Cultural Audit: Final Report Nichols and Associates, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
October 2002
Table of Contents

Students
Level I: Frequency Analysis of Item Responses

Student Demographics

The total sample included 164 respondents. A breakdown of student sample demographics is presented below.

Race:

White/Caucasian 54.9%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 20.7%
Other Racial/Ethnic Group 12.8%
Black/African American 7.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 1.8%
Arab-American/Middle Eastern 1.2%
Biracial <1%
There was one missing case. (See Figure 1).  

Hispanic/Latino/Chicano origin or decent:

Non-Hispanic 97.0%
Hispanic 1.8%
There were two missing cases.  

Gender:

Male 48.8%
Female 50.6%
There was one missing case. (See Figure 2).  

Age:

17-20 43.9%
21-25 42.1%
26-30 9.1%
31-35 3.7%
36-40 <1%
41-45 0%
46-50 <1%
51+ 0%
(See Figure 3).  

Spiritual/Religious Affiliation:

Christianity 57.9%
No religious affiliation 15.2%
Other religious affiliation 6.7%
Islam 6.1%
Buddhism 5.5%
Hinduism 4.9%
Wicca 2.4%
Judaism <1%
Baha'i <1%
(See Figure 4).  

Student Status:

Freshman 23.8%
Sophomore 29.3%
Junior 21.3%
Senior 15.9%
Graduate 9.8%
(See Figure 5).  

International Student:

Yes 38.4%
No 61.6%
(See Figure 6).  

International Student Native Country:

Countries most represented were:

Length of Study at St. Cloud State University:

1 year or less 38.4%
2 years 34 .8%
3 years 14.0%
4 years 8.5%
5 years 1.2%
More than 5 years 2.4%
There was one missing case. (See Figure7).  

Full- or Part-time Student:

Full-time 95.7%
Part-time 4.3%

Summary of Findings: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF SCSU

4 Wishy-washy: Adjective. (informal). Lacking the qualities requisite for spiritedness and originality; ineffective; indecisive; insipid.

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "agree" (item values of 1 and 2), "uncertain" (item value of 3), and "disagree" (item values of 4 and 5).

Pride and school spirit are high for at least one-half of the student sample. This translates to a positive commendation for SCSU, as the majority of respondents would recommend the university to other prospective students. Similarly, approximately one-half of the sample found campus life exciting and challenging (interpersonally and academically).

The hockey team holds great interest by many students, but not all. Since many international students (who made up 38% of the survey sample) are from Asia, Africa, Middle East and South America, they may not be familiar with the game of hockey and not have the same appreciation that Americans and European students have for the game in general and the university team's national reputation in particular. During Phase I of the audit, Nichols and Associates, Inc., noted several international student organizations i.e., International Student Association, Chinese, Greek, Korean, Pakistani, Scandinavian and Vietnamese groups. This finding also indicated that students find other campus events and services attractive, compelling and closely aligned with their personal and academic interests.

In general, the faculty was perceived, by the majority of respondents, as being sensitive to everyone. In a similar item, only one-fifth of respondents believed that the faculty was insensitive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) issues. According to focus group data, the GLBT group is perceived as somehow different from other student interest groups.

In recent years, negative press about the university – complaints of discrimination, lawsuits, disparate treatment, etc. -- has been cited in local and national publications. Consequently, the image of the university has been impacted. However, the majority of students was uncertain or disagreed that their morale has been affected by the negative press.

Less than one-half of respondents felt free to voice their opinions at open forums. This finding may be impacted by the relatively junior status of student respondents, their cultural background, and/or the conservative climate of the university. Less than one-half of respondents were aware of procedures to submit a complaint or grievance regarding unfair and biased treatment.

Racial and ethnic student interest groups or clubs on campus are generally perceived as instrumental in providing support in the campus/academic survival process and persistence to graduation. Consequently, student groups are important to maintain, sustain and bolster the number of racial and ethnic students on the SCSU campus. Moreover, respondents suggested that students who fully acknowledge and celebrate their own ethnicities and histories gain some sense of those complex and diverse cultural locations that provide them with a sense of voice, place, and identity. They require direct or indirect support, direction and sensitivity from university faculty and staff in order to remain viable and solvent.

Moreover, none of this is to indicate that collegiate social life is a bustling business, but appears that its profile and location have changed. On campus, there is probably a greater diversity of activities available than ever before, but each activity appeals to smaller and prescribed pockets of students. This is, in many respects, the consequence of student organizational mitosis and the proliferation of the divides between undergraduates.

According to our interviews, there appears to be less large-group socializing and that more students are participating in activities individually and in small groups versus campus-wide. Our interviews revealed that current students described themselves in terms of their differences, not their commonalities. Increasingly, they indicated, directly and indirectly, that they associated with people who are most like themselves rather than different. This fact coupled with the finding that over one-half of respondents believed the campus is not free of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia lends SCSU to a climate that has a high potential for tension and conflict.

Summary of Findings: CULTURAL VALUES

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "characteristic," "moderately characteristic," and "slightly/not characteristic."

The current results reflect students' perceptions of the cultural values as well as the overall climate of the university. Approximately one-third of respondents indicated that it was either slightly or not characteristic of the university to value diversity, to practice bias toward religious and ethnic groups, reward innovative approaches to problem solving, condone groups or individuals to fight over resources, share decision making with students, possess integrity when dealing with students, and is ethically and morally principled.

Between 43% and 48% of respondents indicated that it is not characteristic of the university to treat every employee and students fairly, possess integrity in dealing with faculty, and to care about students completing their studies in a timely manner.

Summary of Findings: STUDENT EXPERIENCES

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into the three general categories of "agree," "uncertain" and "disagree."

Approximately one-half of respondents was glad they chose to attend SCSU; lived-up to their potential; and are involved in many social activities. On the other hand, nearly one-third of respondents indicated that enrolling at SCSU was a definite mistake and believed they had not received very good career guidance. A slight majority had questions about the quality of their academic experience.

A significant percentage of respondents received encouragement and support from faculty and students to pursue their academic and personal goals. In contrast, a large percentage of students often felt isolated and alone. The same percentage of respondents thought if they had some help adjusting to campus life, they would have a better start. How one commences their academic experience usually dictates how it proceeds. We believe a review of student orientation programs/services especially for freshmen is indicated.

A significant percentage of respondents have experienced taunting and/or harassment on campus and in the city of St. Cloud based on their demographic characteristics. The unfavorable response to non-traditional and minority students by majority students and St. Cloud residents possibly leads to resentment which lends itself to taunting and harassing behavior. The harassers resort to this type of behavior without regard to authorities because most are aware there is little or no recourse for students who are the targets of harassment.

Summary of Findings: STUDENTS' OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES

Summary of Findings: ANTI-SEMITICISM SCALE

Summary of Findings: ANTI-AFRICAN AMERICAN SCALE

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into the three general categories of "agree," "uncertain" and "disagree."

Diversity efforts and policies -- strategies used by universities to encourage the inclusion, acceptance, and respect for cultures that are non-white, not dominant, and/or not Euro centric – appear to be compromised to some extent according to students. There is a perception that there is a resistance to SCSU diversity efforts. In general, this type of resistance comes from various personal and institutional sources. According to focus group data, low-grade tension regarding diversity and difference runs across college life. Minority staff and students talked about friction in the departments; in the residence halls; in reactions to visiting speakers; in campus activities and the social pursuits of the day; in the dining hall, and sports facilities; basically in every aspect of their campus lives.

Although there is a policy statement from the Office of the President regarding nondiscrimination and diversity, implementation of diversity efforts is an ongoing challenge for SCSU. Many diversity experts have attributed part of the difficulty to the natural resistance to change (e.g., uncertainty, discomfort, loss of control). Notwithstanding those who outright oppose the concept of diversity, the difference between understanding the concept and accepting the implementation of diversity initiatives is a barrier that must be surmounted.

We are referring to organizations in general and universities in particular that agree with the notion of embracing diversity, but is less than supportive of its integration into the fabric of the organization. This phenomenon exists in varying degrees from the university boardroom where diversity policy is developed to the Deans, departments/offices, and classrooms where the policy is implemented. Simply put, the cognitive understanding of the benefits of diversity will not necessarily lead to its acceptance.

Resistance to diversity is the interference that precludes the harmonious assimilation of diversity into an organization. The following are some examples of diversity resistance and may or may not be characteristic of SCSU, but clearly has some relevance to the current survey findings:

Diversity resistance may seem like a mysterious occurrence at SCSU because some are able to recognize it and others cannot. We only see what we can see and "we don't know what we don't know." In this regard, many who resist diversity have a cognitive understanding of the benefits of diversity, but are not supportive of its integration into the fabric of the university, and may not be aware of their obstruction. In fact, members of other client organizations of Nichols and Associates, Inc., have reported being able to recognize their diversity blind spots helped them to identify traces of their own diversity resistance. Because our blind spots are part of our make up, any external assessment or scrutiny of them may be taken as a personal affront. The challenge, therefore, is to get people to recognize their blind spots without creating a defensive or adversarial environment.

As Lowe (1999) noted, diversity efforts have stalled at some institutions because they continue to "manifest characteristics of an unconscious institutional racism expressed in the form of a hegemonic assumption and shared belief about the "normalness" of the social and intellectual traditions of the place" (p. 41).5 The challenge facing selective institutions in enrolling underrepresented minority students will only be increased if unconscious institutional racism is paired with unconscious institutional ignorance of colleges as a potential source of competitive students.

The excitement of the student life noted above comes with its challenges especially to a large number of minority students. There appears to be disparate treatment as well as taunting directed at students (presumably by students) across race, gender, religion or lifestyle. To what degree it is reported or resolved is unclear given the parameters of the current assessment.

With respect to disparate and/or unfair treatment, ideally and realistically the Administration would prefer reports of isolated cases of unfair treatment rather than a pattern or a significant percentage of a racial, ethnic, gender or different lifestyle groups reporting disparate treatment. According to the results, a significant percentage of students were taunted and/or harassed based on their personal demographic both on and off campus. The degree of that harassment is not delineated by this survey. However, students are encountering stressful and potentially threatening experiences.

Many social scientists explain harassment, taunting and intimidation within a continuum of behaviors from humor and put-downs to abuse and physical violence. Intimidation, which is indirectly addressed in this study, is within this continuum. Intimidation is the emotional response to a threatening environment. In general, intimidation based on gender, academic ability, and religion seemed to be an undergraduate problem in particular. Consistent with studies of student treatment, other students are a significant source of students' negative experiences. Undergraduate students have extensive interactions with each other, thus raising the probability of some negative interactions. Academic intimidation by students may be particularly acute at selective, competitive universities. It may also be that students notice underlying attitudes of faculty members and displace them onto female and minority students. Similarly, and more likely, students' interactions with each other mirror the values of the larger society in which women's intellect is undervalued.

Student attitudes toward Jewish and African-American faculty and staff are conservative. A large percentage of respondents indicated that the university is not ready for a large number of Jewish and African-American faculty and staff. They perceived the university administration to hold conservative attitudes that would not necessarily facilitate the hiring, acceptance and support of those religious and race groups. It appears that rather than expecting the university community to change to accept a wider range of cultural expressions, newcomers are expected to adopt the university's existing culture. To survive, they are expected to learn how to "fit in." Those who do not fit in are eventually dismissed or are allowed to "voluntarily leave" their position since they are not allowed to disrupt the mainstream, normal operations to the university.

It is speculated that students' perceptions are influenced by a number of contextual factors including, but not limited to family/personal background, social identity, political environment of the region, university climate/environment, and peer associations. For example, 68% of respondents were either uncertain or disagreed that the Administration was receptive to making changes in response to student reports of discrimination.

5 Lowe, E.Y. (1999). Promise and Dilemma: Perspectives on Racial Diversity and Higher Education. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Summary of Findings: SATISFACTION WITH STUDENT LIFE

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "satisfied" (item values of 1 and 2), "uncertain" (item value of 3), and "dissatisfied" (item values of 4 and 5).

Overall, the majority of students are satisfied with the library's level of technology, computer availability, and laboratory equipment/apparatus. Focus group data gathered during Phase I of the current cultural audit suggested that campus computer support was satisfactory to the majority of students.

However, personal academic support from faculty and administration indicates another perspective as less than one-half of respondents are satisfied with faculty support and tutoring. This may be particularly telling given that a large percentage of respondents were international students who may require tutoring and academic assistance especially if English is their second language. Over one-half of respondents were satisfied with classroom instruction.

The number and variety of social, recreational and athletic groups appear to be a major satisfier among the student body. According to the response ratings to those items, there appears to be a variety of academic, social and academic activities on campus providing a balance of learning opportunities and social interaction for most students.

The relationship between students and the administration is a challenge. The results suggest the majority of students are either uncertain or dissatisfied with the administration listening to their concerns and with the resolution of those concerns. Similarly, the majority of students are either uncertain or dissatisfied with the amount of support from the administration in regard to harassment in the city of St. Cloud.

Summary of Findings: INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

In general, my relationship with white administrators, faculty and staff within university: X= 2.78;sd=1.42; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with Native American and Alaska Native faculty within the university: X=2.99; sd=1.48; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with East Indian faculty within the university: X=3.41; sd=1.81; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with Asian faculty within the university: X=3.00; sd=1.61; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with Jewish faculty within the university: X=2.71; sd=1.32; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with males within the university: X=2.67; sd=1.35; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with females within university: X=2.60; sd=1.42; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with students of color within the university: X=2.40; sd=1.37; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with international students within the university: X=2.41; sd=1.57; range=1-7
In general, my relationship with GLBT students within the university: X=3.00; sd=1.74; range=1-7

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "excellent" (item values of 1, 2 and 3), "uncertain" (item value of 4), and "poor" (item values of 5, 6 and 7).

According to the survey data, it appears the majority of student respondents (range: 68% to 90%) have favorable relationships with various racial/ethnic, gender and student groups on campus. Overall, personal and professional relationships (i.e., academic relationships) do not appear to be compromised.

Table 1
Summary of Major Positive and Negative Perceptions of Students

Major Positive Perceptions:

Major Negative Perceptions:

Summary Discussion:

International students. Practitioners who work with a diverse population in educational institutions increasingly find themselves in situations that require them to engage effectively in cross-cultural exchanges between themselves and their students. The number of international students studying within the American higher education system in general and at SCSU in particular higher education continues to increase. Many student affairs professionals and faculty members are in leadership positions of determining the direction of resource acquisition, resource allocation, and program planning for international student programs and support services. Because of this SCSU, professionals need to have a working knowledge of the past and present demographic changes and trends that affect international students.

As Huntley (1993)6 noted the changing demographic trends of international students in the early 1990s:

It is clear that several trends emerge from the present... demographics of internationals students: the international population is composed of more Asian students, more graduate and doctoral students, and more women than ever before, and it is expected that those numbers will increase significantly over the course of the decade (p. 3).

Student affairs professionals must be asked to assume active roles as international educators. For their positions, expertise, and involvement with internationals students' lives makes them, in fact, key personnel in the recruitment, retention, and support of international students.

6 Huntley, H. (1993). Adult international students: Problems of adjustment. Athens, OH: Ohio University.

Contemporary Students. Today's college students are a hard-to-reach demographic, they are responding less and less to traditional advertising media such as posters, radio and television commercials. For many organizations that communicate with this demographic, effective communication is often quite difficult. With over 90% of all U.S. college students online, the Internet is able to offer new and exciting ways of communicating with college/university students. Using existing resources on campus, SCSU will be able to build and maintain an effective communication medium with students.

As the American population changes, college graduates will need the skills necessary to deal with individuals with a wide array of backgrounds and perspectives. The fundamental goals of a liberal arts education --critical thinking, problem solving, and exposure to a broad range of ideas and topics, communications skills-- remain perfectly suited to assist students in negotiating and navigating a diverse world. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that SCSU continue to maintain its diversity strategies, policies and implementation programs. If SCSU students are to compete in a world market and in a world environment, they have to be prepared. They have to understand the world in which they are going to function and eventually shape. Diversity must be maintained so all SCSU students can benefit from a more diverse student body.

SCSU should work to eliminate the forces that push students off-campus and out of the university unnecessarily. For example, most colleges talk a great deal about multiculturalism, but, in general, have not translated the rhetoric into a climate that will make the campus more hospitable to all students.

Student retention is a critical issue. SCSU must be sensitive to all its students' needs to enhance their success. However, for both the University and for the students, not all attrition is a negative occurrence. SCSU should intervene and provide appropriate services to those who can benefit. Through reexamining and perhaps redefining what is traditionally implied by the word "attrition", SCSU can begin to better address the true problem of students' exiting behavior. Losing students who are and should be academically and socially successful at a particular University requires intervention. SCSU needs to provide appropriate, targeted services to facilitate student retention particularly with students of color. This can only happen if attrition carries both positive and negative connotations.

Multiculturalism. College and university campuses are more deeply divided along lines of race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and other differences today than in the past. A majority of faculty members at SCSU told us last year that the climate on campus can be described as politically correct, civility has declined, students of different racial and ethnic groups often do not socialize together, reports of taunting and sexual harassment have increased, and students felt uncomfortable expressing unpopular or controversial opinions.

Multiculturalism is a compelling yet painful topic for many students. The dirty words on college campuses now are no longer four letters: they are-six-letter words like "racist" and "sexist" and "homophobic," which is even longer. Students were reluctant to openly discuss the topic in mixed groups. In focus group interviews, students were more willing to discuss student activities than to discuss diversity on campus.

Institutional Discrimination. It is inferred from the survey results that institutional discrimination is prevalent at SCSU. Discrimination can occur both individually and institutionally. Acts of individual discrimination are often both conscious and obvious. They can be dealt with by either removing the person who discriminates from any position when such actions are meaningful or by inducing the person to halt the behavior in question. Institutional discrimination is built into the structure itself. Thus, it is covert and more tenacious. It can occur regardless of the desires or intentions of the people perpetuating it.

As institutional discrimination is built into the normal working relationships of institutions, its perpetuation requires only that personnel continue "business as usual." Its eradication requires much more than good will and policy statements; it requires active review of the assumptions and practices by which the institution operates, and revision of those found to have discriminatory results. Such an operation cannot be approached casually. Inevitably, dedicated, concerted effort is necessary. Since most institutions have been structured to discriminate in the past, the change in policy will not lead to a change in results unless there is also a change in the institutions. It is very easy to discriminate without really trying. It is very necessary for SCSU to put in the effort to stop such practices from occurring.

Administration, Faculty and Staff
Level I: Frequency Analysis of Item Responses

Faculty Demographics

The total sample included 237 respondents. A breakdown of faculty, administration and staff sample demographics is presented below:

Race:

White/Caucasian 81%
Black/African American 8%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 5%
Other Racial/Ethnic Group 3%
Arab American/Middle Easterner <1%
Native American/Alaska Native <2%
Biracial <1%
There were two missing cases. (See Figure 8).  

Hispanic/Latino/Chicano origin or decent:

Non-Hispanic 95%
Hispanic 5%

Gender:

Male 46%
Female 54%
There were two missing cases. (See Figure 9).  

Age:

51+ years old 38%
46-50 24%
41-45 13%
36-40 11%
31-35 8%
26-30 3%
21-25 2%
17-20 0%
(See Figure 10).  

Spiritual/Religious Affiliation:

Christianity 67%
No religious affiliation 16%
Other religious affiliation 7%
Judaism 4%
Hinduism 3%
Islam 3%
Buddhism <1%
Baha'i and Wicca 0%
There were two missing cases. (See Figure 11).  

University Status:

Administration and staff 46%
Professor 21%
Assistant professors 16%
Associate professors 10%
Instructors 6%
(See Figure 12).  

Full or Part-time:

Full-time 96%
Part-time 3%
There was one missing case.  

Length of Employment at St. Cloud State University:

11-20 years 28%
More than 20 years 19%
1-3 years 19%
4-5 years 14%
6-10 years 11%
1 year or less 9%
(See Figure 13).  

Union membership:

Union members 83%
Non-union members 13%
NA 2%
There was three missing case. (See Figure 14).  

Summary of Findings: EXPERIENCE IN THE WORKPLACE

Discussion:

For the purposes of the analysis, response items were collapsed into two categories. Response items "Very like me," "Often like me" and "Like me" were collapsed into one category. Response items "Seldom" or "Not like me" were collapsed into the other category.

The work experience of the majority of administrators and staff appears to be favorable. The majority of employees enjoyed satisfactory professional relationships and believed that they were positively influencing the lives of coworkers and students. In addition, the majority of respondents believed they could create a relaxed atmosphere with their coworkers and enjoyed working closely with their coworkers. Overall, the majority of employees was comfortable with their current work situation and was satisfied with their SCSU experience.

Summary of Findings: CAREER ADVANCEMENT & JOB EXPERIENCES

Discussion:

Responses were divided into three distinct categories (i.e., "excellent/good," "fair," and "poor/non-existent"). Results are mixed since most items did not indicate a definitive, significant majority. Evaluation processes for job performance and opportunities for career promotion or advancement are areas that are not well defined across university staff.

Respondents indicated that training opportunities, supervisory response(s) to problems or complaints, and a good use of their talents were positive job experiences. On the other hand, staff members are challenged by mentoring opportunities, usefulness of formal performance feedback, and supervision regarding their advancement. A review and "mid-course correction" is indicated in these job areas.

Summary of Findings: OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES (DIVERSITY & EEO EFFORTS)

7 The glass ceiling is one manifestation of the perpetual struggle for equal access and equal opportunity. Glass ceilings are the artificial, unwritten, invisible yet tangible barriers that deny women and minorities the opportunity to advance within their careers.

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "agree" (item values of 1 and 2), "uncertain" (item value of 3), and "disagree" (item values of 4 and 5).

University diversity efforts are perceived to be stalled, compromised, and impeded, however, it is not clear where the resistance to diversity originates since there may be several sources of resistance (i.e., historical, institutional, group and individual). However, according to this survey, a factor may be linked to the Union, which is perceived as not being supportive of diversity efforts. In contrast, the IFO, in general is perceived as being supportive of diversity efforts.

If a goal of diversity is inclusion, SCSU diversity efforts may need to be revisited to ensure that university staff fully understands the various facets of a university-wide and community effort that involves all faculty, staff and students. At minimum, staff should realize that "It [diversity] is a process that strengthens the intellectual mission of higher education."8

Approximately one-fifth of respondents thought that submitting a discrimination complaint would have a negative impact on their career. This finding parallels focus group findings as many thought they were "black-listed" and subject to retaliation after submitting a complaint or voicing a complaint. Over one-quarter indicated that they were not protected from retaliation (presumably from the person(s) they were complaining about). According to focus group data, discrimination at SCSU seems to come from a long history and institutionalized negative reactions directed at non-traditional faculty and staff. There is a subtle, yet pervasive cultural and attitudinal variance between traditional SCSU members and non-traditional faculty and staff. Many minority members and females cited incidences of discrimination, sexism and racism. When asked if they submitted formal complaints, members reported that their complaints are minimized, buried in administrative bureaucracy or simple ignored.

Survey results indicated that there is a significant perception of favoritism (i.e., preferential treatment) toward female employees. This perception may impact morale among university faculty and staff. However, our interviews with female employees indicated the opposite perception. Most of the female interviewees indicated that favoritism is usually reserved for majority males.

Training or staff development, a set of programmatic efforts to build new capabilities within faculty and staff, is important to the university processes especially in regard to change processes. It is possible that many members were not aware of training opportunities or many who desire training have not received the opportunity to enroll in training courses. On the other hand, perhaps the opportunity to receive training is not standardized or not well publicized throughout the staff.

According to focus group data, personal safety was a concern for many faculty and staff of color members. The current results also indicated that safety is perceived as a realistic concern. It is possible that majority members not affiliated with or who do not associate with minorities, Muslims, and Jews are not aware of the threat and predictably responded to the survey items.

The perceptions of Jewish and African-American faculty and staff are unfavorable. They reflect students' perceptions of the conservative nature of the staff regarding attitudes and opinions directed at Jewish and African-American faculty and staff. Even after more than 10 years of diversity efforts, the university climate appears to be in the early stages of organizational development relative to hiring and supporting minority faculty and staff. Overall, the university has not eliminated prejudice and remains to hold prejudicial attitudes directed at Jewish and African-American faculty and staff. According to focus group data, there is definite racial tension between racial/ethnic groups on campus. It appears from the results that the university has not fully realized that faculty and staff diversity contributes powerfully and directly to the quality of education at the SCSU.

The results also suggested an emotional conflict that is affected by dissimilarity in race and religion. It appears that, because race and religious attributes are relatively impermeable, people find it difficult to identify with (and easy to stereotype) those of a different race or tenure. Race and religious practice differences therefore tend to encourage heated interactions in this university setting. Given this tendency, university leadership may want to pay particular attention to group processes in multi-racial and mixed-religious background settings.

8 Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Prejudice and discrimination on college campus. In J. Ebehardt & S. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 263-279). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Summary of Findings: UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "agree" (item values of 1 and 2), "uncertain" (item value of 3), and "disagree" (item values of 4 and 5).

The type of channel used in communications can affect important work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction. The frequency of face-to-face communication between administrators, faculty and staff across department/offices is positively related to satisfaction. It is likely the quality and trustworthiness of information would be enhanced if the frequency of face-to-face communications were increased. In sum, SCSU administration should be more definitive in its commitment to communicating policy and pertinent information to university employees.

Summary of Findings: CO-WORKER AND MENTOR RELATIONSHIPS

Discussion:

The majority of staff members work with or associate with a coworker or coworkers that they exchange mutual (psychological) support and reinforcement and lends to a positive, progressive rapport. This finding supports a positive quality of work life for the majority of SCSU staff.

The literature revealed that support from colleagues and supervisors at work was an enhancement factor to job satisfaction. Investigators pointed out direct implications for management and work organization, indicating that attention to support of employees by supervisors is likely to improve job satisfaction and reduce rates of short spells of sick leave and thus may lead to an overall increase in productivity. Similarly, in the present cultural audit, positive relationships among SCSU supervisors and coworkers were highly influential forces in the work lives of the participants and were seen by them to be factors that promoted continued employment of staff.

Summary of Findings: SCSU WORKING CONDITIONS (JOB SATISFACTION)

Discussion:

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "satisfied" (item values of 1 and 2), "uncertain" (item value of 3), and "dissatisfied" (item values of 5 and 6).

A majority of respondents are satisfied with a number of job satisfaction parameters such as: working conditions, physical environment, quality of relationship with their supervisor, fairness of their supervisor, amount of reward and recognition, effectiveness of their Union, quality of relationship with the administration, suggesting improvements in the workplace, quality of relationship between Union and non-Union staff, quality of relationship between ethnic minorities and whites, and quality of relationship between SCSU and the city of St. Cloud.

The phenomenon of trust has recently attracted enormous attention within organizational research. Both in intra- and trans-organizational relations, trust have been recognized as a central mechanism in the coordination of personnel expectations and interactions. Without a certain degree of trust, it is almost impossible to establish or maintain successfully organizational relations over a longer period. Thus, trust is undoubtedly one of the key concepts in the analysis of the internal and external relationships of organizations.

The last item indicated that the majority of respondents were satisfied with the level of professional trust between themselves and the administration. This finding is significant in that it may indicate a basis to deal with many changes occurring in the university that require a unified front of administrators, faculty and staff.

The effects of the work environment on individual behavior and attitudes within organizations have been demonstrated within the general population and are well documented within management literature. Some research in the area of work integration does emphasize social or environmental factors, such as support on the job in facilitating better teamwork, improved performance, and an easier place to work. The findings of this cultural audit also reveal a relationship between employment and workplace climate. The psychosocial environment of the workplace and the extent to which individual needs can be accommodated were identified by staff as determinants of their job satisfaction.

Summary of Findings: INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

In general, my relationship with white administrators, faculty and staff within the university: X= 2.20;sd=. 972;range=1-6
In general, my relationship with African-American faculty and staff within the university: X=2.20;sd=1.043;range=1-7
In general, my relationship with Native American and Alaska Native faculty within the university: X=2.16;sd= .936;range=1-5
In general, my relationship with East Indian faculty within the university: X=2.27;sd= .970;range=1-6
In general, my relationship with Asian faculty within the university: X=2.15;sd= .897;range=1-5
In general, my relationship with Jewish faculty within the university: X=2.30;sd=1.064;range=1-7
In general, my relationship with males within the university: X=2.48;sd=1.060;range=1-5
In general, my relationship with females within university: X=2.15;sd= .925;range=1-6
In general, my relationship with students of color within the university: X=1.88;sd= .822;range=1-5
In general, my relationship with International students within the university: X=1.98;sd= .794;range=1-6
In general, my relationship with GLBT students within the university: X=2.06;sd= .814;range=1-4

Discussion:

This scale ranged from 1 to 7, with "excellent" and "poor" as the anchors. The means for each item were computed. The means range from 1.88 to 2.48 and the standard deviation ranges from .794 to 1.064.

For analysis purposes, the response categories were collapsed into three general categories of "excellent" (item values of 1, 2 and 3), "uncertain" (item value of 4), and "poor" (item values of 5, 6 and 7).

According to the survey data, it appears that the majority of respondents (range: 68-90%) have favorable relationships with various racial/ethnic, gender and student groups on campus. Personal and professional relationships on campus (i.e., academic relationships) appear to be favorable across and between groups of demographic variables.

Table 2
Major Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers of Administrators, Faculty and Staff

Major Satisfiers*:

Major Dissatisfiers**:

* Received at least the majority of responses
** Received less than the majority of responses

<< Previous Table of Contents Next >>

President's Office

Contact Information
Phone: (320) 308-2122

St. Cloud State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity educator and employer.
St. Cloud State University is a member of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system.
© 2012 St. Cloud State University