St. Cloud State University

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:

Malaysia
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Tanzania
Korea
Bangladesh

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

Approximately one-half of respondents are proud to be students at St. Cloud State University (SCSU) and 65% would recommend the university to others. Contrastingly, nearly one-quarter was undecided and approximately one-quarter was not proud to be SCSU students.
Approximately one-half of respondents (49%) found campus life exciting and challenging (i.e., personally and academically).
One-third (33%) of respondents agreed that the university has great student life services, yet 45% are uncertain and 22% disagreed.
A majority of respondents (43%) indicated they have lots of school spirit; over one-third indicated the opposite opinion and over one-fifth was uncertain.
Approximately 29% of respondents indicated that the men's hockey team is the only thing to get excited about on campus; 11% was uncertain and 60% disagreed.
Respondents were evenly split between agreement (38%) and disagreement (38%) on the opinion that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) group is unnecessary; nearly one-quarter was uncertain.
Respondents were evenly divided in their response to the negative press directed at the university and its affects on their morale; 32% agreed, 35% was uncertain and 33% indicated that the negative press had not affected their morale.
A slight majority of respondents (44%) was uncertain if student government "caves in" from pressure from administrators; 21% of respondents disagreed with the statement and 35% agreed.
One-third of respondents (33%) perceived faculty as not being sensitive to everyone regardless of demographic or lifestyle; 48% perceived faculty to be sensitive and less than one-fifth was uncertain. On a related item, 35% of respondents agreed that faculty is insensitive to GLBT issues; 39% was uncertain and 26% disagreed.
A small majority of respondents (45%) agreed that the university has procedures for student complaints or grievances regarding unfair, biased treatment; 33% was uncertain and 22% disagreed.
A slight majority of respondents (43%) felt free to voice their opinions at open forums; 20% was uncertain and 37% did not feel free to voice their opinions.
Approximately 30% of respondents indicated that the university has not been "wishy-washy"⁴ about Native-American mascot issues; 31% was uncertain and 40% disagreed.
Approximately 58% was uncertain if the university had been responsive to Latino or Chicano issues; 23% disagreed and 18% agreed.
Over one-half of respondents (54%) indicated that the campus is not free of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia; 26% disagreed and 21% was uncertain.

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

Respondents were evenly divided in their perceptions of the university's position of valuing racial/ethnic/gender/religious and lifestyle diversity; 35% indicated very characteristic/characteristic; 34% indicated slightly characteristic/not characteristic. Approximately 31% perceived the university as "moderate" in its efforts to value diversity.
One-third (34%) of respondents thought it was slightly characteristic/not characteristic of the university to practice bias toward some ethnic and religious groups; 39% thought it was very characteristic/characteristic and 26% thought it was moderately characteristic.
38% of respondents thought it was characteristic of the university to reward innovative research and new approaches to problem solving; respondents were evenly split between moderately characteristic (31%) and slightly or not characteristic (31%).
Approximately 43% of respondents thought it was characteristic of the university to condone individuals or groups to fight over "a piece of the pie" (i.e., resources); 33% thought it was moderately characteristic and 33% thought it was either slightly or not characteristic.
38% of respondents thought it was characteristic of the university to treat every employee (i.e., faculty and staff) and student fairly; 18% was moderately characteristic and 45% slightly or not characteristic.
39% of respondents thought it was moderately characteristic to practice shared decision making with students; 31% moderately characteristic and 31% slightly or not characteristic.
Approximately 44% of respondents believed that it was characteristic of the university to possess integrity in dealing with all students regardless of background and/or demographic; 24% indicated moderately characteristic; 32% slightly or not characteristic of the university.
Nearly 40% of respondents thought the university had integrity in dealing with faculty; 27% moderately characteristic and 43% thought it was either slightly or not characteristic.
23% of respondents indicated that it was characteristic of the university being highly ethical and morally principled; respondents were split in moderately and slightly or not characteristic, 43% and 34%, respectively.
Approximately 48% of respondents indicated that it is either slightly or not characteristic of the university to care about students completing their studies in a timely manner; 29% thought it was characteristic and nearly 23% thought it was moderately characteristic.

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

The majority of respondents (51%) were glad that they chose to attend SCSU rather than another college or university; 28% was uncertain and 21% was not glad with their choice.
A majority of respondents (47%) did not receive very good career guidance at SCSU; 23% was uncertain and 30% received very good career guidance.
Over one-third of respondents (36%) believed that their academic experience was excellent; 26% was uncertain and a slight majority (38%) disagreed with the statement.
Nearly one-third of respondents (30%) indicated that their enrolling at SCSU was a definite mistake; 18% was uncertain and 52% did not agree with the statement.
Nearly one-half of respondents (48%) felt they have been able to live up to their potential at SCSU; 24% was uncertain and 27% disagreed with the statement.
A slight majority of respondents (54%) was involved in many social activities on campus; 17% was uncertain and 29% disagreed with the statement.
One-half (50%) of respondents get a lot of encouragement and support to pursue their academic goals; 20% was uncertain and 30% did not receive the same support.
The majority of respondents (44%) received support from their fellow students; 23% was uncertain and 33% of respondents do not receive the same.
The majority of respondents (41%) of respondents agreed that if they had some help adjusting to campus life, they would have had a better start; 24% was uncertain and one-third (32%) disagreed.
The majority of respondents (46%) could rely on administrators, staff or faculty for support and encouragement; 33% was uncertain and 21% disagreed with the statement.
The majority of respondents (41%) often felt isolated and alone; 23% was uncertain and 35% did not feel isolated and alone.
Over one-third of respondents (36%) have experienced taunting and/or harassment on campus based on their race, ethnicity, gender, religion or lifestyle; 19% was uncertain and 45% did not have the same experience.
Nearly one-third of respondents (30%) have experienced taunting and/or harassment based on their demographic characteristics in the city of St. Cloud; 27% was uncertain and 43% did not experience taunting/harassment in St. Cloud.
Approximately 19% of respondents agreed that there is no recourse for students who become victims based on their particular demographics; the majority (43%) was uncertain and 38% disagreed with the statement.
30% of respondents thought all religious groups are accepted and welcomed on campus; 26% was uncertain and the majority (44%) disagreed with the statement.
One-third of respondents (34%) agreed that faculty spends a lot of time discussing their own issues rather than teaching course material; 30% was uncertain and over one-third (35%) disagreed with the statement.
The majority of respondents (44%) agreed that the faculty is excellent and affords them the education and training needed to succeed; 31% was uncertain and 25% disagreed.
The majority of respondents (48%) agreed that the university has adequate support services for students with disabilities; 22% was uncertain and 30% disagreed.
Nearly one-fifth (18%) of respondents agreed that the faculty is supportive of students with physical disabilities and students with other forms of disability; the majority (46%) was uncertain and 35% disagreed with the statement.
One-half of respondents (50%) thought the city of St. Cloud welcomed and supported cultural activities on campus; over one-fifth (27%) was uncertain and 23% disagreed.
One-fifth of respondents (20%) felt St. Cloud police has unjustly harassed them; 19% was uncertain and 62% did not feel the same.
One-third of respondents (34%) felt the St. Cloud police have treated them unjustly; 23% was uncertain and 43% was treated justly.
Approximately one-quarter of respondents (24%) agreed that if extremists groups came on campus causing negative publicity, the administration would do nothing about it; 46% was uncertain and 30% disagreed with the statement.
Nineteen percent agreed that when students complain of discrimination and unfair practices, the administration takes corrective action; 40% was uncertain and 41% disagreed with the statement.
The majority of respondents (42%) found it difficult to agree with university policies on matters that are of importance to them; 38% was uncertain and 20% disagreed.

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

Over one-quarter of respondents (28%) thought that the negative publicity and press about SCSU was unfair to students who are receiving a good education; 23% was uncertain and 49% disagreed.
The majority of respondents (39%) agreed that there is resistance to diversity efforts at SCSU; 32% was uncertain and 29% disagreed with the statement.
Over one-quarter of respondents (30%) agreed that it is difficult to support individuals who speak out at open forums for fear of retaliation by those who have a different perspective; the majority (42%) was uncertain and 28% disagreed.
Approximately one-quarter of students (26%) experienced taunting in the resident halls based upon their race, ethnicity, gender, religion or lifestyle; 29% was uncertain and 45% disagreed with the statement.
38% of respondents agreed that campus fraternities and sororities are racist and anti-Semitic; 37% was uncertain and 25% disagreed with the statement.
Over one-fifth of respondents (22%) thought that better appreciation of Native American history is needed to understand why certain names and behaviors are offensive to Native Americans; 26% was uncertain and 52% disagreed with the statement.
The majority of respondents (44%) agreed that Native American history and culture should be included in the core racism course; 25% was uncertain and 31% disagreed with the statement.
A majority of respondents (43%) agreed that there is support by the student body for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender concerns and issues on campus; 27% was uncertain and 30% disagreed with the statement.
The majority of respondents (44%) agreed that GLBT students fear for their physical safety; 37% was uncertain and 19% disagreed with the statement.
Over one-third of respondents (35%) agreed that if a student reports harassment on campus, the administration takes quick action to resolve such behavior; 35% was uncertain and 30% disagreed.
Nearly one-third of respondents (32%) agreed that the administration has been receptive to make changes in response to students reporting act of discrimination; 38% was uncertain and 30% disagreed.
One-half of respondents (52%) agreed that minority students received disparate/unfair treatment on campus; 22% was uncertain and 25% disagreed with the statement.
A slight majority of respondents (40%) agreed that international students received disparate/unfair treatment on campus; 23% was uncertain and 38% disagreed with the statement.
One-quarter of respondents (26%) agreed that female students received disparate/unfair treatment; 35% was uncertain and 38% disagreed with the statement.
Approximately one-third of respondents (31%) agreed that Jewish students received disparate/unequal treatment on campus; the majority (43%) was uncertain and 26% disagreed with the statement.
Nearly one-third of respondents (31%) agreed that if a dispute broke out between an ethnic minority student and a white student, each would be treated fairly; 29% was uncertain and 40% disagreed with the statement.
Nearly 30% of respondents agreed that administration, faculty and staff unfairly single-out students who have "different" personal characteristics or beliefs; 36% was uncertain and 35% disagreed with the statement.

Summary of Findings: ANTI-SEMITICISM SCALE

Approximately one-fifth of respondents (22%) agreed that the university should be cautious of hiring a large percentage of Jewish faculty and staff; 29% was uncertain and 49% disagreed.
One-fifth of respondents (18%) agreed that the problem with Jewish faculty and staff is that they tend to stick together to the degree that others do not have a fair chance for career advancement; 38% was uncertain and 45% disagreed.
One-fifth of respondents (21%) agreed that Jewish faculty and staff should encourage Jewish students to be more inconspicuous and to select professions and activities that keep them out of the public eye; 34% was uncertain and 45% disagreed.
One-quarter of respondents (24%) agreed that the problem with hiring Jewish faculty and staff into the university and community is that they gradually displace Christian ideas and values with secularism; 32% was uncertain and 44% disagreed.
One-quarter of respondents (27%) agreed there are too many Jewish faculty and administration in higher education and they control university polices and direction; 27% was uncertain and 46% disagreed.
Approximately 27% of respondents agreed that discrimination against Jewish faculty, staff and students would be largely eliminated if they would really make a sincere effort to assimilate into the St. Cloud community and campus life; 41% was uncertain and 32% disagreed.

Summary of Findings: ANTI-AFRICAN AMERICAN SCALE

One-quarter of respondents (26%) agreed that the university should be cautious of embracing diversity too fast and not hire large numbers of African-American faculty and staff; 27% was uncertain and 46% disagreed.
One-quarter of respondents (25%) agreed that the university is not ready to hire and support a large number of African-American faculty and staff because standards would be lowered; 33% was uncertain and 41% disagreed.
Nearly one-quarter of respondents (23%) agreed that African-American faculty and staff use the "race card" to meet their needs, which compromises the career advancement of other racial/ethnic groups; 44% was uncertain and 33% disagreed.
Approximately 42% of respondents agreed that discrimination against African-American faculty, staff and students would be largely eliminated if they would really make a sincere effort to assimilate into the St. Cloud community and campus life; 21% was uncertain and 37% disagreed.

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:

Delaying consideration/implementation of diversity issues
Attacking diversity as being too time consuming or complex
Resisting the inclusion of people with diverse backgrounds in all aspects of the organization
Accepting/condoning the inequitable compensation/utilization of people with diverse backgrounds
Discrediting information provided by people with diverse backgrounds
Unwillingness to acknowledge and recognize the contributions of people with diverse backgrounds

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

Thirty-six percent of respondents were satisfied with the quality of life in the resident halls; the majority (38%) was uncertain and 26% was dissatisfied.
The majority of respondents (43%) were satisfied with the physical conditions of the classrooms and resident halls; 27% was uncertain and 30% was dissatisfied.
Forty-one percent was satisfied with the physical maintenance of the resident halls; 27% was uncertain and 24% was dissatisfied.
Eighty percent (80%) was satisfied with the number and variety of clubs or interest groups; 8% was uncertain and 10% was dissatisfied.
Eighty percent (80%) was satisfied with the number and variety of recreational and sports activities available for students; 11% was uncertain and 12% was dissatisfied.
Majority of respondents (79%) was satisfied with the level of information technology in the library; 4% was uncertain and 8% are dissatisfied.
Sixty percent was satisfied with the availability of computers for doing their class work; 6% was uncertain and 25% was dissatisfied.
Fifty percent of respondents were satisfied with equipment/apparatus in the laboratories; over one-fifth was uncertain and one-fifth was satisfied.
Sixty-one percent was satisfied with the quality of classroom instruction; 17% was uncertain and 14% dissatisfied.
Less than one-half of respondents (44%) were satisfied with the level of faculty support for students who need academic help; 29% was uncertain and 18% was dissatisfied.
Forty-two percent was satisfied with availability of tutoring or academic assistance with class work; 30% was uncertain and 18% was dissatisfied.
Thirty-eighty percent of respondents was satisfied with the quality of relationships between minority and white students; 23% was uncertain and 30% was dissatisfied.
Thirty-nine percent was satisfied with the sensitivity to the needs of the disabled; 38% was uncertain and 15% was dissatisfied.
Respondents were evenly split between being satisfied (38%) and uncertain (38%) regarding the channel which students use to express their opinions, issues and concerns; 15% was dissatisfied.
Thirty-one percent was satisfied with policies and procedures for students to express their complaints or grievances; 47% was uncertain and 16% was dissatisfied.
Less than one-half of respondents (42%) were satisfied with the quality of relationships between students and administration; 17% was uncertain and 33% was dissatisfied.
One-fifth of respondents were satisfied with the degree to which student concerns are heard by the administration and are solved; the majority of respondents (45%) were uncertain and 25% was dissatisfied.
Less than one-fifth of respondents were satisfied with the support of the administration if students are harassed in the city of St. Cloud; nearly 60% was uncertain and 15% was dissatisfied.

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:

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:

Would recommend the university to others
Have a lot of school spirit
Men's hockey team
University procedures for student complaints or grievances
Glad they chose SCSU rather than another university
Involved with many social activities on campus
A lot of encouragement and support to pursue their academic goals
Could rely on administrators, staff and faculty for support and encouragement
Faculty is excellent and affords them education and training needed to succeed
University provides adequate support services for student with disabilities
St. Cloud welcomes and supports cultural activities on campus
Support from student body on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender concerns/issues
Satisfaction with physical conditions of the classrooms and maintenance of resident halls
Satisfaction with number and variety of clubs, interest groups, recreational and sports activities
Satisfaction with information technology, availability of computers and laboratory equipment/apparatus
Satisfaction with quality classroom instruction
Interpersonal relationships (i.e., professional and personal) with various racial/ethnic, gender and student interest groups on campus.

Major Negative Perceptions:

Faculty insensitivity to everyone regardless of their demographic or lifestyle
Campus is not free of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia
University practicing bias toward some ethnic and religious groups
University condones individuals or groups to fighting over a "piece of the pie"
University caring about students completing their studies in a timely manner
Enrolling at SCSU was a definite mistake
Taunting and/or harassment of students on and off campus based on their demographic or lifestyle
All religious groups are not welcomed on campus
St. Cloud police has unjustly harassed students
Administration does not take corrective action when students complain of discrimination and unfair practices
Disparate/unequal treatment experienced by minority, international, female, and Jewish students
Unfavorable and stereotypical perceptions of Jewish and African-American faculty and staff
Quality of relationships between minority and white students
Channels which student express their opinions, issues, and concerns
Satisfaction to the degree that student concerns are heard by Administration and are solved
Support of Administration if students are harassed in the city of St. Cloud

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.

⁶Huntley, 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

The majority of respondents (61%) were very energetic about working at SCSU; 20% was like them and less than 17% indicated otherwise. In a related item, approximately 43% of respondents indicated that it was very, often or like them to feel exhilarated after working closely with their co-workers; 27% like them and 30% indicated seldom/very unlike them.
The majority of respondents (62%) indicated that it was very or often like them to create a relaxed atmosphere with my co-workers; 21% like them and 16% seldom or unlike them.
The majority of respondents (61%) indicated that it was Very, Often or Like them to feel they had accomplished many worthwhile things in their job at SCSU; 22% like me and 17% seldom/very unlike them.
Over one-half of respondents (57%) indicated they are positively influencing the lives of their co-workers and students through their work; 16% like me and 27% indicated seldom/very unlike them.
Approximately one-half of respondents (49%) indicated that it is very or often like them to deal with emotional problems very calmly; 30% it was like them and 21% indicated seldom/very unlike them.
Approximately 36% of respondents indicated that it was very, often or like them to participate in cross-functional teams to accomplish work objectives; 29% indicated that it was like them and 36% seldom or unlike them to participate in cross-functional teams.
The majority of respondents (55%) would choose to work at SCSU if they had to do it all over again; 22% like them and 23% indicated seldom/very unlike them.
The majority of respondents (58%) indicated that either it was very, often or like them to feel comfortable working at SCSU; 25% like them and 17% indicated seldom/very unlike them.
Approximately one-half of respondents (49%) indicated it was very like/often like them to be satisfied with their experience at SCSU; 22% like them and 29% indicated seldom/very unlike them.
Approximately 41% of respondents indicated that it was very, often like them to feel uncomfortable about the way they have been treated by some co-workers; 17% it was like them and 43% of respondents indicated that it is seldom or unlike them to feel uncomfortable.
Nearly one-quarter of respondents (23%) indicated that it was very, often or like them to feel fatigued when they get up in the morning and have to face another day at SCSU; 26% like them and 51% indicated that it is seldom or very unlike them to feel fatigued.

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

Less than one-half of respondents (46%) indicated excellent or good training opportunities; over one-quarter (27%) indicated fair opportunities and the same percentage indicated either poor or non-existent opportunities.
Thirty percent of respondents rated the mentoring opportunities as "excellent/good"; nearly one-quarter (23%) rated the opportunities as "fair" and the majority (47%) rated the opportunities as "poor/non-existent".
Less than one-third of respondents (31%) rated the evaluation process for job performance as "excellent/good"; the same percentage (32%) rated the process as "fair" and a slight majority (37%) rated the process as "poor/non-existent".
A slight majority of respondents (37%) rated the opportunities for career promotion or advancement as "excellent/good"; 31% rated the opportunities as "fair" and 32% rated the opportunities as "poor/existent".
Twenty-nine percent of respondents rated the usefulness of formal feedback "excellent/good"; 29% rated the feedback "fair" and 42% rated it "poor" or "non-existent".
Less than one-third of respondents (30%) rated their supervision regarding advancement as "excellent/good"; one-quarter (25%) rated it as "fair" and 45% rated it "poor/non-existent".
The majority of respondents (49%) indicated that the way their supervisor or department chair responds to problems or complaints is either "excellent" or "good"; 24% thought it was "fair" and 27% thought it was either "poor" or "non-existent."
Forty-three percent of respondents indicated "excellent" or "good" use of their talents; 31% thought it was "fair" and 26% thought it was "poor" or "non-existent".

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)

One-third of respondents (35%) agreed that there is a resistance to diversity efforts at SCSU; 19% was uncertain and 46% disagreed.
Less than one-fifth (17%) of respondents agreed that unions are resistant to diversity efforts at the university; 20% was uncertain and 63% disagreed.
The majority of respondents (47%) believed that the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO) supports diversity efforts at SCSU; 25% was uncertain and 28% disagreed.
One-quarter of respondents (27%) agreed that those who report discrimination are not protected from retaliation at the university; 31% was uncertain and 42% disagreed.
20% of respondents agreed that complaining about discrimination based on upon race, ethnicity, gender, religion or lifestyle had a negative impact on their career at SCSU; 24% was uncertain and 56% disagreed.
Approximately 34% of respondents agreed that racist and sexist behaviors have declined at the university; 28% was uncertain and a slight majority (38%) disagreed.
24% of respondents agreed that there is favoritism towards female administrators and staff; 24% was uncertain and 52% disagreed.
One-third of respondents (31%) agreed that females have to "prove" themselves more than their male counterparts do; 19% was uncertain and 50% disagreed.
Approximately 33% of respondents agreed that a "glass ceiling"⁷ exists for female workers on campus; 22% was uncertain and 44% disagreed.
44% of respondents agreed that demands for women's issues are excessive; 15% was uncertain and 41% disagreed.
40% of respondents agreed that white males are promoted at a faster rate than other identity groups at SCSU; 25% was uncertain and 36% disagreed.
Thirty-seven percent of respondents agreed that faculty, staff and students should be required to take cultural competence/awareness training; 15% was uncertain and the majority (48%) disagreed.
Approximately 37% of respondents agreed that everyone is given equitable access to training and educational opportunities; 21% was uncertain and a small majority (42%) disagreed.
Fifty-eight percent agreed that the university provides fair and equitable opportunities for training and career advancement; 20% was uncertain and 22% disagreed.
Respondents were evenly divided between agreement and disagreement in regard to the concerns expressed about personal safety on the campus by minorities, Muslims and Jews being excessive; 37% agreed, 27% was uncertain and 36% disagreed.
29% of respondents agreed the concerns expressed about physical safety in the city of St. Cloud by minorities, Muslims and Jews are realistic; 28% was uncertain and 43% disagreed.
Over one-half of respondents (54%) agreed that the university lacks services and equipment for students with disabilities; 22% was uncertain and 24% disagreed.
33% of respondents agreed that SCSU is not supportive of people who are gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender; 20% was uncertain and 47% disagreed.
Thirty-five percent agreed that when job openings occur, in-house personnel should be given first preference; 27% was uncertain and 38% disagreed.
Forty-five percent agreed that there is an established, formal process for developing goals, programs and updating existing plans at SCSU; 26% was uncertain and 29% disagreed.
42% of respondents agreed that the demands for parity made by the Faculty and Staff of Color are excessive; 24% was uncertain and 34% disagreed.
42% of respondents agreed that faculty and staff is unfairly singled out because of the personal characteristics or beliefs; 22% was uncertain and 36% disagreed.
Slightly less than one-half of respondents (48%) agreed that if a dispute occurred between an ethnic minority employee and a white employee, each would be treated fairly by their supervisors; 21% was uncertain and 21% disagreed.
21% of respondents agreed that the university should be cautious of hiring a large percentage of Jewish faculty and staff; 16% was uncertain and 63% disagreed.
Less than one-fifth of respondents (17%) agreed that the problem with Jewish faculty and staff is that they tend to stick together to the degree that others do not have a fair chance for career advancement; 29% was uncertain and 54% disagreed.
Approximately 42% of respondents agreed that the Jewish community in Minneapolis a powerful political force affecting the lives of others; 34% was uncertain and 21% disagreed.
Approximately 27% agreed that discrimination against Jewish faculty and staff would be largely eliminated if they would make sincere efforts to assimilate into the St. Cloud community and campus; 29% was uncertain and 44% disagreed.
19% of respondents agreed that Jewish faculty and staff should encourage Jewish students to be more inconspicuous and to select professions and activities that keep them out of the public eye; 12% was uncertain and 69% disagreed.
One-quarter of respondents (25%) agreed that the problem with hiring Jewish faculty and staff into the university and community is that they gradually displace Christian ideas and values with secularism; 19% was uncertain and 57% disagreed.
One-fifth of respondents (19%) agreed there are too many Jewish faculty and administrators in higher education and they control university polices and direction; 21% was uncertain and 60% disagreed.
14% of respondents agreed that the university should be cautious of embracing diversity too fast and not hire large numbers of African-American faculty and staff; 25% was uncertain and 61% disagreed.
One-third of respondents (36%) agreed that the university is not ready to hire and support a large number of African-American faculty and staff because standards would be lowered; 15% was uncertain and 70% disagreed.
One-third of respondents (33%) agreed that African-American faculty members are often left out of the decision-making processes on campus; 29% was uncertain and 38% disagreed.
Respondents were evenly divided between disagreement and uncertainty in regard to African-American faculty and staff use of the "race card" to meet their needs which compromises the career advancement of other racial/ethnic groups; 46% agreed, 31% was uncertain and 33% disagreed.
Approximately 32% of respondents agreed that discrimination against African-American faculty, staff and students would be largely eliminated if they would really make a sincere effort to assimilate into the St. Cloud community and campus life; 22% was uncertain and 46% disagreed.

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:

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

Approximately 41% agreed that administrators, faculty and staff received training and guidance in ways to provide high quality student services; 30% was uncertain and 29% disagreed.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents have adequate equipment for email communication; 12% was uncertain and 21% disagreed.
Over one-half (56%) of respondents found the information provided on the university server useful; 18% was uncertain and 26% disagreed.
Fifty-two percent of respondents were anxious to be politically correct, my coworkers are reluctant to speak their minds; 16% was uncertain and 32% disagreed.
Thirty-five percent (35%) agreed that there is good flow of communication and information from the President's Office to administrators, faculty and staff; 27% was uncertain and 38% disagreed.
Sixty-four percent agreed that their coworkers are always looking for new and innovative ways to communicate and cooperate; 11% was uncertain and 25% disagreed.
Over one-half of respondents (54%) agreed the communication climate in their department/office was supportive and non-defensive; 15% was uncertain and 31% disagreed.
Over one-half (57%) of respondents agreed that the negative media image of SCSU compromises relationships between faculty, staff and students; 20% was uncertain and 23% disagreed.
Approximately 38% indicated the communication and information flow between department/offices is good; 25% was uncertain and 37% disagreed.
45% agreed that faculty and staff prefer to air their gripes and complaints with the media rather than attempt to resolve their differences in-house; 22% was uncertain and 33% disagreed.
Approximately 43% agreed that the administration provides honest and timely feedback to employees' concerns and issues; 22% was uncertain and 35% disagreed.
Forty-five percent of respondents agreed that open and honest communication between departments/offices is encouraged by the administration; 25% was uncertain and 30% disagreed.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondents agreed that faculty and staff communicate comfortably with one another regardless of their position or rank; 18% was uncertain and 25% disagreed.
One-third (33%) of respondents agreed the university eliminates practices that stand in the way of effective communication; 31% was uncertain and 36% disagreed.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents agreed that the impact of e-mail has had a significant positive impact on how people interact and communicate on campus; 20% was uncertain and 23% disagreed.
Thirty-six percent of respondents agreed that using e-mail rather than face-to-face interaction between administration, faculty and staff has resulted in the lack of meaningful dialogue; 26% was uncertain and 38% disagreed.
One-half (51%) of respondents agreed that communications are stifled because people on campus are cautious about what they say or what issues they support; 22% was uncertain and 27% disagreed.
38% of respondents agreed that e-mail is abused by administrators, faculty and staff to air their gripes and complaints; 21% was uncertain and 41% disagreed.
Forty-seven percent of respondents agreed that their department/office facilitates activities, which increase dialogue across work groups; 19% was uncertain and 34% disagreed.
Sixty percent of respondents agreed that at SCSU, informal communication channels are as effective as formal communications; 18% was uncertain and 22% disagreed.
Forty-nine percent of respondents agreed that administrative policies are clearly communicated throughout the university; 18% was uncertain and 33% disagreed.
Sixty-four percent of respondents agreed that professional development and training opportunities are effectively communicated to faculty and staff; 15% was uncertain and 21% disagreed.
Forty percent of respondents agreed that the organizational structure of SCSU lends itself to effective multi-level/systematic communications; 36% was uncertain and 24% disagreed.
Approximately one-half (51%) of respondents agreed that managers clearly communicated the goals and priorities of the university; 20% was uncertain and 29% disagreed.
Forty-one percent of respondents agreed that overall, the communication climate of the university is supportive and non-defensive; 29% was uncertain and 30% disagreed.

Discussion:

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

Forty-one percent of respondents had a coworker that informed them of potentially negative situations, which may adversely affect them; 29% occasionally and 30% seldom/never.
Forty-five percent had a coworker that helped them maximize their network and exposure within the university community; 27% occasionally and 28% seldom/never.
One-third (32%) had a coworker that explained the political aspects of their position and pertinent issues; 27% occasionally and 41% seldom/never.
The majority of respondents (44%) of respondents had a coworker that explained the political implications of their behavior; 26% occasionally and 30% seldom/never.
One-quarter (25%) of respondents had a coworker that insulted them or used destructive criticism or sarcasm; 21% occasionally and 54% seldom/never.
68% had a coworker that treated them with respect; 9% occasionally and 23% seldom/never.
67% had a coworker that they could trust and who trusted them; 20% occasionally and 13% seldom/never.
57% had a coworker that listened to them voice their concerns; 24% occasionally and 19% seldom/never.
55% had a coworker that used his/her influence to advance their career; 17% occasionally and 28% seldom/never.
69% had a coworker that made good use of their knowledge, skills and abilities; 19% occasionally and 12% seldom/never.
57% had a coworker that made them feel valued and appreciated; 20% occasionally and 23% seldom/never.
46% had a coworker that allowed them to cross-train or work in new areas to obtain additional knowledge, skills and abilities; 26% occasionally and 28% seldom/never.
45% had a coworker that helped them with research or grant writing (if applicable); 17% occasionally, 16% seldom/never, and 22% "not applicable."
56% had a coworker that informed them of written and unwritten rules with their department/office; 24% occasionally, 15% seldom/never, and 5% "not applicable."
49% had a coworker that made them look bad or less than competent; 21% occasionally and 30% seldom/never.
38% of respondents had a coworker that minimized most of their views and opinions; 23% occasionally and 39% seldom/never.

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)

76% of respondents was satisfied with the working conditions in their department/office; 12% was uncertain and 12% dissatisfied.
67% was satisfied with the physical environment of their work area; 16% was uncertain and 17% dissatisfied.
72% of respondents were satisfied with the quality of work relationships they have with their supervisor; 13% was uncertain and 15% dissatisfied.
Over one-half of respondents (54%) were satisfied with the amount of reward and recognition they get for doing a good job; 16% was uncertain and 30% dissatisfied.
52% was satisfied with the effectiveness of their Union; 22% was uncertain and 26% dissatisfied.
71% was satisfied with the quality of their relationship with the administration and staff; 17% was uncertain and 12% dissatisfied.
74% was satisfied with the fairness of their supervisor's treatment; 15% was uncertain and 11% dissatisfied.
57% of respondents was satisfied the mechanisms in place to address disputes, complaints or grievances; 25% was uncertain and 18% dissatisfied.
70% was satisfied with the amount of participation they have in suggesting improvements in the workplace; 17% was uncertain and 13% dissatisfied.
Fifty-seven (57%) was satisfied with the quality of relationships between Union and non-Union personnel on campus; 30% was uncertain and 13% dissatisfied.
65% was satisfied with the quality of work relationships between the ethnic minorities and white employees; 18% was uncertain and 17% dissatisfied.
53% was satisfied with the quality of work relationships between the various religious groups on campus; 26% was uncertain and 21% dissatisfied.
56% was satisfied with the quality of relationships between the university and the city of St. Cloud; 26% was uncertain and 18% dissatisfied.
65% was satisfied with the level of professional trust between themselves and the university administration; 21% was uncertain and 14% dissatisfied.

Discussion:

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*:

Co-worker relationships
Positively influencing the lives of coworkers and students
Satisfied with their experience at SCSU and would choose to work at SCSU if they had to do it all over again
Excellent/good supervisory response to problems or complaints
Excellent/good use of their talents
Fair and equitable opportunities for training and career advancement
Information on the university server is helpful
Communication between faculty and staff regardless of their position or rank
Positive impact of e-mail communications
Supportive and non-defensive communication climate in their department/office
Administrative policy clearly communicated throughout the university
Professional development and training opportunities are effectively communicated to staff
Manages clearly communicates goals and priorities of the university
Overall, co-worker and mentoring relationships
Satisfaction with working conditions and physical environment
Quality of work relationships with their supervisor
Effectiveness of their union
Quality of work relationships with the administration and staff
Satisfaction with their supervisor's fairness and treatment
Quality of work relationships between Union and non-Union personnel
Quality of work relationships between ethnic minorities and white employees
Quality of work relationships between the various religious groups
Quality of work relationships between the university and the city of St. Cloud
Level of professional trust between the faculty and staff and the university Administration
Overall, interpersonal relationships between faculty, staff, and administration and various racial, ethnic, gender, student and different lifestyle groups

Major Dissatisfiers**:

Fatigued about having to face another day at SCSU
Women's perceptions of the academic climate remains less favorable than men's perceptions, particularly with respect to their experiences with discrimination, the review and promotion process and job security.
Poor/non-existent mentoring opportunities
Formal job performance feedback
Resistance to diversity efforts
Complaining about discrimination resulting in negative impact on career
"Glass ceiling" perception regarding female workers on campus
Inadequate services and equipment for students with disabilities
Jewish faculty and staff presence on campus
African-American faculty and staff presence on campus

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

<< Previous

Table of Contents

Next >>

St. Cloud State University

Students Level I: Frequency Analysis of Item Responses

Student Demographics

Race:

Hispanic/Latino/Chicano origin or decent:

Gender:

Age:

Spiritual/Religious Affiliation:

Student Status:

International Student:

International Student Native Country:

Length of Study at St. Cloud State University:

Full- or Part-time Student:

Summary of Findings: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF SCSU

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: CULTURAL VALUES

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: STUDENT EXPERIENCES

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: STUDENTS' OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES

Summary of Findings: ANTI-SEMITICISM SCALE

Summary of Findings: ANTI-AFRICAN AMERICAN SCALE

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: SATISFACTION WITH STUDENT LIFE

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Discussion:

Table 1 Summary of Major Positive and Negative Perceptions of Students

Major Positive Perceptions:

Major Negative Perceptions:

Summary Discussion:

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

Faculty Demographics

Race:

Hispanic/Latino/Chicano origin or decent:

Gender:

Age:

Spiritual/Religious Affiliation:

University Status:

Full or Part-time:

Length of Employment at St. Cloud State University:

Union membership:

Summary of Findings: EXPERIENCE IN THE WORKPLACE

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: CAREER ADVANCEMENT & JOB EXPERIENCES

Discussion:

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

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: CO-WORKER AND MENTOR RELATIONSHIPS

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: SCSU WORKING CONDITIONS (JOB SATISFACTION)

Discussion:

Summary of Findings: INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Discussion:

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

Major Satisfiers*:

Major Dissatisfiers**:

President's Office (contact information)

Students
Level I: Frequency Analysis of Item Responses

Table 1
Summary of Major Positive and Negative Perceptions of Students

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

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