our findings here. In fact, during these sessions, several leaders/administrators were unable to articulate how diversity and inclusion is a part of their role and responsibilities. Participants in staff and administrative sessions indicated that diversity, equity and inclusion are being addressed only in fragmented pockets or areas. They asked, “Who is responsible? Who is our leadership?”, “How are we defining this and moving forward?” and “There’s lots of talk and inconsistent actions.” With regard to the presence and engagement of leadership, Black students reported that they had never seen a White administrator at their clubs and organizational events. A number of administrative session participants indicated that the institution has never entertained the town-hall approach for responding to bias incidents, moving instead in secrecy. One administrator noted, “We don’t take more risks and give people the opportunity to share their voice. Leaders aren’t taking into account how inequities affect staff, admin and faculty, and instead focus on giving us verbiage on what to say to students.” Additionally, participants pointed to the recent turnover in leadership as problematic. They indicated that every president talks about faculty recruitment, but that there appears to be no strategy and no steps to improve faculty diversification. Faculty and staff reported a dearth of women and people of color in leadership positions, yet very little dialogue or strategic planning to diversify leadership exists on campus. Several faculty members spoke to the reality that there are only white males holding chair, associate dean or dean positions in their colleges. They indicated that this phenomenon is also the reality found in much of the leadership at the university level. Organizational Implications Reflecting upon our analyses and the data collected, the following needs can be seen: • • • • • • The need to develop a north-star vision for diversity, equity and inclusion as well as a framework, a plan and goals to drive GSU’s diversity, equity and inclusion intentions. The need to build a decentralized diversity, equity and inclusion infrastructure to advance the central framework that lives locally in the schools, colleges and units that make the university run on a daily basis. The need to assess pay equity and representation issues around gender. The need to develop a plan and an approach to increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of both faculty and campus leadership. The need to create accountability and incentive systems to both push and pull change over time. The need to create a strategic diversity leadership program to help leaders in all functional areas to lead around issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. 39 SECTION 7: SEVEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACCELERATE INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE Georgia Southern has much work to do to improve campus climate and develop a stronger overall commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Positive momentum was created during the 2018/2019 academic year, but questions that must be answered now are exactly where does it go from here and how does it get there? In this section we offer seven key recommendations that are designed to help jump-start this process (Exhibit 7.1). It is imperative to understand that expanding the diversity commitment of Georgia Southern University is about more than one hire—it is about more than even the new diversity officer. The core of this effort must center on collaborative and collective work that recruits many others in its implementation, while touching every person in the university, in every sector and at every level, from administrators to students, on every campus. The more people who are activated by this infrastructure and activity, the more this work will accelerate in positive and beneficial results for the university, both internally and externally. These benefits are multifold and will carry through to the university’s student body, to its ability to attract talent, to its reputation, to fundraising efforts and more. Exhibit 7.1. Inclusive Excellence: seven recommendations for Georgia Southern University Context: Recommendation #1 is the foundation for the success of inclusive excellence efforts at Georgia Southern. While the three categories below are discrete units, they all depend directly on the effective implementation of recommendation #1, and the impact of recommendation #1 will factor into each category in various ways. Recommendation Recommendation #1: Rapidly prototype a new strategic diversity leadership framework, accountability system and launch plan to guide your work. Description Move fast and create vision and architecture for change that activates as part of your new strategic plan and demonstrates action to the campus community. Potential Tactics • Develop a broad and inclusive definition of diversity. • Establish a vision for Inclusive Excellence as the overall leadership for your work. • Include a multidimensional framework for developing campus diversity goals and a plan. • Include a scorecard tool to track progress. • Use accountability tactics to ensure implementation and success. • Generate fast energy and movement to quiet the naysayers who say Georgia Southern is not committed. • Align with the campus strategic plan including Inclusive Excellence as a core pillar of that plan. Vision, Personnel, Infrastructure Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2: Choose big-bet action steps to drive change. As described above. Put in place several big-picture initiatives that can spark real change over time. Recommendation #3: Develop the role of AVP for Inclusive Excellence and build an Office of Inclusive Excellence. Establish a meaningful diversity and inclusion role that is more than a symbolic figurehead and is well positioned to support DE&I efforts on all three campuses. Continued on next page As described above. • Choose big-bet action steps that can lead to meaningful change. • Training and professional development. • Intergroup dialogue program. • Cultural competence into curriculum and co-curriculum. • Annual inclusive excellence forum. • Faculty and staff diversity program. • New Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence and diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) infrastructure. • Faculty mentoring and recognition initiative. • Title: “Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence.” o Holds AVP operative priorities. o Manages Office of Inclusive Excellence. o Establishes tripartite Strategic Diversity Leadership budget. • Consider important background characteristics for your new AVP. • Consider developing a divisional portfolio for the new diversity office. • Develop diversity crisis advisory team. 40 First Priorities Recommendation #1 Recommendation #4: Strengthen GSU’s institutional diversity brand in the area of diversity, equity and inclusion. As described above. Create communication strategies to tell the positive narrative of diversity, with transparency and authenticity. Recommendation #5: Elevate the strategic campus integration journey across Statesboro, Armstrong and Liberty campuses. Develop an approach to heal through the pain of consolidation, creating a new narrative that dovetails with this report and the new strategic plan. As described above. • Benchmark institutions with strong websites, including U of M, RIT, Case, American. • Shift to more story-based, less crisis-response communication approach. • Build a campaign around the new narrative of inclusive excellence. • Regularly highlight stories of diversity, equity and inclusion. • Develop a clear plan for managing DE&I crisis communication. • Support the new AVP/Diversity Officer in messaging. • Use the new AVP hire to galvanize energy and excitement. • Establish a podcast, newsletters and other platforms to specifically drive the culture of Inclusive Excellence. • Get senior leadership engaged in conversation about Inclusive Excellence, particularly at Armstrong. • Establish a working group to identify five greatest sticking points and work the challenge. • Leaders create forums for community members to discuss challenges and to problem-solve. Implementation Recommendation #6: Develop a campuswide lateral diversity infrastructure in every school, college and divisional area. Recommendation #7: Engage the campuses to develop a campus climate survey. Build a campus-wide infrastructure of DE&I roles, processes and expectations to activate a consistent and meaningful commitment to change. Gather follow-up data to benchmark for the winter 2019 survey, to assess change and progress. • Implement a campus diversity crisis advisory team. • Establish point leaders on campus diversity, equity and inclusion by school, college and division on each campus. • Establish committees by school, college and division. • Set alignment plans by school, college and division. • Create support in both the offices of Development and Alumni Affairs. • Develop a campus climate study • Set up legacy measures to establish time-based indicators to monitor progress. • Integrate this survey into the campus activation strategy. 41 Recommendation 1: Rapidly Prototype the Development of a Strategic Diversity Leadership Framework, Accountability and Launch Plan to Guide Your Work Drive Inclusive Excellence We recommend that GSU adopt and develop a clear strategic diversity leadership framework and launch a plan that embraces diversity broadly, as it is defined to include race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, internationalization, disability and diversity of ideas. The 21st century paradigm of diversity and inclusion must be broad and pointed in the work that you do. What this means is that you must have a broad framework for how you plan to tackle diversity, equity and inclusion that is complimented by a strategic plan and a scorecard that is clear and pointed in its priorities, action steps and big bets to drive change. Your framework should encompass a diversity and inclusion vision statement, dimensions of organizational diversity priority, an educational/business case rationale for diversity, goals for each area and key metrics to track your progress in the form of a scorecard (Williams, 2013). A framework that defines the strategic diversity idea as something more than representation of diverse students, faculty and staff (Williams, 2013) is required. Additionally, you should develop a framework that commits the institution to organizational diversity as a set of actions in the following areas: • • • • Access and equity of outcomes for diverse students, faculty and staff. Preparing all students for a diverse and global world. Creating a multicultural and inclusive campus climate of inclusion. Advancing diversity-themed research and scholarship to develop new forms of knowledge, understanding and engagement that tackle complex challenges best met by a faculty that is diverse in terms of social and cognitive factors (Page, 2017). Focus on Accountability An essential aspect of this plan is to build institutional accountability into the system. Accountability should include requiring annual alignment plans and status reports by school, college and divisional areas and requiring that search committees achieve a diverse interview slate before interviews can begin. Given the lack of campus-wide engagement with this work, illustrated by our campus-wide audit, this level of accountability is critical. Every dimension of GSU’s diversity plan will require data to complete the scorecard (Williams, 2013).3 In the bestcase scenario, institutional research will produce an annual diversity indicator report across various dimensions of the SDS to provide a regular means of tracking progress, creating transparency in the effort and ensuring a high level of engagement with the diversity implementation journey. In addition to these data, other regular survey and interview data may be required to supplement institutional data that are generally very strong in terms of issues of recruitment, retention and success, but not in terms of campus climate, student engagement and scholarly productivity. A regular commitment to gathering these data can be helpful for building a robust set of quantitative and qualitative data across every dimension of the scorecard. We specifically are speaking to the need for a follow-up campus climate study in the fall of 2020. Faculty Turnover Quotient Given some of the themes that we learned of during our study, we think that having specific indictors that look at faculty turnover could be very meaningful for creating a culture of accountability at Georgia Southern. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) recommends using a faculty turnover quotient calculation as a powerful indicator to help institutional leaders understand faculty retention issues (Moreno, Smith, Clayton-Pederson, Parker and Teraguchi, 2006). 3 Strategic Diversity Leadership provides a list of potential data indicators and discusses the data indicator process at length to guide the development of new campus diversity plans. 42 The faculty turnover quotient shows the percentage of new faculty replacing those who have left, as opposed to faculty hired for new positions, over various diverse groups. The higher the turnover quotient, the more the campus is simply treading water, trying to replace those who have left. Higher numbers can show you problem spots not otherwise observable. Dividing the net change in core faculty by the total number of new hires during the period under study derives the turnover quotient: Faculty Turnover Quotient = [1- (FacultyTime2 - FacultyTime1)/New Hires] * 100 Exhibit 7.2. Faculty turnover quotient example Population White Faculty Minority Faculty Faculty in 2000 1000 100 Faculty in 2010 1500 105 New Hires 700 20 Turnover Quotient 29% 75% In Exhibit 7.2, 75% of all minority faculty hires simply replaced people who left. Only 29% of White faculty hires, however, replaced old hires. In this scenario, the institution under examination has a revolving-door challenge with minority faculty hires. Again, this same data measure could be used to create an indicator for other (or for all) employee categories. Accountability in Hiring and Performance Review Another way to approach building your diversity framework is to create a clear definition and way of accounting for diversity in competitive hiring decisions, ultimately ensuring that diversity is more than an invisible variable in the process. Too often, even if faculty diversity exists in the pool, committees have no way of calibrating the value of diversity versus research publications, institutional reputation, etc. Creating an actual process for valuating diversity as a weighted variable in decision-making will be important. Finally, we recommend including diversity and inclusion as a performance metric in annual performance reviews and as part of faculty activity reports as well as contracts for deans and senior leaders. Placing diversity into these traditional systems is essential to building the strong campus-wide commitment you seek. Rapid Prototyping to Drive Action and Engagement As we all know, the academic nature of the academy is generally slow, resistant to change and lived in silos. As a result, most planning teams and committees take as much as 12-18 months to produce a diversity and inclusion framework and action plan. The question for Georgia Southern is, “How can you accelerate this process? How do you go about getting something done today?” To go faster, the key for you is to build from this report and the emerging Georgia Southern strategic plan. It was obvious from our interviews that few could stomach a lengthy, 12-month planning process for diversity and inclusion. They want to see something happen now. The trick is to rapidly prototype a framework and launch plan and then quickly move that through the institutional process of shared governance and vetting to ensure that it does not have type of top-down energy that has frustrated so many about the consolidation process. This strategy will be challenging, but it is possible with a process that begins on top and then both cascades down and bubbles up at the same time. Developing a Big-Bet Launch Plan for the Framework We recommend fast-tracking this process and developing a framework with a big-bet launch plan during the summer or early fall of 2019. The key for Georgia Southern is to: (1) Create clear parameters around the plan deliverable; (2) Appoint an executive sponsor who is responsible for delivering the project; (3) Create a small sub-committee to drive the work; (4) Tap an internal project manager to serve as the 100% time lead to drive action; and (5) Create clear plan for vetting the action plan, with a plan to launch in the fall. 43 The plan must be built in the spirit of a minimal viable product (MVP) and have only the essential elements and big bets to drive action at a central level, in addition to requiring alignment at a school/college/divisional level. A key milestone would be aligning this process with the budget to ensure that some level of resources is in place to launch the plan. The launch plan would involve: (1) A public, high-profile declaration of your public intention; (2) Alignment commitments from key leadership; and (3) an outline of five to ten big-picture initiatives that you believe will accelerate the university forward in this area. In building up to launch, as well as in the post-launch period, it will be essential to engage faculty. Faculty is very knowledgeable with regards to what impacts their success on campus. Georgia Southern must rebuild relationships with faculty to reestablish trust and to create spaces where feedback from faculty is considered in the decision-making process, while not getting bogged down. As this recommendation comes to life, ask yourself: how can you use digital tools, make every meeting a chance to update and give feedback on the process and to otherwise overachieve in communication at all levels, creating multiple inputs from the community as well? How can a massive amount of energy be put into moving faster – but while doing so with engagement? Answering this question is the true challenge, particularly given the three-campus reality of Georgia Southern and the noted resistance to digital engagement. Recommendation 2: Choose Big-Bet Action Steps to Drive Change We believe that change is driven by your big bets; the places where you think you can generate tremendous value and drive outcomes. Too often, most diversity plans are long lists that don’t hang together or make the biggest impacts. Across your Strategic Diversity Leadership Framework, make some big bets on what you want to commit to in terms of driving change. The key is to be pointed and make choices, not do everything all at once, even though the community will want everything all at once. Some big-bet actions steps that we recommend for consideration are: • Professional Development Training Plan. Commit to a clear diversity and inclusion professional development training plan to ensure that every Georgia Southern faculty, staff and employee has, at minimum, a 3- to 4-hour diversity and inclusion professional development experience directly aligned with their day-to-day reality as faculty, deans, department heads, staff members and executive leadership. This training should use case studies, videos, simulations and other active pedagogies to not just expose the campus community to topics like implicit bias, the challenges of faculty diversity and micro-aggressions, but also to help them overcome these challenges now and moving forward. We do not recommend mandating this experience, but we do recommend making participation in the program something that is tracked, made public and accounted for as a part of performance management and accountability on campus. A key tactic will be determining the year-over-year goals for the program. It would be powerful to achieve 50% participation in year 1, 80% by year 2 and more than 90% by year 3. This tactic should align to an overall goal and have more than one learning experience beyond the introductory learning experience. • Curriculum for Cultural Competence. Integrate the findings and recommendations of this report with the Strategic Planning and Academic Curriculum committees to define how the curriculum and co-curriculum can elevate cultural competence as a key 21st-century leadership skill. This step might include, for example, a new general education requirement, first-year experience initiative, integration across the curriculum and prioritizing areas for study abroad, undergraduate research and service learning that take on issues of diversity, social justice and inclusion as top priorities. It will be important to ensure that any new additions work for the Statesboro, Armstrong and Liberty campuses. We especially think a first-year experience program, leveraging a common book program and principles of intergroup dialogue are essential. • Intergroup Dialogue Program. Develop an Intergroup Dialogue Program to drive conversation and interaction across differences for students, faculty and staff as well as develop a higher level of cultural competence and ability to interact across differences at Georgia Southern University. Structured settings for 44 intergroup dialogue are becoming increasingly common on college campuses. Some are offered as a class, others are conducted as a workshop or retreats, or part of a residential learning experience. These discussions are most productive when they are facilitated by trained instructors, have a clear purpose and objective, and are sustained and ongoing. Ideally they allow for a combination of personal participation and deductive learning. Topics are far ranging, but the goal is always to bring people together for honest, open exchange about difficulty or controversial issues. The University of Michigan dialogue program is probably the most well-known and replicated, although strong models exist at the University of Arizona, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin and UMASS Amherst. • University-wide Infrastructure. Announce the creation of not just a new chief diversity officer leadership role, but also more prominently a university-wide diversity and inclusion infrastructure. (See recommendation #1.) Every unit or divisional area should have a point leader on campus diversity and inclusion as well as a local diversity and inclusion committee. This committee should have strong representation, a clear set of goals that are aligned campus-wide and leaders who can make a difference. This committee should not be comprised only of persons of color, nor diversity and inclusion champions. To achieve success, it must have balance and leadership voices from many places. The other element of the infrastructure is to develop a senior administrative cabinet-level role in the area of strategic diversity leadership. A chief diversity officer should have the capability to provide campus-wide leadership, visibility and complementary executive presence to the president, provost and other senior leaders. We return to this set of ideas in Recommendation 6, which focuses on this idea of the campus-wide infrastructure. • Inclusive Excellence Forum. Establish an annual campus-wide Inclusive Excellence Forum event. This event is designed to provide for a day-long commitment of training and professional development, showcasing what is going on across campus and creating a space for public accountability and meaning-making where the president, provost, deans and senior leadership share what is going on across campus. It is also a place where inclusive excellence leadership awards for deans, faculty and staff may be given as a way of creating a public recognition of those individuals who are making a special difference on campus. • Hiring Fund. Develop a strategic faculty diversity hiring fund to support leaders in hiring top faculty talent, even if it is outside of a search. It is our experience that having a “target of opportunity” hiring fund of this type is key to moving quickly in faculty diversity hiring. At minimum, it should define faculty diversity in a very precise way. This might include women who are underrepresented in certain fields, historically underrepresented minorities and those who make unique contributions to the intellectual diversity of the campus community, for example, a White male who is a potential member of the nursing faculty. Faculty governance should also authorize this framework. The broad definition of diversity and faculty governance sign-off are all part of achieving risk mitigation, as is the need to work closely with your general counsel in crafting such a strategy. Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) lay out much of this approach in their suprachapter on faculty diversification strategies that win. This program will require a substantial financial investment, allowing for either new hire lines, partial lines, or lines that are loaned to a department until a line opens up. Each of these approaches comes with different strengths and areas of opportunity. • Faculty Mentoring and Recognition Plan. Develop a mentoring, leadership development and recognition plan for faculty at Georgia Southern. While it is unclear exactly how the program should be designed, we are very clear that a faculty-mentoring program could play a critical role in the development and retention of diverse faculty members for Georgia Southern moving forward. Recommendation 3: Develop Your AVP CDO Role and the Office of Inclusive Excellence Many in the Georgia Southern University community expressed a strong desire to have a dedicated senior diversity administrative function on campus. There was a unified perspective, however, that this person cannot be the only person responsible for leading campus diversity and that the president, provost and other senior leaders must champion the campus’s diversity efforts and clear the way for the chief diversity officer to provide collaborative leadership in advancing the campus’s strategic diversity leadership agenda. 45 The Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence and Chief Diversity Officer It is within this context that we recommend that the university create a full-time senior-level diversity leadership position that carries the title Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence to help lead and galvanize new diversity outcomes on campus. Leveraging the grounded definition of the CDO and the overarching design theory noted by Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), the CDO’s role is generally defined as follows: Reporting to the president and/or provost, the chief diversity officer is an institution’s highestranking diversity administrator. The position designates an individual who serves in a senior administrative role working toward diversity-themed organizational change as a top priority at the highest levels of leadership and governance. The role is integrative, spans administrative and institutional boundaries and reflects the CDO’s capacity to lead, coordinate, facilitate, enhance and at times supervise the formal diversity capabilities of the institution in an effort to create an inclusive and academically rewarding environment for all. Within this context, diversity is not merely a demographic goal but a strategic priority that is fundamental to creating a dynamic educational and work environment that fulfills the teaching, learning, research and service mission of the institution. This level of title and rank will send a strong message to the campus community and others that this role is critical for the university and that strategic diversity leadership is one of the university’s top priorities moving forward—as long as this role has resources and support to provide far-spanning leadership across all three campuses. As part of this positioning, we recommend that this Associate Vice President (AVP) role have a day-to-day reporting line to the president, with a dotted-line relationship to the provost, to ensure that the role is fundamentally anchored in the academic affairs side of the university. Strategic Span: A Focus on Strategic Diversity Leadership One of the challenges in creating any new diversity leadership role is that its strategic span will be misaligned with its span of control and span of relationships (Exhibit 7.3). That is, the role will be charged with a huge administrative portfolio (strategic span) that requires a tremendous amount of collaboration and lateral dexterity (span of relationships), but it will have insufficient human, financial or structural resources to accomplish the goals of the job. Put simply, this person will not have enough budget, staff, accountability systems or lateral structures to deliver their portfolio of responsibilities. It is for this reason that we offered the other recommendations noted here. Diversity and inclusion work is always about change management, shifting from one reality to another. It is for this reason that the new diversity officer needs this big-picture framework to have a far-reaching but well-defined approach to providing leadership on all three campuses. Your community is frustrated by a perceived lack of commitment, campus infrastructure and action. This type of framework will not only position the new diversity officer for success but also provide greater clarity to help campus community members understand how everyone can pull together to move the institution forward. Exhibit 7.3. Misaligned strategic spans Source: Williams and Wade-Golden (2013). 46 Associate Vice President Operative Priorities The diversity officer’s strategic span of leadership should focus on a high-level academic diversity engagement as a three-campus-wide priority that galvanizes Georgia Southern to a higher level of diversity priority, discipline and collective impact. The CDO should not be mired with actually reviewing complaints of discrimination or leading student, faculty or staff diversity training themselves. The CDO may provide leadership to this work though policy, supervision and priority-setting. Nevertheless, the key theme in of many of our conversations was that the CDO should be a big-picture leader who partners with other senior leaders and the campus community to coordinate and tighten the many pieces of the campus’s diversity agenda into a more cohesive whole and who has the resources, staff and systems in place to lead change. An officer whose role is focused in this way will devote their energy to building a sustained diversity shift as well as a capacity-building effort that is founded upon a coordinated set of tactics that ladder up the big-picture strategic agenda wholistically, as an institution. In addition to its focus on campus policy and activities, the office needs to create a presence locally and regionally for the university on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. We recommend these areas of focus for this new role and their team: (1) Strategic planning and implementation of a campus-wide (and university-wide) diversity plan and innovation system, complete with accountability processes and change management systems. (2) Ongoing diversity-themed leadership skill development for all campus leadership, improving the campus climate of inclusion for students, faculty and staff, and preparing all to better live and lead in a world that is increasingly diverse, global and interconnected. (3) Establishing and facilitating new faculty diversity recruitment and retention initiatives. (4) Strengthening the university’s external, community-facing efforts by engaging with diverse constituents and communities and partnering to find external financial resources to drive change internally. (5) Collaborating with relevant leadership to ensure that all the university’s diversity efforts are highly complementary, evidence-based, successful and similarly focused on a shared vision for the campus community’s diversity interests, broadly defined. (6) Leading a portfolio of diversity and perhaps even community outreach units that can allow the officer to lead through others as a difference-maker facilitating change at GSU across all three campuses. The Office of Inclusive Excellence We recommend a rebranding in establishing an Office of Inclusive Excellence. The Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence should lead the Office of Inclusive Excellence, which should have as its operational mission to lead, guide and expand the work of diversity, equity and inclusion, broadly defined—to work to build leadership capacity and steward the university forward collaboratively towards an inclusive excellence. The creation of such an office with an Inclusive Excellence title and mission elevates the stature of this unit and creates the expectation that they are the go-to place for partnership, technical support, resources and assistance with advancing diversity related issues institutionally. Some pointed recommendations that we offer for building the unit are (Exhibit 7.4): • Create an executive director for inclusive excellence that serves as the operational lead for the office and is the deputy senior diversity officer to the Associate Vice President. This would be a mid-level leadership role that would ideally be occupied by someone who is strong on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion and is superior in the areas of operational excellence and getting things done. • Appoint a diversity and inclusion program and research group (1-3 FTEs) that would serve as staff within the unit, supporting the direct work of the unit and helping to partner with campus leaders on training, institutional research, convening campus meetings, conferences, outreach, communications and other activities of the unit. These individuals would be masters-level and potentially new PhD-level individuals that bring diversity of skills to the unit. This capacity would be phased in over time (Exhibit 7.4). 47 • Create an administrative operational team (1-2 FTEs) that includes administrative support, business and finance and technical support to the office. As the campus-wide engagement and programming gets more complex, this capability will prove essential. Such a capacity would be phased in over time (Exhibit 7.4). • Create a faculty and staff diversity recruitment and retention specialist role led by a faculty member on a fulltime, bought-out position. This role would become a dedicated outreach and recruitment specialist developing the faculty and staff leadership diversity recruitment and retention programs. This capacity would be phased in over time (Exhibit 7.4). • Hire two graduate students for the unit at the master’s or PhD level in relevant areas to provide additional program, research and technical support (1 FTE). This capacity would be phased in over time (Exhibit 7.4). • Establish a tripartite budget framework for the office that includes support for: (1) Office operations, (2) An Inclusive Excellence Innovation fund and (3) faculty diversity recruitment and retention. Skeletal numbers are provided that we have found sufficient to establish a strong beginning platform for the office at launch, in addition to the unit’s legacy budgets. • Finally, align any legacy budget, staff and units into the new model. Any such units can be reorganized, or dedicated diversity and inclusion budgets that exist within another relevant office can be reallocated to the new AVP. A Tripartite Strategic Diversity Leadership Budget Many institutions that create a new chief diversity officer role often do so without a plan to finance the role and its ability to impact campus. Though the best officers will inevitably lead through visibility, symbols, technical expertise and the reflective influence of the chancellor, they also require human and financial resources to allow them to take actions and produce new results. The presence of a dedicated diversity budget will empower the officer and allow this individual to launch and ultimately evolve their role to have collaborative impact over time. Too often, institutions will create a high-profile new diversity officer role and pay little to no attention to the budget that the role will control. As a result, the officer is then forced to work within the scope of their president or provost’s budget, requesting permission for even the smallest expenses. This approach to developing and launching the role not only limits the formal authority of the position but also illustrates a level of paternalistic oversight that is in direct contrast to the entrepreneurial and creative autonomy of the best diversity officers. To be truly effective, the officer has to be viewed as a senior leader who is structurally empowered to spark new initiatives and go wherever needed to advance the campus’s strategic diversity leadership agenda. Though a fully developed startup budget plan is beyond the scope of this report, we have found that it is important to think about the new CDO budget in three interrelated parts (Exhibit 7.4). 48 Exhibit 7.4. Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence budget framework Budget Dimension Departmental Operations Description Inclusive Excellence Innovation and Partnership Fund Inclusive excellence innovation fund to support small one-time grant projects as well as large multiyear matching grants. Faculty Diversification Fund Targeted faculty diversity fund for the CDO to use in partnering with faculty search committees, deans and department heads and others in pursuing the institution’s campus diversity goals. General salary and expenses budget for the chief diversity officer. Potential Tactics Salary Consultants Travel Hosting Events More Student, faculty, staff and organizational small grants for less than $1500. Minimum of $10-20K grants that must be matched by multiple funders for two to three years to tackle a tough diversity challenge that can only be effectively engaged through collective action. Search committee grants. Departmental grants. Departmental Memo of Understanding (MOU) to drive new hires, retention, dual career possibilities. Phase 1 Phase 2 • Associate Vice President (1 FTE) • Executive Director Deputy (1 FTE) • Administrative & Operations Support (1 FTE) • Program and Research Team (2 FTE) • 1 Graduate assistant (1 FTE) • 2 Faculty diversity fellow (Faculty Course Replacement + Stipend) • Travel and Discretionary Budget ($100K) • Legacy budgets reallocated • Foundation accounts controlled by AVP • Y1: $25K • Y2: $75K • Administrative & Operations Support (+1 FTE) • Program and research team (+1 FTE) • 1 Graduate assistant (+0.5 FTE) • Faculty diversity fellow (+1 Faculty Course Replacement + Stipend) • Travel and discretionary budgets (+$50K) • General fund (50-100K) • Target of Opportunity (TBD) (with Provost) • Additional search activities • Expanding the interview pool • Enhancing competitive offers • Post-doctoral fellows • Seeding new lines • Retention opportunities • Dual career support • General fund (TBD) • Target of Opportunity (TBD) (with Provost) • Additional search activities • Expanding the interview pool • Enhancing competitive offers • Post-doctoral fellows • Seeding new lines • Retention opportunities • Dual career support • Y3: $100K • Y4: $150K • Y5: TBD 49 Reorganization of Current Campus Units It is beyond the scope of our assessment to outline what units may move into the chief diversity officer’s portfolio of direct supervision, but we strongly recommend this as design option. We do offer several ideas for your consideration in thinking about developing a departmental or divisional CDO role. Exhibit 7.5 captures the most common critiques for developing a vertically integrated CDO portfolio and the counterpoint argument. This question is always highly politicized because it involves a perceived loss of power and influence for one or more senior leaders who could potentially have a number of direct-reporting units moved out of their portfolio for the sake of creating a more vertically integrated CDO portfolio. Exhibit 7.5. Supervising portfolio critique: counterpoint overview portfolio Critique of Vertical Integration “By removing a particular unit out of my area, we have removed diversity out of my span of control and now diversity is no longer part of our focus.” Counterpoint Just because a particular diversity unit is not in the direct portfolio does not mean that other units have no responsibility for supporting unit diversity efforts as part of overall university-wide strategy. “By putting diversity units under the CDO, we ghettoize diversity, making it one person’s singular responsibility.” Putting diversity units under the CDO simply gives this person a more direct ability to leverage the campus’s dedicated diversity resources. It in no way means that other leaders are no longer responsible for diversity. Also, the “ghettoizing diversity” perspective is using a symbolic lens to discuss organizational design when in reality a structural lens should be the guiding beacon for change because the goal is to align resources to create greater synergy between strategy and structure and drive enhanced impact. “We cannot put multiple units under the CDO as this will totally compromise the campus-wide coordinating mission.” Though this point can be true, again, this outcome only results from poor job/role design. On the contrary, the presence of vertical structure gives the CDO more direct control over how to align the university’s dedicated diversity budgets, staff and overall capacity to drive a campus-wide diversity agenda. We offer this table and its counterpoints because we hear these same critiques offered over and over again, regardless of which campus we are visiting. At the same time, these arguments are never made in other areas, for example, that reorganizing the admission officer under a vice provost for enrollment management “ghettoizes” enrollment management. Too many seldom use a strategic diversity leadership lens to think about structure. This new model is saying diversity and inclusion is now a functional area of responsibility and we want dedicated and campus-wide leadership to advance it as an institutional priority at Georgia Southern University. Why Create a More Vertically Integrated CDO Portfolio In creating a more vertically integrated CDO portfolio, the goal is not to eliminate others’ responsibilities for activating an all-campus diversity solution. The fact is that many of the campus’s diversity resources would be more effectively leveraged if they reported directly to the campus’s senior-most diversity officer. Obviously, many different units will be in the CDO’s span of attention, however, there is a difference between being a unit that the CDO works with and has a dual-reporting structure with and being a unit that is a directly reporting area in a divisional portfolio. It is beyond the scope of this report’s analysis to offer a hard recommendation for the units that should be potentially integrated with the new diversity division in some way or form. At the same time, several areas should be considered for some level of connection, whether that be through a direct integration into the formal vertical portfolio of the new CDO or as part of a dual reporting structure. Noting these units in this matrix is not an indictment that the leadership currently provided to these areas is deficient in any way around issues of diversity. Nor should it be interpreted as 50 anything more than an item for consideration towards making the best decisions possible in building a universitywide infrastructure. Our final thought on this recommendation is that decisions should be made by focusing on what is in the best interests of campus diversity efforts and by enabling the university’s new diversity infrastructure to be maximally positioned for success by moving beyond personal feelings and perceptions. You can rationalize any configuration desired. The key is to make the best decision possible given your goals, resources and willingness to tolerate risk and new pathways to potentially find new opportunities. Important Characteristics for A New Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence It will be important to hire a senior diversity leader who brings a number of qualifications to the role. Some key concepts that should be taken into close consideration are as follows: • It is essential that the new officer have a strong understanding of the culture of higher education and an ability to interact with faculty and academic leaders. • It is recommended that the officer has a terminal degree. A PhD and record of publication are desirable. Tenure is a value-added bonus to the individual’s portfolio. • We would not require “tenure” in the job description as it will dramatically limit the pool, preferring to attract a broad pool and set the role up within this context. • We suggest seeking ten or more years of experience leading campus diversity efforts in higher education with a strong ability to articulate the 21st-century academic and business case for diversity. • The effective candidate for this role will be a relational leader with a high-caliber ability to build effective partnerships with academic leaders, community members, students and more. • This person must be an effective communicator with an especially strong ability to give public remarks and persuasively communicate in authentic ways with diverse audiences. • The most effective senior diversity officers will understand issues of access and equity, campus climate and inclusion, leadership development, faculty diversification, infusing diversity into the curriculum and more. Though they may not be an expert in each of these dimensions, the most effective candidate will be an expert in a number of these areas and have an ability to learn what they do not know. Though it would be desirable to recruit someone who has experience as a cabinet-level senior diversity officers or officer, this may not be possible. As a result, we think that prior experience as an executive-level leader should be preferred, but not mandatory, as long as the ultimate candidate has enjoyed ever-increasing levels of responsibility in their prior roles. • • We recommend creating a transition team to help the new senior diversity officer to get off to a strong start, especially in their first two semesters on campus. • The earlier and more frequently that you communicate the level of resources the senior diversity officer will control, the better the caliber of your applicant pool and the faster this officer will be able to launch with success following recruitment. • Though some recommend using an executive recruitment company, I have not always found that their results justify the cost of their involvement, as they tend to continually source the same candidates rather than uncovering new ones. 51 • To maximize your search, the committee may want to attend a major diversity-themed meeting and create a high-profile footprint at the event. Some examples include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), National Conference on Race and Ethnicity (NCORE), American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Diversity and Learning, or even the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). At this event, the idea is to host a reception, give a workshop and/or perhaps take a small group to dinner. In this way you can recruit while creating buzz about your efforts and the general direction you’re going. By having a team on the ground and by creating excitement, you will go a long way to driving your senior diversity officer’s candidate pool. • Finally, find a candidate with genuine operational knowledge of how to lead. Prioritize their giving examples of true leadership in moving a complex agenda forward. Recommendation 4: Strengthen Institutional Branding in the Area of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Concurrent with the other recommendations, Georgia Southern should develop a clear approach for how you will market and position the university around issues of diversity, equity and inclusion – around Inclusive Excellence. While we did not do a deep dive here, GSU’s web presence seems very activity-oriented and less story-driven with little public accountability and clarity about your direction institutionally around issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. Some recommendations include: • Examine the websites at American, Case Western Reserve, U of Michigan and RIT as strong, but not perfect, examples. • Develop a campaign approach to launching your next inclusive excellence planning and activation project as the new AVP comes on board. Use this event to build a new narrative amplifying success and authenticity. • Use the opportunity surrounding the new AVP’s arrival and presence as a springboard to this new narrative. • Double down on telling positive stories of diversity, equity and inclusion happening regularly at Georgia Southern University. • Publish an annual Inclusive Excellence Update Report that has both traditional and multi-media components. • Establish a university-inclusive excellence podcast that can be used to broadcast institutionally about what is going on. • Develop a regular e-newsletter in this area, or a dedicated element within your current periodicals, to continually tell the story. • Invest in developing a clear messaging framework around inclusive excellence that can be provided to every senior leader. Provide coaching for senior leaders and ask them to begin regularly using this messaging framework in their own work. Recommendation 5: Elevate the Strategic Campus Integration Journey Too often in restructurings, we see organizational integration interpreted as a destination or a given and not a journey. It is most definitely a journey, and the work of evolving and integrating campus cultures takes much longer than digital systems in many instances. At this moment, the culture at Georgia Southern University is fragile, particularly on the Armstrong campus. We recommend that this journey and its evolutionary nature become a point of emphasis moving forward, with GSU 52 establishing some dedicated time and energy commitments to look at ways to accelerate the knitting together of your communities in a more powerful way. It is our experience that you need to communicate often, much more than what one might consider natural, to help people understand your direction. These communications need to be extremely clear. Given this report, how can you lift from these ideas and your direction to develop some new communication approaches that can help university employees understand the direction that you are taking, your strategic priorities, and any new processes of tenure and support. We know that it is easy to feel like “we have already done that,” but it is obvious to a number of faculty that more communication and reassurance is required. More than factual communication, we feel that these leaders want to be communicated to with dignity and respect both for how things were and what they are becoming. Some leaders, though not all, are angry and grieving the loss of their culture and ways of operating. The biggest mistake occurs when an institution communicates once, or even twice, about a fundamental change and thinks it is done. Instead, it must keep communicating, even repeating things it believes people have heard already, so that those people understand that you mean it and so they know in their hearts that you value them as they witness you also listen to them as part of this communication process. Some potential action steps here include: • Restart a working team that prioritizes strategic integration, picking up from the consolidation process, to determine how you can prioritize culture-building. • Identify the top five communication pain points and gaps and then develop a series of micro-learning tools, videos, flyers and talking points for leaders to clarify and provide support towards ongoing change and cultural integration. • Have the president, provost and other senior leaders get back into the Armstrong campus in a natural and organic way, beating the pavement as if the integration is happening for the very first time. Start the conversation again, showing empathy and understanding while acknowledging lessons learned—while still driving forward the new strategic plan and findings of this report. • Tap a group of Armstrong faculty, in particular, to identify key themes that they feel are being missed in terms of the economic challenges and hardships of students. • Link all these ideas to the other ideas noted here to ensure that the new Strategic Diversity Framework, launch and big-bet action plan are all coming together in powerful ways. • Campus leadership must discover avenues to understand what elements of the transition are impeding offices and units from carrying out their jobs effectively after consolidation. Deans could establish a space (for example, on the first Friday of the month) to connect with academic and staff leaders to analyze how the transition towards consolidation is impacting their work. This information would be critical towards developing how each college will strategically plan to align with an overall institutional vision. Recommendation 6: Develop the Lateral Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Infrastructure The university’s lateral diversity infrastructure is essential to the long-term success of Georgia Southern’s efforts to achieve inclusive excellence. Too often this is the type of work, however, into which little to no design thinking goes for building an institution’s infrastructure. Our belief is that these recommendations are among the most important for moving you towards successful implementation of this new officer. We offer several insights to move you towards this crucial goal: • LGBTQIA Center. Consider the development of an LGBTQIA Center, to provide dedicated support for this campus community and their allies. This need seems especially acute, to have such a center strategically located at the Statesboro campus to build community on campus and across Georgia Southern University. 53 • Institutional Diversity Crisis Advisory Team. Establish an institutional Diversity Crisis Advisory Team that can respond immediately, visibly and thoughtfully to campus diversity incidents. This team should be cochaired by the CDO and perhaps the president’s chief of staff. It might include membership from the university police, Student Affairs, Communications, faculty governance and student leadership. By way of example, the University of Texas at Austin has in place a strong process of review and reporting that they use to review campus bias incidents. • Dotted-line Relationships. The provost should identify the key areas of the university that need to establish a dotted-line relationship with the Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence. • DE&I Point Persons. Identify a diversity, equity and inclusion point person in each school, college and divisional unit that will serve as the activation lead for putting the campus inclusive excellence framework and plans in place within that area of responsibility. While the dean or vice president of a given area will have ultimate responsibility for implementing the diversity efforts of the campus, having a point person that will work directly with the AVP and the Office of Inclusive Excellence is essential. • DE&I Committees. Create, in a related fashion, a committee in every school, college and divisional unit that will work to carry forward the diversity activation plan in that area and that is led by the appointed inclusive excellence activation lead. • Annual Plan Review Process. The AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership should develop a campus-wide operational process to receive, review and offer feedback to each unit’s annual inclusive excellence activation plan. The AVP’s team should use this process to provide technical support and clarity to the colleges on each operational plan. If the plans are not strong, then developmental support should be given towards their improvement. While the AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership owns this process, the provost has ultimate accountability for success and must be a full partner in bringing the operational discipline the university requires to move forward. • Development Point Person. Identify a point person in Foundation/Development/Advancement who will serve as the key partner to the new AVP, with a dedicated percent of their effort formalized to support the AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership and the Office of Inclusive Excellence. • Alumni and Community Point Person. Identify a similar point person in Alumni Affairs and Community Engagement who will partner and support the AVP in building external relationships with key groups. • Communications Point Person. Identify the key point person in Institutional Research and University Communications that will be the dedicated person charged with supporting the Office of Inclusive Excellence to drive out with new communication and campus-wide assessment projects in the area of inclusive excellence. • DE&I Funding Code. Develop a more stringent approach to tracking your diversity, equity and inclusion spends across campus by creating an inclusive excellence funding sub-code. Full-time equivalent diversity personnel, operational budgets and efforts should be coded with this Inclusive Excellence code. This step will allow the university to have more clarity on its diversity spend campus-wide and will create a mechanism for stronger financial accountability towards aligning the campus’s previous financial resources to the bigpicture Inclusive Excellence framework and strategic plan of the campus. The AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership should support the president and the provost in defining how this new data will inform the potential increase and allocation of these funds moving forward. Every unit that dedicates funds in this way now has a stronger line of accountability back to the AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership. • Community Engagement Advisory. Establish an external advisory committee (or relationships) on diversity and community engagement that is convened by the AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership that brings together such members of the community as Chamber of Commerce (retail) representatives, local education and nonprofit leaders, and even local law enforcement into a conversation with campus leaders. This 54 convening would focus specifically on issues of diversity, community, equity and inclusion. Given the important work being done in community engagement, perhaps this group can be co-led by other key senior leaders as well. • Committee Memberships. The president and the provost should identify the top three to five committees and advisory boards that the AVP for Strategic Diversity Leadership will lead or join, internally and externally, to fulfill the promise of their role. This may involve phasing leadership of a particular group to the new officer, when the time is appropriate for the new hire to assume this responsibility of leadership. Recommendation 7: Implement a Campus Climate Survey in the Fall of 2020 A more rigorous study of the campus climate represents an important action step for creating an even more evidencedbased understanding of your campus culture. We recommend building from this current report and forging forward in the fall of 2020, announcing a full campus climate survey as another big-bet effort that you are making to create an evidence-informed accountability approach to diversity success. Items from the fall study can represent important dimensions to your Strategic Diversity Leadership scorecard and framework that were outlined in Recommendation 1. From a more methodological perspective, we recommend using an instrument that builds from the study offered here and adds more demographic categories as well as additional psychological, behavioral and strategic diversity leadership dimensions. This research activity should be implemented as part of a bigger campaign effort and with the full voice of senior leadership. The goals are to collect a second time interval of data, to assess the degree to which your campus has hopefully made some critical process in the areas of campus climate satisfaction, belonging and value, and institutional diversity commitment. 55 SECTION 8: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND NEXT STEPS This report outlined a detailed roadmap for how to better position the university as a leader around growing issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. Within this research, we offered insights about Georgia Southern’s campus climate as well as promising practices in terms of building a clear framework of action, rapidly moving forward, establishing a campus-wide diversity, equity and inclusion infrastructure, and easing the lingering pain and challenges from your recent merger and consolidation. Culture change is difficult for everyone. To master it successfully requires great clarity of focus and an articulated vision of the direction in which the community is going, in addition to stellar and frequent communication along the way. For many institutions, creating an inclusive campus has been largely defined by how effectively they increase the numbers of students, staff and faculty of color, with disabilities, of the LGBTQIA community, as first-generation and international students. And to some degree they would be right. Yet increased numbers do not automatically transform a system, culture, or climate into one that operates well as an enriched and safe place. Higher numbers do not eradicate micro-aggressions, unconscious bias, or outright prejudice that may stand in the way of someone’s success. A campus can recruit more students and faculty and staff of color, but unless the climate is welcoming to them, the likelihood of these students persisting to graduation, the faculty and staff succeeding and growing in their careers is diminished, not to mention the prospects of fully preparing these individuals to thrive in a world and a campus community that is increasingly diverse, global and interconnected in so many ways. This report and the seven major recommendations offered here should maximally position Georgia Southern to build on its diversity of representation by embracing a broader vision of possibility. While we recognize that the reality of financing can create constraints in terms of what is and is not possible, we know that the commitment and the creativity of this institution will allow it to make the best decisions for its community, given the specific recommendations offered herein. As you consider this report and your next actions, there are several steps that stand out as powerful ways to leverage this report: 1. Staff from the Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership and Social Innovation will partner with you in the fall of 2019 as you begin build leadership capacity to drive inclusive excellence, implementing a 2-day Strategic Diversity Leadership Training Institute for key campus communities. 2. Inform the campus community by distributing this report or its executive summary directly to key constituents and making the full report available behind the University intranet. 3. Develop an activation plan that outlines the key elements of this report that you are poised to advance on the timeline of implementation. 4. Discuss the report with your senior leaders and ask them to produce a brief, one-page memo outlining their plans to support activation of those recommendations that you are poised to advance. 5. Discuss the report with governance leaders and charge them to support activation of those recommendations that you are poised to advance. 6. Develop and finalize your AVP-level CDO job description and guide the change management steps that will become necessary to put in place the myriad, excellent suggestions that have been offered here. 7. Onboard any executive recruitment firm or internal strategy you will be working with to pursue top-tier talent in support of your efforts to recruit and hire a tier-one diversity officer. 56 8. Gather ideas to present to job candidates and ask them to provide guidance on how they would address and work to overcome some of the challenges noted in this report, including consolidation issues, the need to achieve greater levels of buy-in and accountability institutionally and the need to create operational discipline to accelerate change at Georgia Southern. The insights from this report could be used to formulate important questions that candidates should be poised to answer as they go through the vetting process. 9. Identify possibilities in terms of taking new action steps that move the university forward in supporting your new diversity officer, their transition into the university and changes they make. Use this report as a tool for discussion and alignment to access what leaders have already put in place in the various schools and colleges that must be supported by this new officer. Use it as an onboarding tool to support the transition of the new diversity officer in their first 90 days of efforts, once they have been hired. Now is a time of excitement and transition for Georgia Southern University. Your community participated in a series of conversations focused on how the university can become a better, more mission-centered and high-performing institution for the 21st century by fostering diversity and inclusion. An essential next step will be to ensure that institutional leadership is aware of and committed to building an inclusive, supportive campus environment where every member of the faculty, staff and student body is valued and encouraged to reach their highest potential in service to the institution’s strategic goals. On behalf of The Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership & Social Impact, thank you for the opportunity to serve your intentions and efforts as you take advantage of this critical time in your history to drive new impact on campus. We look forward to your next steps and are proud to be a friend to your work. 57 CITED WORKS Bobo, L., and Hutchings, V. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, 951-972. Garcia, J. and Hoelscher, K. (2010). Managing diversity flashpoints in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education (ACE). Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of Social Issues. 61(3), 595-610. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., and Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302. Moreno, J. F., Smith, D. G., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Parker, S., Teraguchi, D. R. (2006.) The Revolving Door for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Higher Education: An Analysis from the Campus Diversity Initiative. San Francisco, CA: The James Irvine Foundation. Page, S. (2017). The Diversity Bonus. New York, NY: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Watkins, N. L., Kim, R. H., Kim, S. and Williams, C. D. (2011). Racial dialogues: Challenges faculty of color face in the classroom. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 17, 331-340. University of Michigan DE&I Campus Climate Team. (2016). Results of the 2016 University of Michigan student campus climate survey on diversity, equity and inclusion. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Downloaded May 2019 from https://diversity.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DE&I-STUDENT-REPORT-FINAL.pdf. Williams, D. (2013). Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing Press. Williams, D., and Wade-Golden, K. (2013). The Chief Diversity Officer: Strategy, Structure and Change Management. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing Press. Williams, D., Berger, J., and McClendon, S. (2005). Towards a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. 58 ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership & Social Innovation: Research Team Dr. Damon A. Williams, PhD, is a scholar, leader and educator passionate about making organizations inclusive and excellent for all, creating equitable educational outcomes, and activating learning and leadership in ways that are transformative and inspiring of new possibilities. Dr. Williams is one of the nation’s recognized experts in strategic diversity leadership, youth development, corporate responsibility and organizational change. He is currently Chief Catalyst for the Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership & Social Innovation (CSDLSI) and a Senior Scholar and Innovation Fellow at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Wisconsin Equity and Inclusion (Wei) Laboratory. From 2013-2017, Dr. Williams led a $250M social impact portfolio for the world’s largest youth development company, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, representing the interests of nearly four million diverse youth globally, as the Senior Vice President for Programs and Chief Education Officer. In this role, he led the national program strategy for BGCA’s strategic outcome areas—academic success, good character and citizenship, and healthy lifestyles—with a focus on strengthening the daily Club experience and creating a new generation of leaders to expand the pipeline into higher education. Prior to joining BGCA, he served for five years as Associate Vice Chancellor, Vice Provost, Chief Diversity Officer and member of the educational leadership and policy analysis faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has authored or co-authored dozens of books, monographs and articles that have influenced thousands worldwide. Brandy Bryson, PhD Research Associate, CSDLSI Dr. Brandy Bryson is an honors faculty member and associate professor in the Reich College of Education's Department of Leadership and Educational at Appalachian State University. Bryson also serves as the inaugural director on the Appalachian State University’s Inclusive Excellence team. She is a sociologist of race and education. Her research interests include critical perspectives on race and whiteness, racial literacy courses, culturally relevant pedagogy and qualitative research methods. Dr. Bryson earned her PhD in Social Foundations of Education from the University of South Carolina. Caitlin Fass, PhD Research Associate CSDLSI Dr. Fass is an assistant professor at Mt. Saint Mary’s University. She teaches courses in the area of developmental psychology, introduction to psychological concepts and theories and in the area of applied statistical methods. A certified life coach, she coaches leaders and faculty members to help them achieve maximum performance. She received her PhD and MS degrees from Virginia Tech University in the area of Human Development. Raul Leon, PhD Research Associate, CSDLSI Dr. Raul Leon is an Associate Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Eastern Michigan University. He is an active researcher with more than 50 publications and does extensive work around international living experiences. At Eastern Michigan, Dr. Leon serves as the faculty associate for the BrotherHOOD Initiative, a living and learning community designed to foster success for males of color on campus. Dr. Leon received his PhD in Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis (ELPA) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Derrick Jenkins, PhD Research Associate, CSDLSI Dr. Derrick Jenkins is a researcher and scholar with over 17 years of experience in program design, student affairs administration and organizational development. His areas of expertise include developing strategies and campus infrastructures that support increased student recruitment, retention and graduation rates for underserved and underrepresented populations and creating diverse and inclusive pedagogical campus spaces. Dr. Jenkins has written numerous books, book chapters, opinion editorials and scholarly articles. He received his EdD in Educational Studies from the University of Cincinnati. 59 Sallye McKee, PhD National Director of Institutional Engagement, CSDLSI Throughout her 40-year career, Dr. McKee has led as Chief of Student Affairs, in enrollment management and as Chief Diversity Officer at multiple institutions. Her professional experience includes supervisory oversight of multimillion-dollar program budgets and unit portfolios, supervising affirmative action processes, admissions, financial aid, student life and more. On five different occasions, she has successfully launched campus diversity offices and partnered with the president, provost, deans and faculty members to create new campus-wide diversity plans and initiatives. Dr. McKee received her PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Minnesota. Ms. Deiadra Gardner Director of Operations and Outreach, CSDLSI Ms. Deiadra Gardner is writer, researcher and editor with over ten years’ experience in project management, program design and implementation, and survey instrument design and implementation. Ms. Gardner has previously served as chief of staff to various university administrators and corporate executives. She earned her BA in English from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. About The Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership & Social Innovation (CSDLSI) The Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership and Social Innovation (CSDLSI) was founded in 2017 by Dr. Damon A. Williams. Serving as the center’s Chief Catalyst, Dr. Williams is an award-winning scholar, educator, speaker, strategist, consultant and social-impact leader with over 22 years of experience working with more than 1,000 colleges and universities, corporations, nonprofit and government agencies. By leveraging evidence-based resources and best practices, validated research instruments and scales, and cutting-edge technology, the center has positioned itself to be a catalyst for change across all sectors. CSDLSI’s mission is to empower leaders, produce results and help corporations, organizations and institutions to create a more inclusive environment and community. The CSDLSI’s work is guided by the principle of Strategic Diversity Leadership—the evidence-based approach to leading diversity, equity and inclusion centered strategy, leadership development, change management and research. The center works to strengthen organizational infrastructure and develop strategic planning capabilities by adhering to the center’s principles: always begin with “why”—using questions to guide its approach when developing project methodology; apply culturally relevant approaches; and search for and curate excellence, always working to reapply the best solutions. The center achieves its goal by bringing academic credibility and a pragmatic focus to all its projects. Dr. Williams and the CSDSLI team uses design thinking to create new possibilities that can accomplish real and meaningful change in organizations and communities. CSDLSI specializes in and offers the following services: • • • University and Organizational Research and Evaluation, such as organizational climate and culture research, campus climate and field studies with formal written evaluations and mass survey instrument development and administration. Organizational Change Management and Strategic Planning Consultation, including leading organizational redesign and change management efforts; designing vertical and lateral diversity structures; diversity planning in higher education; chief diversity officer (CDO) role design; developing diversity accountability strategies; establishing strategic faculty and staff hiring and retention programs; and developing general education diversity distribution requirements. Professional Development and Training Programs (both in-person and online) designed to focus on capability building, strategic diversity leadership development, and diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) research and best practices. Each summer, the CSDLSI offers the National Inclusive Excellence Leadership 60 • Academy (NIXLA), a five-week, online, team-based training and professional coaching and development program. Some of the topics featured during the NIXLA are: - • Strategic Diversity Leadership The Inclusive Excellence Model Higher Education and Shared Governance Expanding Access to Higher Education Faculty and Staff Diversity, Recruitment and Retention Strategies and Best Practices Increasing Women and Underrepresented/Minority Student participation in STEM - Diversity Planning and Implementation Understanding the Centennial Generation Youth and Leadership Development Accountability and Incentives Diversity Crisis Response Assessing and Improving Campus Climates Managing Your Organizational/ Institutional Diversity Brand Fundraising for Diversity and Inclusion Corporate and Executive Consultation - Executive Education and Coaching - Thought Leadership Strategy and Development - Leadership Development and Executive Coaching Training Program Design Some of the CSDLSI’s past and present clients and partners include: - BSE Global, Inc. NCAA FedEx Ground American Airlines OHM Advisors TFA-South Carolina National Black MBA Association, Inc. Kellogg Community College Cal Poly University Carnegie Melon University Florida Gulf Coast University Syracuse University Georgia State University Agnes Scott College University of Denver 61 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, Queer, Intersexed, Asexual. we noted in the methodology discussion, this research project was not a full-blown campus climate survey, but rather a top-level process designed to provide insights into the general milieu of the campus environment across the three campuses that comprise Georgia Southern University. As a result, analyses are high-level and presented to give the general story of inclusion, satisfaction and perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity, rather than to go into the unique experiences of diverse groups by campus affiliation, race-ethnicity, gender identity, or LGBTQIA. 3These analyses do not feature a discussion of Native American or Middle Eastern Georgia Southern community members. While their lived experience is important to understanding the overall context of race, ethnicity and campus climate, their low response levels did not allow for a statically valid analyses of responses. Fewer than 20 respondents and findings were not enough to build statistical significance in comparison to other groups. 4 The Oxford English Dictionary defines cisgender as, “Denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender.” 5 This perspective is outlined in great detail in Williams’ (2013) Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education. Fairfax, VA: Stylus Publishing Press. 1 2As 62 .. ,Dr. DAMON A. WILLIAMS Damon A. Williams, Brandy Bryson, Caitlin Fass, Derrick Jenkins, Raul Leon, Sallye McKee, Deiadra Gardner, BS June 2019 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP SOCIAL INNOVATION