UTSA STUDENT DIVERSITY SURVEY JANUARY 2019

Executive Summary

At request of the President, a subcommittee of the Diversity and Inclusion Council convened with representatives from Student Affairs and Student Government to select and administer a student survey to evaluate the current campus climate with respect to diversity and inclusion. The committee, with input from student representatives, selected the annual Campus Climate Survey fielded every spring by EAB. The committee selected this survey for its advantageous timing, no cost, and outside administration. The survey was also chosen because its breadth of questions most closely matched what students and committee members sought to measure. Because selected modules represented issues of diversity and inclusion, the survey was renamed the Student Diversity Survey for implementation at UTSA.

In total, forty-two higher education institutions participated in the Campus Climate Survey and over 55,000 students completed it. All students enrolled in spring 2018 were invited to participate in the survey. More than 1,900 respondents at UTSA completed the for a response rate of 7%. The committee believes the low response rate is due, in part, to other offices fielding surveys during a similar timeframe. Slight differences exist in respondent demographics as compared with the actual UTSA population but overall distribution is similar. Females are slightly overrepresented, not unusual for surveys, as are full-time students. Hispanic students are slightly underrepresented. The survey is divided into several subsections with summary results by section listed below.

General Campus Climate

Respondents overwhelmingly felt safe at UTSA and 76% agree that faculty are genuinely concerned about their welfare. Two-thirds agreed that administrators are genuinely concerned about their welfare. UTSA’s results are similar to other participating institutions on most items except where the share of UTSA respondents who feel close to others is slightly lower (60% +/-2% than other institutions (74%) or other large institutions (70%). UTSA is consistent with other large institutions in respondent agreement that faculty and administrators are concerned about their welfare. Larger shares of Asian and Hispanic students felt close to others at UTSA compared with black or African-American students. A smaller share of non-binary gender respondents felt safe (76%) compared with males or females (95%). More than a quarter of respondents considered leaving the institution at some point since the beginning of the academic year.

Experiences with Diversity and Inclusion

UTSA compares favorably with other participating institutions regarding the reflection of diversity in the student body, faculty and administration. Eighty-seven percent of students agree or strongly agree that diversity is fully embraced within the campus culture. Black respondents less often agree that diversity is reflected in the student body and administration compared with other racial and ethnic groups and that effect grows when asked about faculty. A greater share of Hispanic respondents felt opportunities to gain knowledge of their cultural community exist compared to all other racial/ethnic groups. Non-binary gender respondents and male respondents more often felt they had to hide aspects of their identity to fit in compared to females.

Campus Inclusivity

Three-quarters of respondents feel UTSA provides enough programs to support meaningful interactions between students of different cultures. A lower share of UTSA respondents (70%, +/-3%) had access to at least one trusted faculty or staff member who could connect them with information or support compared with overall respondents at participating institutions (81%).

Classroom Experiences

More than two-thirds of respondents felt comfortable sharing their perspectives and experiences in class, slightly lower than the share for the overall sample. Otherwise results for UTSA are consistent with overall results for all participating institutions. More than forty percent feel they have to work harder than other students to be perceived as a good student. White students less often feel they have to work harder than other students compared with all other racial/ethnic groups. About one-third of respondents have heard faculty express stereotypes based on identity in class.

Diversity and Inclusion Services

Most students know that diversity and inclusion services addressing the needs of specific populations exist on campus but a much smaller share used, worked or volunteered their time with those services. Slightly smaller shares of UTSA respondents are aware of services, particularly for women and students who identify as women or for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students compared with the overall sample.

Experiences with harassment or discrimination

Seventeen percent (+/-2%) of survey respondents reported experiences with discrimination or harassment since the beginning of the school year. This included such experiences as being shunned, ignored, intimidated or otherwise targeted in an offensive or hostile manner that interfered with the respondent’s ability to learn or work. This number is very similar to the share of respondents at all institutions who reported experiences with discrimination and harassment.

Interactions Related to Diversity

Respondents most commonly socialized or engaged in serious conversations with students who were different from them in race or ethnicity followed by socioeconomic background. These interactions most frequently occurred in class. Results for socialization were quite similar for UTSA compared with other institutions participating in the survey with the exception of religious beliefs and nationality where a slightly smaller share of UTSA respondents very often or often socialized with students with different religious beliefs. UTSA respondents more commonly engaged in serious conversations with students of different political beliefs (44%) compared with other institutions (40%).

Student-designed questions

The Student Action Coalition created three custom questions for use in this survey. About half of respondents felt that UTSA is doing enough to protect undocumented students while 31% feel that UTSA is not doing enough. Nearly 70% agree that student organizations and groups can organize activities or programs to express their views and 63% agree their academic college promotes diversity and inclusion

Recommendations of subcommittee

We recommend that EAB’s Campus Climate or a similar survey be re-administered every two years to assess progress in target areas over time. Efforts to strategically schedule campus-wide surveys and reduce survey fatigue will be important to improving response rates. Differences by demographic or identity group are present and some gaps are more substantial in effect size than others. Further conversations with identity groups using the survey questions to guide discussion may yield more qualitative contextual understanding to these results.

Background and Distribution of the Student Diversity Survey

Following release of results for the faculty and staff diversity and engagement survey, members of the Provost’s Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Council (DIAC) were asked to assist in selecting and fielding a survey to evaluate diversity and inclusion among the student body. Members from the DIAC included Jesse Zapata, DeBrenna Abenyiga, Stella Lopez, Roger Enriquez and Jinny Case. Together with Jan McKinney and selected members of the Student Action Coalition, the subcommittee explored several potential surveys, ultimately deciding on the Campus Climate Survey offered by the Education Advisory Board (EAB). The group selected the Campus Climate Survey for several reasons. First, the timing of the survey coincided with university needs as we were asked to release a survey mid-spring. Second, questions on the Campus Climate Survey most closely matched with dimensions of diversity exposure, climate, and experiences sought by the Student Action Coalition and representatives from Student Government. Lastly, EAB offered survey services at no additional cost to the university because UTSA is already a member of EAB.

EAB’s Campus Climate Survey is an anonymous, online survey consisting of various subsections, including sexual harassment, bystander behaviors, campus climate, perceptions of diversity, and experiences with discrimination or harassment among others. Because we selected only diversity and inclusion related modules of the Campus Climate Survey, the instrument was renamed the Student Diversity Survey for UTSA users. EAB offers each institution the opportunity to participate in the entire survey or specific sections as well as control over communication distribution and sampling. The group elected to participate only in subsections relating to diversity and inclusion. The group also discussed sampling or distribution to the entire student population and chose to distribute the survey to the entire population in deference to the wishes of the Student Action Coalition. All communication with students with regard to the survey referred to it as the Student Diversity Survey.

A total of 42 institutions participated in the spring 2018 release of EAB’s Campus Climate Survey. Slightly more than 455,000 students at all institutions were invited to complete the survey and more than 55,000 students responded with an average institution response rate of 17%. Seven large institutions other than UTSA participated and 24 of the participating institutions were public entities.

The Student Diversity Survey was delivered as anonymous computer-assisted online instrument and a link was distributed via email to 28,818 enrolled students beginning in late March 2018. In total, 1,910 students completed the survey for a seven percent response rate. We believe the low response rate is related to the number of other surveys sent out to students around the same response timeframe for the Student Diversity Survey. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was released to freshmen and seniors just prior to the Student Diversity Survey and OIT released an Educause survey in early April.

Respondent Demographics

We surveyed the entire population of students and have a non-random subset of returned surveys. We are providing standard errors and confidence intervals, recognizing the response bias of the subset, to gain an idea of the range of possible values within the population. Although this subset is not completely representative of the population, we find it similar enough to produce confidence estimates. (Banerjee and Chaudhury, 2010) Given the low response rate, we elected to use all available cases in the analysis. We recommend that future climate surveys use random sampling techniques.

Slight differences exist in respondent demographics as compared with actual demographic distribution in current enrollment. Females are slightly overrepresented at 56% compared to 50% although this is not unusual in response to surveys. Full-time students are also slightly overrepresented at 83% compared to 76% in the student population. The analyst recoded race and ethnicity similar to IPEDS coding in which students fit into one category including two or more if the student selected more than one race category. Hispanic or Latino students are slightly underrepresented at 48% compared to 55%. Table 1 provides demographic and classification characteristics of survey respondents.

Table 1: Demographic Distribution of Respondents

Demographic Characteristics

Female 56%

Full-time 83%

Hispanic or Latino 48%

African-American (not Hispanic) only 8%

Asian (not Hispanic) only 6%

White (not Hispanic) only 32%

First Generation 28%

Live on campus 16%

LGBTQIA 16%

Mental disability 22%

Physical disability 13%

Classification

First Year 18%

Second Year 16%

Third Year 24%

Fourth Year 18%

Fifth Year 6%

Graduate 18%

General Campus Climate

Overall results are presented in Figure 1 below for questions comprising the General Campus Climate subsection of the survey. Variables are recoded where strongly agree/agree are 1 and strongly disagree/disagree are 0. Table 2 displays means, which represent the proportion of respondents who strongly agree or agree with the following statements.

Table 2: Percent strongly agree or agree - General Campus Climate questions

Count Mean

Standard

Error of

Mean

Lower

CL for

Mean

Upper

CL for

Mean

I feel safe at this school. 1,597 .94 .006 .93 .95

I feel close to people at this school. 1,594 .60 .012 .58 .62

It's easy to find people on campus who understand me. 1,590 .66 .012 .63 .68

I think faculty are genuinely concerned about my welfare. 1,590 .76 .011 .73 .78

I think faculty pre-judge my abilities based on my identity or

background

1,589 .29 .011 .27 .31

I think administrators are genuinely concerned about my welfare. 1,584 .65 .012 .62 .67

Respondents overwhelmingly report feeling safe at UTSA and three-quarters agree that faculty are genuinely concerned about their welfare but 29% of respondents think that faculty pre-judge their abilities based on identity or background. UTSA’s results on this section are similar to results at other institutions related to students feelings of safety and the perception that faculty pre-judge their abilities.

While we cannot determine margins of error for the results of other institutions, it is likely that UTSA’s results for a feeling of closeness with others at the institution and ease of finding others who understand the student are slightly lower than other institutions completing the survey. For instance, the upper and lower confidence intervals for “I feel close to people at this school” are between 58% and 62% while 74% of respondents at all participating institutions and 70% at other large institutions strongly agreed or agreed with the same statement. Two-thirds of UTSA respondents reported that it is easy to find people on campus who understand them while nearly three-quarters of respondents at all institutions agreed with this statement. A slightly higher share of UTSA respondents feel safe at this institution (94%) compared with other large institutions (91%). UTSA results for faculty and administrators’ concern for the student’s welfare were similar to other large institutions.

Figure 1: General Campus Climate Questions

The analyst evaluated differences in column means in SPSS using two-sided T-tests for race/ethnicity, gender, off/on campus, LBGTQ status, and first generation status. These tests are available in Appendix 2 along with effect sizes. Larger shares of Asian and Hispanic respondents strongly agreed or agreed that “I feel close to people at this school” compared with black or African-American students. Significantly higher proportions of both males and females agreed they feel safe at UTSA compared with students who answered transgender, gender nonconforming or other. Students living on campus more often agreed they feel close to people on campus but were not significantly different from students living off-campus on other questions from this section of the survey. LGBTQ students less often reported agreement with feeling safe at this school (91% compared with 95%), feeling close to people at this school, or that administrators are genuinely concerned about their welfare compared with heterosexual students although effect sizes are small.

In addition to the questions listed above, more than a quarter of students (26.5%, +/- 2%) seriously considered leaving UTSA in the last year. About 22% of all respondents at all institutions considered leaving their institution in the last year. UTSA students’ most commonly reported reasons for thinking about leaving are the desire to transfer to a new institution and financial problems. Higher shares of white and black or African-American respondents contemplated leaving the institution compared with Asian students. This is also true for non-binary

94%

60%

66%

76%

29%

65%

93%

74% 74%

83%

29%

70%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

I feel safe at thisschool.

I feel close to peopleat this school.

It's easy to findpeople on campus

who understand me.

I think faculty aregenuinely concerned

about my welfare.

I think faculty pre-judge my abilities

based on my identityor background

I thinkadministrators are

genuinely concernedabout my welfare.

UTSA All Institutions

respondents compared with males and LGBTQ respondents compared with heterosexuals. A higher percentage of on-campus respondents compared with off-campus respondents thought about leaving the institution since the start of the academic year.

Experiences with Diversity and Inclusion

Table 3 and Figure 2 present selected questions comprising the Experiences with Diversity and Inclusion subsection of the instrument. Here UTSA compares favorably with the results of other institutions, particularly where diversity is reflected in the student body (92%,+/- 1.4%) compared to 79% for all other institutions. UTSA also compares well to other institutions where diversity is reflected in the faculty/administrators (80% and 74% compared to 73% and 64% for other institutions) and fully embracing diversity within the campus culture. Again, another way of interpreting means within this table is the proportion of students who strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.

Table 3: Percent strongly agree or agree - Experiences with Diversity and Inclusion

Count Mean

Standard

Error of

Mean

Lower

CL for

Mean

Upper

CL for

Mean

Diversity is reflected in the student body. 1,273 .92 .007 .91 .94

Diversity is reflected in the faculty. 1,274 .80 .011 .78 .83

Diversity is reflected in administration 1,269 .74 .012 .72 .77

Diversity is fully embraced within the campus culture. 1,273 .87 .009 .85 .89

All students feel welcome and supported at this school, regardless

of background or identity. 1,271 .80 .01 .77 .82

School leaders are visibly committed to fostering respect for

diversity on campus. 1,265 .82 .011 .80 .84

I feel like I need to hide some aspects of my identity to fit in. 1,271 .37 .014 .34 .39

On campus, there are enough opportunities to gain knowledge

about my own cultural community. 1,256 .71 .013 .69 .74

Figure 2: Experiences with Diversity and Inclusion

Black respondents less often agree that diversity is reflected in the student body and administration compared with other racial and ethnic groups and that effect grows when asked about faculty. Hispanic respondents less often agree that diversity is reflected in the faculty compared with white respondents. Finally, Hispanic respondents more often agree that there are opportunities to gain knowledge about their cultural community compared with all other racial or ethnic groups. Heterosexual respondents also more often agreed that diversity is reflected in faculty and administration or that all students are welcome regardless of their identity compared to LGBTQ respondents. Similarly, male students more frequently agreed that diversity is reflected in the faculty compared to females and in the administration compared to both females and non-binary students. Males more often felt they needed to hide some aspects of their identity to fit in compared with females. Non-binary students also felt they needed to hide aspects of their identity compared to both males and females. Independent samples t-tests were run to confirm significant differences in column means and these results along with effect size are provided in the Appendix.

When asked what diversity topics they learned most about while attending school, respondents most often reported topics related to race and ethnicity (67%), followed by political views (52%) and socioeconomic status

92%

80%

74%

87%

80%82%

37%

71%

79%

73%

64%

79%76%

85%

39%

74%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Diversity isreflected in thestudent body.

Diversity isreflected in the

faculty.

Diversity isreflected in

administration

Diversity is fullyembracedwithin the

campusculture.

All studentsfeel welcome

and supportedat this school,regardless of

background oridentity.

School leadersare visibly

committed tofostering

respect fordiversity on

campus.

I feel like I needto hide someaspects of myidentity to fit

in.

On campus,there areenough

opportunitiesto gain

knowledgeabout my own

culturalcommunity.

(47%). Students most often learned about or became more aware of diversity in the classroom or through talking with friends.

Campus Inclusivity

Table 4 provides information for questions in the Campus Inclusivity subsection of the survey. Three-quarters of students feel UTSA provides enough programs to support meaningful interactions between students of different cultures. We can only compare UTSA’s results with all institutional results on one question in this subsection and that is access to a trusted faculty or staff member. A lower proportion of UTSA respondents (70.4%,+/-2.8%) reported they have a faculty or staff member they can trust to connect them with information or support compared with all students in all participating institutions (81%).

Table 4: Percent strongly agree or agree – Perceptions of Campus Inclusivity

Count Mean

Standard

Error of

Mean

Lower

CL for

Mean

Upper

CL for

Mean

Most student at this school have values and attitudes

different from my own. 1,129 .63 .014 .61 .66

I feel like my school provides enough programs that promote

meaningful interactions between students from different

cultures.

1,133 .76 .013 .74 .79

I have access to at least one faculty or staff member who I

trust and who can connect me with information or support I

may need, regardless of the issue I face.

1,136 .70 .014 .68 .73

I feel like my peers at this school are too politically correct or

sensitive. 1,135 .40 .015 .37 .43

I feel like faculty and staff at this school are too politically

correct or sensitive. 1,131 .33 .014 .31 .36

Figure 3: Perceptions of Campus Inclusivity

Hispanic and white respondents more often agree that UTSA provides enough programs to promote meaningful interactions between students of different cultures compared with Asian or black respondents. White respondents also more often report access to a trusted faculty or staff member compared with black or Hispanic respondents. Male respondents more often report feeling that their peers, faculty and staff are too politically correct or sensitive compared to female and non-binary respondents. Males and non-binary respondents more often agree that students at UTSA have values and attitudes different from their own compared with females. This is also true of heterosexual respondents compared with LGBTQ respondents and on-campus respondents compared with off-campus although the effect size is small.

Higher percentages of both females and males feel that the school provides enough programs to promote meaningful interactions compared with non-binary respondents. No significant differences exist by first generation status for campus inclusivity questions. Further detail about intergroup comparisons for campus inclusivity questions are provided in Appendix 2.

A greater share of white respondents have access to at least one faculty or staff member who they can trust to connect them with information or support compared with black or Hispanic respondents. The effect size for this difference is moderate for black respondents and small for Hispanic respondents.

63%

76%70%

40%33%

81%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Most student at thisschool have values andattitudes different from

my own.

I feel like my schoolprovides enough

programs that promotemeaningful interactionsbetween students from

different cultures.

I have access to at leastone faculty or staff

member who I trust andwho can connect mewith information orsupport I may need,

regardless of the issue Iface.

I feel like my peers at thisschool are too politically

correct or sensitive.

I feel like faculty andstaff at this school are

too politically correct orsensitive.

UTSA All Institutions

Classroom Experiences

Students were also asked about their experiences with diversity and inclusion in class or with classwork. Table 5 presents detail on these questions. The mean can be interpreted here as the percent of students who strongly agreed or agreed with the following statements. Results for UTSA students on these questions are similar to results at other institutions except that UTSA respondents less often agree that they feel comfortable sharing their own perspectives in class (69%) compared to overall results at all institutions (75%). This difference is not sizeable but it is outside the margin of error for UTSA’s results. Most students feel comfortable sharing their perspectives in class. More than forty percent feel they have to work harder than other students to be perceived as a good student and about more than one-third have heard faculty express stereotypes based on identity.

Table 5: Percent strongly agree or agree - Classroom Experiences

Count Mean

Standard

Error of

Mean

Lower

CL for

Mean

Upper

CL for

Mean

I feel comfortable sharing my own perspectives and experience in

class. 1,136 .69 .014 .66 .71

I feel I have to work harder than other students to be perceived as a

good student. 1,132 .41 .015 .38 .44

I have been singled out in class because of my identity (e.g., race,

ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, religious

affiliation, etc.).

1,132 .16 .011 .14 .18

In class, I have heard faculty express stereotypes based on identity

(e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status,

religious affiliation, etc.).

1,130 .34 .014 .31 .36

Figure 4: Classroom Experiences

A greater share of female respondents were comfortable sharing their perspectives and experiences in class compared with male respondents. Asian, black, Hispanic, and respondents from other racial or ethnic groups more often reported feeling as though they had to work harder to be perceived as a good student compared with white respondents. First generation students also more often reported working harder to be perceived as a good student compared with students whose parent or parents attended college. A greater share of black or African-American respondents heard faculty express stereotypes in class compared with Hispanic respondents or those from ‘other’ racial or ethnic groups. This was also true for non-binary gender respondents compared with males, for LGBTQ respondents compared with heterosexual respondents, and for respondents living on-campus compared with those living off-campus. See the Appendix for statistics related to significant mean differences.

Diversity and Inclusion Programs or Services

Most students know that diversity and inclusion support programs exist but a much smaller share actually use or volunteer time with these campus services and programs. Questions related to awareness of programming are recoded so that students who indicated they were aware of services, used services, worked at or volunteered with services to meet the needs of specific populations were coded as one. Students not aware of those services are coded as zero. Confidence intervals for these questions range from +/-2 to +/3 percent.

Awareness of services on campus is slightly lower at UTSA compared to overall results at all institutions, particularly for services to support women or students identifying as women where 64% of students at all institution were aware of or had used/worked at services to support women compared with 52% +/-2.8% at

69%

41%

16%

34%

75%

40%

17%

31%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

I feel comfortable sharing

my own perspectives and

experiences in class

I feel I have to work harder

than other students to be

perceived as a good student

I have been singled out in

class because of my identity

In class, I have heard faculty

express stereotypes based

on identity

UTSA All institutions

UTSA. Additionally, a smaller proportion of UTSA students were aware of services to support students of diverse cultures or services to support gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Table 6: Percent aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services on campus addressing the

needs of the following populations

Count Mean

Standard Error

of Mean

Lower CL

for Mean

Upper CL

for Mean

Religious students 1,245 .62 .014 .59 .65

Students with disabilities 1,261 .78 .012 .76 .80

International Students 1,263 .69 .013 .66 .71

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students 1,261 .59 .014 .56 .62

Students of diverse races and

cultures 1,260 .69 .013 .66 .71

Women and students who identify as

women 1,261 .52 .014 .50 .55

Figure 5: Aware of, used, volunteered or worked with services on campus addressing the needs of specific

populations

A higher share Black and Hispanic respondents at UTSA are aware of, used, volunteered or worked with services to support the needs of religious students compared with white respondents. This was also true for on-campus

62%

78%

69%

59%

69%

52%

67%

80%76%

72%76%

64%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Religious students Students withdisabilities

InternationalStudents

Gay, lesbian, andbisexual students

Students of diverseraces and cultures

Women andstudents who

identify as women

UTSA All Institutions

compared with off-campus respondents. White respondents more often reported awareness or use of services to support students with disabilities or services for international students compared with Hispanic respondents. On-campus respondents were also more often aware of or had used services to support gay, lesbian or bisexual students, services for students of diverse races and cultures, and services for women compared with respondents living off-campus.

Generally, a smaller share of respondents made deeper connections with services by volunteering, working with or using the services to meet the needs of these populations. Here, the analyst recoded questions related to services to support the needs of specific populations such that usage, volunteering, or working with the services are all coded as one and other answers are coded zero. Confidence intervals for these responses range from +/-1.2 to 2 percent. Students most frequently reported using or volunteering/working with services addressing the needs of religious students.

Compared to overall results for all respondents at all participating institutions, a smaller share of UTSA respondents used, volunteered or worked with services to support the needs of groups listed below although differences were slight, between 3% and 5% fewer respondents.

Table 7: Percent used, volunteered or worked at services on campus addressing the needs of

the following populations

Count Mean

Standard Error

of Mean

Lower CL

for Mean

Upper CL

for Mean

Religious students 1,245 .12 .009 .10 .14

Students with disabilities 1,261 .08 .008 .06 .09

International students 1,263 .05 .006 .04 .06

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students 1,261 .03 .005 .02 .04

Students of diverse races and

cultures 1,260 .07 .007 .05 .08

Women and students who identify as

women 1,261 .05 .006 .04 .06

Figure 6: Used, volunteered or worked with services on campus addressing the needs of specific populations

Black or African-American respondents more often used, volunteered or worked with services addressing the needs of religious students than any other racial or ethnic group. Females and heterosexual respondents also more often used or worked with services for religious students compared with males or LGBTQ students. Higher shares of non-binary and female students used, worked or volunteered with services for lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents compared with males. This was also true for LGBTQ students compared with heterosexual students. A higher share of Asian respondents used, volunteered or worked with services addressing the needs of international students compared with other racial or ethnic groups. Asian, black, and Hispanic respondents more often used or worked with services addressing the needs of students from diverse races or cultures compared with white respondents. See Appendix 2 for statistical comparisons between groups along with effect sizes for significant differences.

Experiences with Discrimination

Seventeen percent (+/-2%) of survey respondents reported experiences with discrimination or harassment since the beginning of the school year. This included such experiences as being shunned, ignored, intimidated or otherwise targeted in an offensive or hostile manner that interfered with the respondent’s ability to learn or work. This number is very similar to the share of respondents at all institutions who reported experiences with discrimination and harassment.

Respondents who experienced discrimination or harassment most frequently reported being ignored or excluded (49%), being the target of offensive humor (32%), hearing an instructor make hostile or offensive comments (30%). Incidents of discrimination or harassment most frequently occurred in class or while walking on campus. Only six percent of respondents who experienced discrimination or harassment formally reported the incident to the institution. Respondents who did not report the incident most often did not think it was

12%8%

5% 3%7% 5%

15%12% 10%

6%10% 9%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Religious students Students withdisabilities

InternationalStudents

Gay, lesbian, andbisexual students

Students ofdiverse races and

cultures

Women andstudents who

identify as women

UTSA All Institutions

serious enough to report (45%) but just over one-third of respondents who did not report feared they would not be believed or taken seriously. Statistically significant differences between groups with regard to experiencing discrimination or harassment are not present.

This subsection of the survey also asked respondents if they knew how to report incidences of harassment and discrimination find help and locate the school’s harassment and discrimination policy along with asking if they understood procedures to address complaints. The majority of respondents knew how to report and understood formal procedures although improvement can be accomplished in this area. It is not possible to know how UTSA compares with other institutions for these questions. A greater share of Asian respondents knew where to report incidences of harassment or discrimination, how to find help, and where to access policies compared with white, Hispanic or black respondents. This was also true for males compared to females.

Table 8: Percent strongly agree or agree: Reporting harassment or discrimination

Count Mean

Standard Error

of Mean

Lower CL for

Mean

Upper CL

for Mean

I know how to report an incident of harassment or

discrimination to the school. 1.260 .60 .014 .57 .62

If a friend or I experienced harassment or

discrimination, I would know where to go get help. 1.260 .57 .014 .55 .60

I know where I can access my school's harassment

and discrimination policy. 1.259 .60 .014 .57 .63

I understand my school's formal procedures to

address complaints of harassment or

discrimination.

1.251 .51 .014 .48 .53

Figure 7: Reporting Discrimination or Harassment

Actions Related to Diversity

Respondents most commonly socialized or engaged in serious conversations with students who were different from them in race or ethnicity followed by socioeconomic background. These interactions most frequently occurred in class. Results for socialization were quite similar for UTSA compared with other institutions participating in the survey with the exception of religious beliefs and nationality where seven to eight percent fewer UTSA respondents very often or often socialized with students with different religious beliefs. UTSA respondents more commonly engaged in serious conversations with students of different political beliefs (44%) compared with other institutions (40%).

A higher share of white respondents and respondents from the ‘other’ racial category reported very often or often socializing with students of different backgrounds compared with Hispanic students. This was also true for white respondents compared with black students with regard to socializing with students of different religious beliefs, political beliefs, or socioeconomic background.

Similar differences between white and ‘other’ racial groups are present when respondents were asked how often they hold serious conversations with students of different backgrounds from themselves compared to black or Hispanic respondents. A notable difference is that Asian respondents more often held serious conversations with someone of a different nationality or religious belief compared with Hispanic students and with students of different political beliefs compared with black students.

54%

42% 40%45%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Race or ethnicity Nationality (citizen of anothercountry)

Sexual orientation Religious beliefs

A smaller share of first generation students compared with non-first generation students socialized with students of different race/ethnicity, religious or political beliefs, or socioeconomic background. Non-binary respondents more often socialized with students of different sexual orientation or religious belief compared with males or females. They also more often held serious conversations with students of a different sexual orientation.

There were no statistically significant differences by on-campus or off-campus respondents for this series of questions.

Table 9: Percent very often or often: Socialized with students who were different from them in:

Count Mean Standard

Error of Mean Lower CL for Mean

Upper CL for Mean

Race or ethnicity 1,162 .72 .013 .69 .75 Nationality (citizen of another country) 1,162 .54 .015 .51 .57 Sexual orientation 1,160 .51 .015 .48 .54 Religious beliefs 1,160 .57 .015 .54 .60 Political beliefs 1,159 .52 .015 .49 .55 Socioeconomic background 1,154 .60 .014 .58 .63

Figure 8: Percent very often or often socialized with students who were different from them in:

54%

42% 40%45% 44%

48%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Race or ethnicity Nationality (citizenof anothercountry)

Sexual orientation Religious beliefs Political beliefs Socioeconomicbackground

Table 10: Percent very often or often: Engaged in serious conversations with students who were different

from them in:

Count Mean

Standard Error

of Mean

Lower CL

for Mean

Upper CL

for Mean

Race or ethnicity 1,163 .54 .015 .51 .57

Nationality (citizen of another country) 1,164 .42 .014 .39 .45

Sexual orientation 1,165 .40 .014 .38 .43

Religious beliefs 1,165 .45 .015 .42 .48

Political beliefs 1,166 .44 .015 .41 .47

Socioeconomic background 1,164 .48 .015 .45 .51

Figure 9: Percent who often or very often engaged in serious conversations with students who were different

from them in:

Student-Designed Questions

In addition to survey components offered by EAB, each institution wrote three custom questions, which survey designers added to the existing survey. The group felt it important to give students control over selection of the survey and custom questions. The Student Action Coalition in conjunction with student government leadership created the questions listed in Table 11. It is not possible to compare results on these items with other institutions because each institution created their own custom questions.

54%

42%40%

45% 44%48%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Race or ethnicity Nationality (citizenof another country)

Sexual orientation Religious beliefs Political beliefs Socioeconomicbackground

Table 11: Custom survey questions

Question Response Count Percent I feel UTSA is doing … to protect undocumented students

Not enough 345 31% Just right 574 51% Too much 196 18%

Student organizations and groups can organize activities or programs to express their views.

Strongly agree/agree

788 69%

My academic college (Business, Sciences, Liberal and Fine Arts, etc) promotes diversity and inclusion

Strongly agree/agree

712 63%

Recommendations and Considerations

This report provides a broad overview of the UTSA Campus Climate survey fielded in late March 2018. The Education Advisory Board (EAB) designed this survey and manages survey process annually.

A higher share of UTSA respondents reported that diversity is reflected within the student body, faculty and administrators compared with other institutions involved in the Campus Climate Survey. Similarly, a higher share agree or strongly agree that diversity is fully embraced in campus culture. A smaller share of students, however, felt close to people at the institution or found it easy to find other people on campus who understand them compared with other institutions. The vast majority of students feel safe at UTSA.

Most respondents report positive views on diversity and inclusion on campus but there are gaps between racial minorities and white respondents, particularly for black or African-American respondents. The gap between closeness to others at UTSA and access to a trusted faculty or staff member both between UTSA supports premise of the UT system initiative surrounding sense of belonging and connectedness in programming and events. Further, UTSA should highlight programmatic and policy efforts toward inclusiveness and genuine intergroup relationships with the goal that students truly feel like part of the Roadrunner family.

When asked what they felt would improve the campus climate, respondents most frequently stated that UTSA should hold more multicultural events followed by incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively in the classroom. Students also agreed that UTSA should recruit more individuals from underrepresented or minority groups for leadership, faculty and staff positions and provide opportunities for more inter-group discussion and interaction.

Figure 10: What actions do you think would improve the campus climate?

Seven percent of students responded to the survey, a response rate we believe UTSA can improve on for subsequent surveys. The university sent the Campus Climate Survey to students at a time when UTSA disseminated several other within a few weeks of each other. Those surveys included the NSSE sent to all freshmen and seniors and the Educause survey fielded by OIT along with any other intermittent surveys requested by other offices on campus. Consideration of survey fatigue and survey prioritization and scheduling will be essential to procuring higher response rates on future climate surveys.

This subcommittee further recommends that UTSA re-administer EAB’s Campus Climate or a similar survey using this survey as a baseline. To avoid survey fatigue, we recommend a two-year schedule to assess change over time.

In addition to ongoing campus-wide surveys to gauge campus climate regarding diversity and inclusion efforts, we recommend that Student Life use the present survey results to frame focus group discussions to provide qualitative context to selected questions.

376

446

462

498

502

509

581

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Strengthen consequences for acting disrespectfully

Provide diversity education workshops for faculty andstaff

Provide diversity education workshops for students

Provide opportunities for more inter-group discussionand interaction

Recruit more individuals from underrepresented orminority groups for leadership, faculty and staff positions

Incorporate issues of diversity and cross-culturalcompetence more effectively into the curriculum

Have more multicultural events

Works Cited

Banerjee, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2010). Statistics without tears: Populations and samples. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60-5.

Appendix 1: Survey Instrument

Survey Consent

220

Statement of Anonymity The survey will not ask you to provide any identifying information and your responses are anonymous. In the event of any publication or presentation of the survey results, no personally identifiable information will be shared. Survey responses will be reported in terms of groups of students rather than as individual cases.

Risks and Benefits The results of the survey will provide important information about our campus climate and will help us in our efforts to ensure that the environment at this school is safe for students. There are no risks in participating in this survey beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of the survey questions are personal and you might experience emotional discomfort while answering them. At the end of the survey you will be given information about resources should you wish to talk with someone.

Voluntary Participation Participation in this survey is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you can skip questions or stop participating at any time without penalty. Refusal to take part in the survey will not result in any negative consequences.

If you have questions about the purpose or content of the survey, or if you have technical difficulties taking the survey, please email climatesurvey@eab.com.

Page exit logic: Page Logic

IF: #1 Question "Do you agree to take the survey?" is one of the following answers ("No, I am

Appendix 2: Intergroup Mean Differences by Question

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

Safe at this school Female 913 0.95 0.219 Non-binary 41 0.76 0.435 2.834(41) 0.007 0.056 0.331 0.82

Male 639 0.95 0.228 Non-binary 41 0.76 0.435 2.761(41) 0.009 0.051 0.327 0.78 Heterosexual 1284 0.95 0.219 LBGTQ 300 0.91 0.282 2.073(387) 0.039 0.002 0.070 0.17

Close to people at this school

Asian 93 0.72 0.451 Black 119 0.46 0.501 3.940(206) 0.000 0.129 0.387 0.54 Asian 93 0.72 0.451 Other 111 0.50 0.502 3.233(201) 0.001 0.084 0.348 0.46 Hispanic 741 0.63 0.483 Black 119 0.46 0.501 3.387(155) 0.001 0.069 0.264 0.35 On-Campus 241 0.67 0.493 Off-Campus 1352 0.59 0.470 2.608(340) 0.010 0.021 0.152 0.17 Heterosexual 1282 0.61 0.488 LBGTQ 299 0.54 0.500 2.344(440) 0.020 0.012 0.138 0.14

Administrators concerned about my welfare Heterosexual 1284 0.66 0.474 LBGTQ 300 0.59 0.493 2.274(432) 0.023 0.010 0.134 0.15 Diversity reflected in student body

Hispanic 586 0.94 0.246 Black 93 0.83 0.379 2.637(105) 0.010 0.027 0.188 0.41 White 410 0.94 0.24 Black 93 0.83 0.379 2.703(109) 0.008 0.030 0.193 0.41

Considered leaving since the beginning of the academic year

Black 117 0.32 0.470 Asian 92 0.18 0.390 2.351(206) 0.020 0.023 0.257 0.32 White 494 0.29 0.452 Asian 92 0.18 0.390 2.213(141) 0.029 0.011 0.191 0.25 Non-binary 41 0.51 0.506 Male 637 0.27 0.444 2.991(44) 0.005 0.079 0.405 0.54 Non-binary 41 0.51 0.506 Female 903 0.25 0.433 3.260(43) 0.002 0.100 0.424 0.60 LGBTQ 299 0.35 0.479 Heterosexual 1272 0.25 0.430 3.614(418) 0.000 0.050 0.169 0.23 On-Campus 237 0.36 0.481 Off-Campus 1347 0.25 0.433 3.272(307) 0.001 0.044 0.175 0.25

Diversity reflected in faculty

Asian 72 0.83 0.375 Black 93 0.48 0.502 5.435(163) 0.000 0.236 0.506 0.78 Hispanic 587 0.81 0.396 Black 93 0.48 0.502 6.303(111) 0.000 0.235 0.451 0.80 Other 89 0.78 0.42 Black 93 0.48 0.502 4.573(177) 0.000 0.178 0.448 0.65 White 409 0.88 0.325 Black 93 0.48 0.502 7.679(110) 0.000 0.310 0.526 1.10 White 409 0.88 0.325 Hispanic 587 0.81 0.396 3.246(968) 0.001 0.029 0.119 0.19 Male 494 0.85 0.353 Female 743 0.77 0.419 3.694(1168) 0.000 0.038 0.125 0.20 Heterosexual 1010 0.82 0.385 LGBTQ 258 0.74 0.439 2.264(364) 0.009 0.020 0.137 0.20

Diversity reflected in administration

Asian 72 0.82 0.387 Black 93 0.48 0.502 4.844(163) 0.000 0.199 0.472 0.75 Hispanic 583 0.74 0.438 Black 93 0.48 0.502 4.660(115) 0.000 0.148 0.366 0.58 Other 89 0.71 0.457 Black 93 0.48 0.502 3.148(180) 0.002 0.084 0.364 0.48 White 408 0.8 0.401 Black 93 0.48 0.502 5.652(120) 0.000 0.205 0.426 0.76 Male 492 0.79 0.41 Female 741 0.72 0.450 2.714(1116) 0.007 0.019 0.116 0.16 Male 494 0.79 0.41 Non-binary 35 0.74 0.443 2.263(36) 0.030 0.021 0.376 0.12 Heterosexual 1006 0.76 0.428 LGBTQ 257 0.67 0.471 2.788(371) 0.006 0.027 0.154 0.21

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

Diversity fully embraced in campus culture

Hispanic 586 0.88 0.325 Black 92 0.75 0.435 2.758(107) 0.007 0.037 0.224 0.38 White 411 0.9 0.3 Black 92 0.75 0.435 3.147(111) 0.002 0.056 0.245 0.46 Heterosexual 1009 0.88 0.322 LGBTQ 258 0.82 0.384 2.366(355) 0.019 0.010 0.112 0.18

Opportunities to gain knowledge about my cultural commnunity

Hispanic 580 0.81 0.394 White 403 0.65 0.478 5.571(754) 0.000 0.094 0.310 0.37 Hispanic 580 0.81 0.394 Asian 71 0.62 0.489 3.134(81) 0.002 0.069 0.309 0.47 Hispanic 580 0.81 0.394 Other 89 0.64 0.394 3.131(107) 0.002 0.062 0.275 0.43 Hispanic 580 0.81 0.394 Black 89 0.61 0.491 3.669(106) 0.000 0.094 0.310 0.49

Hide aspects of identity to fit in

Male 492 0.42 0.495 Female 742 0.32 0.465 3.896(1006) 0.000 0.054 0.165 0.21 Non-binary 35 0.69 0.471 Male 492 0.42 0.495 3.156(40) 0.003 0.094 0.428 0.55 Non-binary* 35 0.69 0.471 Female* 742 0.32 0.465 4.602(775) 0.000 0.212 0.528 0.80 LGBTQ 257 0.45 0.498 Heterosexual 1008 0.35 0.477 2.876(384) 0.004 0.031 0.167 0.21

All students feel welcome Male 492 0.79 0.495 Non-binary 35 0.60 0.497 2.169(37) 0.037 0.012 0.361 0.38 Female 742 0.81 0.393 Non-binary 35 0.60 0.497 2.463(36) 0.019 0.037 0.383 0.53 Heterosexual 1007 0.82 0.387 LGBTQ 258 0.71 0.455 3.469(358) 0.001 0.046 0.168 0.27

School leaders committed to fostering respect for diversity

Heterosexual 1002 0.84 0.366 LGBTQ 257 0.75 0.431 2.955(356) 0.003 0.029 0.144 0.24

On-Campus 180 0.88 0.328 Off Campus 1084 0.81 0.389 2.325(270) 0.021 0.010 0.117 0.18 Most students have values/attitudes different from my own

Male 438 0.68 0.466 Female 656 0.59 0.491 2.99(970) 0.003 0.030 0.146 0.19 Non-binary 34 0.76 0.431 Female 656 0.59 0.491 2.231(38) 0.032 0.016 0.325 0.35 On-Campus 161 0.71 0.456 Off-Campus 967 0.62 0.485 2.209(225) 0.028 0.009 0.164 0.19

My school provides enough programs promoting meaningful interactions

Hispanic 525 0.8 0.402 Asian 64 0.64 0.484 2.502(74) 0.015 0.032 0.283 0.39 Hispanic 525 0.8 0.402 Black 85 0.62 0.487 3.134(103) 0.002 0.064 0.285 0.43 Hispanic 525 0.8 0.402 Other 79 0.68 0.468 2.064(96) 0.042 0.004 0.225 0.29 White 359 0.79 0.405 Asian 64 0.64 0.484 2.390(80) 0.019 0.029 0.281 0.36 White 359 0.79 0.405 Black 85 0.62 0.487 2.987(113) 0.003 0.057 0.283 0.40 Male 439 0.78 0.414 Non-binary 34 0.53 0.507 2.827(36) 0.008 0.071 0.433 0.59 Female 659 0.76 0.425 Non-binary 34 0.53 0.507 2.644(35) 0.012 0.054 0.413 0.54

Access to faculty or staff to connect me with information or support

White 362 0.76 0.426 Black 85 0.59 0.495 2.994(115) 0.003 0.059 0.289 0.39

White 362 0.76 0.426 Hispanic 525 0.69 0.465 2.539(817) 0.011 0.017 0.136 0.16 Peers too politically correct

Male 439 0.52 0.5 Female 661 0.33 0.472 6.143(900) 0.000 0.126 0.244 0.39 Male 439 0.52 0.5 Non-binary 34 0.24 0.431 3.660(40) 0.001 0.127 0.441 0.57 Heterosexual 906 0.43 0.496 LGBTQ 225 0.29 0.456 4.028(366) 0.000 0.071 0.207 0.29

Faculty/staff too politically correct

Male 438 0.45 0.498 Female 658 0.26 0.441 6.367(856) 0.000 0.129 0.244 0.41 Male 438 0.45 0.498 Non-binary 34 0.21 0.41 3.282(41) 0.002 0.094 0.394 0.49

Heterosexual 902 0.36 0.479 LGBTQ 225 0.25 0.436 3.093(371) 0.002 0.037 0.168 0.23

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

Work harder than other students to be perceived as a good student

Asian 64 0.53 0.503 White 360 0.29 0.454 3.603(82) 0.001 0.109 0.376 0.52 Black 84 0.61 0.491 White 360 0.29 0.454 5.421(118) 0.000 0.202 0.434 0.69 Hispanic 525 0.43 0.496 White 360 0.29 0.454 4.506(814) 0.000 0.082 0.209 0.29 Other 78 0.49 0.503 White 360 0.29 0.454 3.210(106) 0.002 0.076 0.321 0.43 Black* 84 0.61 0.491 Hispanic* 525 0.43 0.496 2.969(607) 0.003 0.058 0.287 0.36

First generation 316 0.47 0.5 Non-first generation 795 0.38 0.486 2.701(565) 0.007 0.024 0.154 0.18

Comfortable sharing own perspective & experience in class Female 660 0.72 0.45 Male 441 0.65 0.478 2.425(904) 0.016 0.013 0.126 0.15 Singled out in class because of identity Black 83 0.23 0.423 Hispanic 525 0.13 0.338 2.002(99) 0.048 0.001 0.194 0.29 Heard faculty express stereotypes based on identity

Black 84 0.46 0.502 Hispanic 523 0.31 0.461 2.714(107) 0.008 0.043 0.274 0.32 Black 84 0.46 0.502 Other 77 0.29 0.455 2.369(159) 0.019 0.030 0.327 0.35 Non-binary 34 0.5 0.508 Male 438 0.30 0.46 2.187(37) 0.036 0.015 0.378 0.43 LGBTQ 224 0.41 0.492 Heterosexual 902 0.32 0.466 2.391(329) 0.017 0.015 0.159 0.19 On-Campus 161 0.41 0.493 Off-Campus 969 0.32 0.468 1.969(209) 0.050 0.000 0.165 0.19

Aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services for religous students

Black 93 0.7 0.496 White 400 0.57 0.461 2.44(146) 0.020 0.025 0.240 0.28 Hispanic 570 0.65 0.476 White 400 0.57 0.496 2.73(836) 0.006 0.024 0.149 0.17

On-Campus 176 0.72 0.449 Off-Campus 1068 0.60 0.489 3.151(248) 0.002 0.048 0.190 0.25 Aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services for students w/ disabilities White 405 0.83 0.379 Hispanic 581 0.75 0.431 2.82(933) 0.005 0.022 0.124 0.19 Aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual students On-Campus 180 0.68 0.467 Off-Campus 1080 0.57 0.495 2.908(251) 0.004 0.036 0.184 0.22 Aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services for international students

White 406 0.71 0.445 Black 94 0.61 0.491 2.22(131) 0.028 0.013 0.232 0.22

White 406 0.71 0.445 Hispanic 581 0.67 0.472 2.13(902) 0.030 0.005 0.120 0.09 Aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services for diverse races and cultures On-Campus 181 0.76 0.427 Off-Campus 1079 0.67 0.469 2.56(259) 0.011 0.020 0.157 0.19

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

Aware of, used, volunteered or worked at services for women/students identifying as women On-Campus 181 0.63 0.484 Off-Campus 1079 0.51 0.505 3.192(249) 0.002 0.048 0.201 0.24 Used, volunteered or worked at services for religous students

Black 93 0.25 0.434 Hispanic 870 0.12 0.326 2.686(110) 0.008 0.033 0.219 0.38 Black 93 0.25 0.434 Other 87 0.09 0.29 2.839(162) 0.005 0.047 0.263 0.43 Black 93 0.25 0.434 White 400 0.09 0.29 3.276(112) 0.001 0.061 0.248 0.50 Female 733 0.14 0.345 Male 475 0.10 0.296 2.199(1116) 0.028 0.004 0.070 0.12 Heterosexual 984 0.13 0.341 LGBTQ 255 0.07 0.257 3.276(512) 0.001 0.025 0.102 0.18 On-Campus 176 0.23 0.42 Off-Campus 1068 0.10 0.305 3.734(207) 0.000 0.058 0.188 0.40

Used, volunteered or worked at services for students w/ disabilities Other 87 0.14 0.347 Black 93 0.03 0.178 2.547(126) 0.012 0.023 0.188 0.40 Used, volunteered or worked at services for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual students

Non-binary 35 0.2 0.406 Female 737 0.03 0.178 2.43(35) 0.020 0.028 0.307 0.88 Non-binary 35 0.2 0.406 Male 486 0.01 0.111 2.728(34) 0.010 0.048 0.327 1.27 Female 737 0.03 0.178 Male 486 0.01 0.111 2.450(1218) 0.014 0.004 0.036 0.13 LGBTQ 258 0.08 0.234 Heterosexual 997 0.02 0.13 3.668(287) 0.000 0.030 0.010 0.38

Used, volunteered or worked at services for international students

Asian 71 0.14 0.35 Black 94 0.04 0.203 2.11(105) 0.037 0.006 0.190 0.36 Asian 71 0.14 0.35 Hispanic 580 0.04 0.203 2.263(76) 0.026 0.012 0.180 0.45 Asian 71 0.14 0.35 Other 87 0.03 0.183 2.312(101) 0.023 0.015 0.198 0.41 Asian 71 0.14 0.35 White 406 0.04 0.206 2.254(78) 0.027 0.011 0.180 0.43

Used, volunteered or worked at services for diverse races and cultures

Asian 71 0.14 0.35 White 405 0.03 0.163 2.684(75) 0.009 0.029 0.198 0.55 Black 93 0.2 0.405 Hispanic 580 0.07 0.248 3.207(103) 0.002 0.053 0.225 0.47 Black 93 0.2 0.405 White 405 0.03 0.163 4.138(98) 0.000 0.092 0.262 0.75 Black 93 0.2 0.405 Other 87 0.08 0.274 2.416(162) 0.017 0.023 0.225 0.34 Hispanic 580 0.07 0.248 White 405 0.03 0.163 2.293(980) 0.003 0.012 0.064 0.18 Female 739 0.08 0.278 Male 486 0.03 0.184 3.72(1221) 0.000 0.023 0.075 0.20

Used, volunteered or worked at services for women/students identifying as women Female 739 0.08 0.271 Male 485 0.01 0.091 6.634(967) 0.000 0.050 0.093 0.32

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

I know how to report incident of harassment/discrimination

Male 487 0.66 0.474 Female 737 0.56 0.497 3.545(1073) 0.000 0.045 0.156 0.20 Asian 72 0.75 0.436 Black 93 0.58 0.496 2.329(160) 0.021 0.026 0.315 0.36 Asian 72 0.75 0.436 Hispanic 581 0.59 0.492 2.856(95) 0.005 0.048 0.268 0.33 Asian 72 0.75 0.436 White 405 0.58 0.494 2.938(106) 0.004 0.054 0.280 0.35 Heterosexual 999 0.62 0.486 LGBTQ 257 0.5 0.501 3.379(389) 0.001 0.049 0.186 0.25 On-campus 180 0.68 0.466 Off Campus 1079 0.58 0.493 2.675(251) 0.008 0.027 0.176 0.20

I would know where to get help for an incident of harassment/discrimination

Male 487 0.65 0.478 Female 737 0.53 0.5 4.26(1072) 0.000 0.065 0.177 0.24 Male* 487 0.65 0.478 Non-binary* 35 0.46 0.505 2.284(520) 0.023 0.027 0.357 0.40 Asian 72 0.75 0.436 Black 93 0.49 0.503 3.489(161) 0.001 0.111 0.400 0.55 Asian 72 0.75 0.436 Hispanic 581 0.56 0.497 3.443(95) 0.001 0.081 0.301 0.39 Asian 72 0.75 0.436 White 405 0.58 0.495 3.023(106) 0.003 0.059 0.285 0.35 Other 87 0.64 0.48 Black 93 0.49 0.503 2.031(178) 0.004 0.294 0.285 0.30 Heterosexual 999 0.59 0.492 LGBTQ 257 0.50 0.501 2.510(393) 0.012 0.019 0.156 0.18

I know where to access my school's harassment/discrimination policy

Male 486 0.65 0.478 Female 737 0.57 0.496 2.809(1064) 0.005 0.024 0.135 0.16 Asian 72 0.78 0.419 Black 93 0.53 0.502 3.498(162) 0.001 0.109 0.393 0.53 Asian 72 0.78 0.419 Hispanic 580 0.58 0.494 3.746(97) 0.000 0.094 0.306 0.41 Asian 72 0.78 0.419 White 405 0.61 0.488 3.009(108) 0.003 0.056 0.274 0.36 Other 87 0.69 0.465 Black 93 0.53 0.502 2.258(178) 0.025 0.020 0.305 0.33 Other 87 0.69 0.465 Hispanic 580 0.58 0.494 2.077(117) 0.040 0.005 0.219 0.22

I understand my school's formal procedures to address complaints of harassment/discrimination

Male 484 0.57 0.496 Female 731 0.47 0.499 3.418(1039) 0.001 0.042 0.157 0.20 Asian 71 0.63 0.485 Black 90 0.46 0.501 2.282(152) 0.024 0.024 0.333 0.34

Asian 71 0.63 0.485 White 404 0.47 0.499 2.686(98) 0.008 0.044 0.293 0.32 Socialized with someone of different race/ethnicity

White 369 0.79 0.411 Hispanic 538 0.65 0.477 4.501(859) 0.000 0.075 0.192 0.31 Other 82 0.83 0.379 Hispanic 538 0.65 0.477 3.796(124) 0.000 0.085 0.269 0.39 Not first generation 815 0.74 0.438 First generation 325 0.66 0.473 2.558(557) 0.011 0.018 0.137 0.18

Socialized with someone of different nationality

White 368 0.58 0.494 Hispanic 539 0.49 0.500 2.594(795) 0.010 0.021 0.153 0.18 Other 82 0.66 0.379 Hispanic 539 0.49 0.500 2.932(110) 0.004 0.054 0.280 0.35

Socialized with someone of different sexual orientation

White 368 0.56 0.497 Hispanic 539 0.47 0.500 2.518(791) 0.012 0.019 0.151 0.18 Female 673 0.55 0.498 Male 451 0.44 0.497 3.586(967) 0.000 0.049 0.168 0.22 Non-binary 34 0.79 0.41 Female 673 0.55 0.498 3.410(38) 0.020 0.101 0.396 0.49 Non-binary 34 0.79 0.41 Male 451 0.44 0.497 4.818(41) 0.000 0.207 0.507 0.71 LGBTQ 231 0.63 0.483 Heterosexual 922 0.48 0.500 4.233(363) 0.000 0.026 0.119 0.30

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

Socialized with someone of different religious beliefs

White 368 0.64 0.481 Hispanic 538 0.52 0.5 3.628(808) 0.000 0.055 0.185 0.24 White 368 0.64 0.481 Black 84 0.48 0.502 2.694(120) 0.008 0.043 0.282 0.33 Other 82 0.67 0.473 Hispanic 539 0.47 0.5 2.693(110) 0.008 0.040 0.264 0.40 Other 82 0.67 0.473 Black 84 0.48 0.502 2.570(164) 0.011 0.045 0.344 0.39 Non-binary 34 0.74 0.448 Male 451 0.56 0.497 2.199(39) 0.034 0.014 0.339 0.36 Non-binary 34 0.74 0.448 Female 673 0.57 0.496 2.138(37) 0.039 0.009 0.330 0.34 Not first generation 813 0.6 0.49 First generation 325 0.50 0.501 2.889(586) 0.004 0.030 0.159 0.20

Socialized with someone of different political beliefs

White 367 0.58 0.494 Hispanic 538 0.49 0.5 2.694(793) 0.007 0.025 0.157 0.18 White* 367 0.58 0.494 Black* 84 0.38 0.489 3.392(449) 0.001 0.085 0.319 0.41 Other* 82 0.59 0.496 Black* 84 0.38 0.489 2.676(164) 0.008 0.054 0.355 0.43 Not first generation* 812 0.55 0.498 First generation* 325 0.45 0.498 3.004(1135) 0.003 0.034 0.162 0.20 Heterosexual* 921 0.54 0.499 LGBTQ* 231 0.45 0.499 2.467(1150) 0.014 0.019 0.162 0.18

Socialized with someone of different socioeconomic background

White 367 0.69 0.463 Hispanic 535 0.56 0.497 3.976(821) 0.000 0.065 0.192 0.27 White 367 0.69 0.463 Black 83 0.53 0.502 2.646(116) 0.009 0.040 0.278 0.34 White 367 0.69 0.463 Asian 65 0.54 0.502 2.258(84) 0.027 0.018 0.284 0.32 Not first generation 808 0.63 0.483 First generation 324 0.54 0.499 2.894(578) 0.004 0.030 0.158 0.18

Serious conversations with someone of different race/ethnicity

White 369 0.62 0.486 Hispanic 540 0.48 0.5 4.245(805) 0.000 0.076 0.206 0.28 White 369 0.62 0.486 Black 84 0.46 0.502 2.592(121) 0.011 0.037 0.276 0.33 Other 82 0.62 0.488 Hispanic 540 0.48 0.5 2.453(109) 0.016 0.027 0.257 0.28 Other 82 0.62 0.488 Black 84 0.46 0.502 2.053(164) 0.042 0.006 0.309 0.32

Serious conversations with someone of different nationality

Asian* 369 0.458 0.499 Hispanic* 540 0.37 0.484 2.606(603) 0.009 0.041 0.292 0.18

White 369 0.458 0.499 Hispanic 540 0.37 0.484 2.577(775) 0.010 0.020 0.150 0.18 Serious conversations with someone of different sexual orientation

White 368 0.45 0.499 Asian 65 0.31 0.465 2.309(91) 0.023 0.020 0.272 0.28 White 368 0.45 0.499 Hispanic 541 0.38 0.486 2.190(775) 0.029 0.008 0.138 0.14 Female 675 0.44 0.497 Male 454 0.33 0.471 3.701(1006) 0.000 0.051 0.165 0.23 Non-binary* 34 0.74 0.448 Male* 454 0.33 0.471 4.852(486) 0.000 0.241 0.569 0.87 Non-binary 34 0.74 0.448 Female 675 0.44 0.497 3.750(37) 0.001 0.136 0.457 0.61 LGBTQ 233 0.55 0.498 Heterosexual 925 0.37 0.483 5.098(350) 0.000 0.114 0.256 0.37

Question Group 1 Group

1 N

Group 1

Mean Group 1 SD Group 2

Group 2 N

Group 2

Mean Group 2 SD t(df) Sig

Lower CI of diff.

Upper CI of diff.

Effect Size

(Hedges' g)

Serious conversations with someone of different religious beliefs

White 369 0.52 0.5 Hispanic 540 0.39 0.488 3.872(778) 0.000 0.064 0.195 0.26 White 369 0.52 0.5 Black 86 0.37 0.486 2.532(130) 0.013 0.032 0.264 0.30 Other* 82 0.57 0.498 Hispanic* 540 0.39 0.488 3.144(620) 0.002 0.068 0.296 0.37 Other* 82 0.57 0.498 Black* 86 0.37 0.486 2.649(166) 0.009 0.051 0.351 0.41 Asian* 65 0.52 0.503 Hispanic* 540 0.39 0.488 2.057(603) 0.040 0.006 0.259 0.27 Not first generation 815 0.48 0.5 First generation 328 0.38 0.486 3.214(620) 0.001 0.040 0.166 0.20

Serious conversations with someone of different political beliefs

White 369 0.5 0.501 Hispanic 541 0.40 0.491 2.99(780) 0.003 0.034 0.166 0.20 White 369 0.5 0.501 Black 86 0.26 0.439 4.545(141) 0.000 0.139 0.352 0.49 Other* 82 0.61 0.491 Hispanic* 541 0.40 0.491 3.589(621) 0.000 0.094 0.323 0.43 Other 82 0.61 0.491 Black 86 0.26 0.439 4.919(162) 0.000 0.212 0.496 0.75 Asian 65 0.46 0.502 Black 86 0.26 0.439 2.629(127) 0.010 0.051 0.361 0.43 Hispanic 541 0.4 0.491 Black 86 0.26 0.439 2.804(121) 0.006 0.043 0.248 0.29

Serious conversations with someone of different socioeconomic background

White* 368 0.55 0.499 Hispanic* 540 0.44 0.497 3.024(906) 0.003 0.036 0.168 0.22 White* 368 0.55 0.499 Black* 86 0.42 0.496 2.198(89) 0.031 0.014 0.278 0.26 White 368 0.55 0.499 Asian 65 0.40 0.494 2.198(89) 0.031 0.014 0.278 0.30 Other* 82 0.59 0.496 Hispanic* 540 0.44 0.497 2.392(620) 0.017 0.025 0.257 0.30 Other* 82 0.59 0.496 Black* 86 0.42 0.496 2.178(166) 0.031 0.016 0.318 0.34 Other* 82 0.59 0.496 Asian* 65 0.40 0.494 2.256(145) 0.026 0.023 0.348 0.38

* Equality of variance assumed Small effect

Moderate effect

Large effect