Final Report on Broad College of Business Climate Survey

The final report from SoundRocket on the Broad College of Business Fall 2022 climate survey

2022 Michigan State University Broad College of Business Survey on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Final School Report

Prepared for:

Prepared by: SoundRocket info@soundrocket.com 734-213-4600

January 2023

rev: 20220331

Table of Contents

Introduction

Students - Section A

3-17

Part I: Backgrounds & Methods

3-4 5-6

Part II: Data Collection Methods & Results Part III: Dispositions & Response Rates

7 8 9

Part IV: Results

Part V: Demographics Part VI: BIPOC Reporting

Part VII: DEI Perceptions & Experiences: Campus Overall

11-15 16-17

Part VIII: DEI Perceptions & Experiences

Employees - Section B

Part I: Data Collection Methods & Results Part II: Dispositions & Response Rates

18-19

20 21 22

Part III: Demographics Part IV: BIPOC Reporting

Part V: DEI Perceptions & Experiences: Campus Overall

23-27

Part VI: DEI Perceptions & Experiences

28 29

Use of Findings & Next Steps

Introduction The Broad College of Business at Michigan State University is dedicated to cultivating a university community that fosters constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. The college has a history of supporting initiatives that foster learning and working environments that are safe and inclusive. To assess current campus climate, SoundRocket was contracted to conduct a survey on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion among the campus community. This study was designed to help the institution develop a baseline understanding of perceptions, experiences, and perspectives regarding several aspects of these topics among the campus community. See Part II for details about the specific populations included in this survey. The survey was designed to help administrators develop a base of knowledge around issues relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion by learning about the community’s perspectives, opinions, and experiences related to these topics. Data collected will help campus leaders develop a comprehensive understanding of DEI topics. Specifically, the data collected in the DEI survey will establish a baseline understanding of the present climate, help inform current and future decisions about supporting a diverse, inclusive, and vibrant campus community, and serve as a benchmark against which to measure change over time.

Students Section A - Part I: Background & Methods

This survey was conducted among the populations defined below, using industry standard methodologies for social science data collection. The study was designed to minimize biases from the perspective of the questionnaire, sampling, and reporting.

Sampling Strategy

The study was conducted as a census of the full community population at the institution. General eligibility to be included in the survey was determined as follows: Participants must have been 18 years old or older as of the eligibility date defined below. Participants must have been affiliated with the institution as of the eligibility date below. The specific population eligibility dates and other related qualifications were defined as: Population A: Students Eligibility Date: Participants were eligible if enrolled at the institution on a part- or full-time basis as of September 16, 2022. Population B: Employees Eligibility Date: Participants were eligible if employed as temporary or permanent staff as of September 16, 2022. Each population file was provided to SoundRocket by the Institution. The data was transferred using a secure data transfer platform. SoundRocket does not share or sell any customer lists—they have pledged to maintain this information as confidential and will destroy the lists after the completion of this study. The Campus Climate Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed originally via a collaboration between SoundRocket, and a research team at the University of Michigan. A version of the original instrument was adapted by SoundRocket for use at multiple campuses. The final instrument fielded to this institutions’ community was agreed to collaboratively between SoundRocket and the institution. The resulting questionnaire is standardized to provide for future comparisons, but also tailored so that the Institution may gain a more nuanced understanding of what the climate is like on their campus. Leadership at the MSU Broad College of Business gave input, which was used to help develop and refine the questions included in the survey. The survey was designed as a self-administered, interactive, mobile friendly web-based survey. The final questionnaire was structured as follows: Welcome -A brief description of the research and its key objectives, a statement of confidentiality, a note regarding voluntary participation and survey length, information about incentives, and contact information for the SoundRocket survey team. 3

Consent -An informed, passive consent, wherein study details about the nature and purpose of the research were provided and participants clicked “Next” if they agreed to participate. Demographics-Survey Part I -Questions were asked to capture the demographics of each participant, including (but not limited to) gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, disability, military status, citizenship, and other related descriptors. Campus Climate-Survery Part II -Questions were asked about satisfaction with the campus climate; perceptions of attributes related to diversity, equity, and inclusion; feelings of safety; individual opinions about DEI; frequency of interactions with diverse people; discriminatory events personally experienced; and ratings regarding aspects of being a community member.

Web Based Survey Data Collection The survey was administered as a web-based survey. The survey was optimized so that it could be completed successfully on mobile devices and tablets, as well as on desktop or laptop computers. Mobile optimization was implemented dynamically during the survey—if the system detected that a mobile-sized screen was in use, it automatically adjusted the view to accommodate the device.

Students Section A - Part II: Data Collection Methods & Results

The population specific to each section of this report is noted in each section header. Section A includes the results for the following: Population A: Students

Enrolled at the institution as a student (part- or full-time) as of September 16, 2022. Participants must have been 18 years old or older as of September 16, 2022. A total of 4,866 students were invited to participate in the survey.

Respondent Incentives To encourage participation, all eligible study participants were entered into a random drawing to win one of ten $100 valu e gift cards. The random drawing was conducted after data collection was completed, and the incentives were delivered via email to the winner(s).

Data Collection Schedule

The overall data collection design protocol included: Invitation – emailed on October 12, 2022 Reminder 1 – emailed on October 13, 2022 Reminder 2 – emailed on October 17, 2022 Reminder 3 – emailed on October 20, 2022 Reminder 4 – emailed on October 26, 2022 Reminder 5 – emailed on October 31, 2022 The dates identified above for each data collection invitation represent the date that the first communications (of each type) were sent. While most of the communications would have been sent the same day, depending on the time of day and any necessary data quality checks performed, it is possible that some individuals may have received their communications on the next calendar day. Survey Completion Time Determining the actual time taken to participate in a web-based survey is not a straightforward calculation; however, standard practices were employed to calculate the average length of time for respondents to complete this web-based survey. The completion time for the questionnaire was calculated by computing the elapsed time between when the participant initially logged in and when they clicked submit on the final page of the web survey. Because it was possible for participants to leave the survey and return to it later (returning to where they left off), which would lead to extended time durations “in” the survey, only individuals who completed the full survey in one session were included in this calculation. 5

Additionally, some participants may have completed a portion of the survey and remained logged in, but they may have been called away from the survey or distracted by other tasks. As such, we often find a significant number of outliers in the total time variable. As such, our standard practice to identify the outliers is to determine the median number of minutes spent in the survey by those who completed the survey in one session. A top end outlier range was then set to be three-times the median value. For example, if the initial median completion time was 15 minutes; anyone who took more than 45 minutes was considered an outlier who likely did not spend that full time working on the questionnaire. Anyone who took above three times the median time were also excluded from the final length calculation. This is a standard practice in the survey research industry to estimate an accurate time to complete a web- based survey. Section A—Table 1 shows final estimates for the length of the web-based survey among the population identified in this section of the report. Section A - Table 1: Web Survey Completion Time Mean Time (minutes) Median Time (minutes) Students 10.5 9

Students Section A - Part III: Dispositions & Response Rates

Disposition codes, response rates, and completion rates presented in this report are based on Standard Definitions as described by The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) in their 2011 publication: Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th edition.

Final Study Dispositions

Survey dispositions were defined as follows: Login : An individual who clicked to open the survey but did not consent to participate; these cases were treated as equal to any other nonresponse. Partial : An individual who consented and responded to questions but quit the survey before reaching the physical safety question. Complete : An individual who consented to participate and who clicked through the entire survey (answering all or some questions), completed the incentive questions and clicked “Submit.” Ineligiable : A case initially thought eligible to participate, but determined to not be eligible (e.g., due to not being employed on the eligibility date); ineligible cases were removed from the denominator of all response rate calculations.

Response Rates

Response rates for the survey were calculated as follows: Response Rate : Number of completes (c) plus the number of partials (p) divided by the eligible (e) sample size. This calculation follows AAPOR response rate calculation #2: ((c+p)/e). Completion Rate : Number of completes (c) divided by the sum of completes (c) plus partials (p): (c/(c+p)). An individual is considered to have responded to the survey if their submission met the stated criteria to be considered a complete or a partial. Data from all such cases is included in this report. Response and completion rates are shown for the total number of individuals at The Broad College at MSU who responded to the survey. Table A: The Broad College at MSU Response & Completion Rates Invited & Eligible Partial Responses Completed Responses Response Rate Completion Rate

5216 4866

104 83

802 590

17.4% 13.8%

88.5% 87.7%

Total

Students

Students Section A — Part IV: Results Reading the Results

Because the study was designed in part to provide insights and information that could be used to assist in developing programs, key comparison groups are included in the tables. Summary tables in this report include a total column named “Total.” This column shows the combined data of all individuals who completed the survey from among the population defined by this report. Due to the nature of the voluntary confidential survey, respondents were not required to answer any substantive question. Only the consent question was required to proceed into the survey. If a potential respondent did not consent to participate, they were not shown subsequent survey questions. Because participants could choose to skip any question(s) they did not wish to answer, the number of respondents in data tables varies by question. Additionally, we have included partial responses in these results, so some drop-off as participants continued through the questionnaire is expected. The data shown in tables throughout this report are population level data (parameters). Statistical testing is not required in a census. Due to this, any differences observed (e.g., between men and women), represent true differences in the population. The magnitude of any observed differences should be interpreted based on the context of the measure and the potential for that measure to be impacted by nonresponse. To preserve confidentiality, the following data suppression strategies were used: A. If a cell in Table X: Select Demographics (Part 1), has fewer than 10 cases (responses), the data has been suppressed (i.e., not shown). B. In any table past Table X (Part II and beyond), individual cells with fewer than 5 reporting cases has been suppressed. Where appropriate throughout the report, this is indicated in the tables by a dash (–) symbol. Interpreting the Results This effort is intended to provide the institution with the data and results so that local individuals can use them, together with their local knowledge of these issues, to come up with interpretations and meaning.

Students Section A - Part V: Demographics

To best understand the survey results, it is important to get an understanding of who completed the survey. The first section of the survey asked about several background and demographic elements. Characteristics of the responding population identified in the header of this report are shown in Table 3. Section B - Table 3: Selected Demographics Students Age Average (Years) 24.0 (669) Gender Identity Woman 53.7% (351) Man 45.3% (296) Non-Binary or similar — (-) Transgender Yes 3. 4 % (2 2 ) Race/Ethnicity African American/Black Asian American/Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino/a Middle Eastern/North African Native American/Alaskan Native White More Than One Race/Ethnicity 3. 5 % (23) 17.2% (112) 2.8% (18) 1.8% (12) — (-) 64.3% (419)

19.0 % ( 123 ) 16.0% (101) 13.3% (84) 7.8% (51) 2.1% (14) 55.0% (348) 1.9% (12) 3.0% (19) 1.9% (12) 9.0% (57)

Other Race/Ethnicity Religious Affiliation Christian Jewish Muslim Buddhist Religiously Minoritized Agnostic/Atheist None U.S. Born No

Disability Yes

5.3% ( 36 )

Sex Male Female

45.3% (297) 52.7% (355)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

Intersex Preferred response not listed Education High School/GED

Associates Bachelors

Post-Graduate

Other

Students Section A — Part VI: Black, Indigenous, & People of Color (BIPOC) Reporting In many places within this report breakouts of individual race/ethnicity categories will result in cell sizes that are too small to report. As such, we will also present a collapsed version of race/ethnicity, which is abbreviated in report columns as BIPOC (meaning “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color”). This category will include any participant who identified as being African American/Black, Asian American/Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino/a, Middle Eastern/North African, Native American/Alaskan Native, Other Race/Ethnicity, or More Than One Race/Ethnicity. The following data represents the distribution of the BIPOC categories for all of the population identified in the header of this report section. Section A - Table 4: Collapsed Race (BIPOC) Demographic Distribution of Respondents Total All Students

33.9% (296) 66.1% (576)

35.7% (233) 64.3% (419)

BIPOC

White

Students Section A — Part VII: DEI Perceptions & Experiences: Campus Overall The second part of the survey asked respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with the campus climate/environment based on their experiences in the past 12 months. Section A – Table 5: Satisfaction with Overall Campus Climate Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

8.2% (52)

8.9% (30)

5.2% (15)

— (-) — (-) — (-)

7.6% (31)

8.1% (18)

Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied

18.5% (117) 73.3% (464)

20.4% (69) 70.7% (239)

16.4% (47) 78.3% (224)

16.5% (67) 75.9% (309)

22.5% (50) 69.4% (154)

Neutral

Very Satisfied/Satisfied

4 4 In the following chart, the higher the mean score shown in each bar, the closer ratings were to the positive attribute in each set of adjectives located on the right. A 7-point scale was used to evaluate the paired adjectives, thus the mean values in the following tables utilize the same scale. The colored bars represent the different groups, as defined below. Section A - Table 6: Perceptions of Overall DEI Aspects (Mean Ratings)* Hostile Friendly Racist Non-Racist Homogenous Diverse Disrespectful Respectful Contentious Collegial Sexist Non-Sexist Individualistic Collaborative 3.9 4 4.1 3.8 4 After considering overall satisfaction, survey participants reflected on several sets of opposite DEI related aspects using a scale called a semantic differential. In this scale, polar adjectives (opposite-meaning terms) are shown and survey participants select a rating for each aspect that they feel best represents their perception of the entity being studied – in this case, individual’s perceptions of the overall campus community. *Note: respondents chose one of five radio buttons in the survey spaced equally between opposite attributes; for analysis purposes, a 7-point scale was used in which 1=negative attribute and 7=positive attribute, mean ratings are calculated based on this 7-point scale.

4 Section A - Table 7: Perceptions of Overall DEI Aspects Continued (Mean Ratings)* Competitive

Cooperative

Homophobic

3.8

Queer Positive

Unsupportive

3.9

Supportive

Ageist

4.1 4

Non-Ageist

Unwelcoming

Welcoming

Elitist

3.8

Non-Elitist

4 Trans Positive *Note: respondents chose one of five radio buttons in the survey spaced equally between opposite attributes; for analysis purposes, a 7-point scale was used in which 1=negative attribute and 7=positive attribute, mean ratings are calculated based on this 7-point scale. Transphobic Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical technique that condenses data by grouping variables into factors (sets of variables) based on shared variance, the statistical index of the degree to which two variables are associated (shared variance is indicated by correlation coefficients). Thus, the goal of EFA is to identify related underlying constructs within the survey responses to help make the data more comprehensible and useful for practical applications. EFA was conducted on each set of data (per population) separately, and EFA results differed for each group. Thus, each groups’ factors are unique and are comprised of different sets of aspects, for this reason, it is not advisable to make direct comparisons between EFA results. The EFA conducted on the semantic differential items answered by population A identified two factors: (1) General Climate Elements, and (2) DEI Climate Elements. The variables that make up each of the factors are: Factor 1 General Climate Elements Factor 2 DEI Climate Elements Hostile/Friendly

Homogenous / Diverse Disrespectful/Respectful Contentious/Collegial Individualistic/Collaborative Competitive/Cooperative Unsupportive/Supportive Unwelcoming/Welcoming Elitist / Non-Elitist

Racist/Non-Racist Sexist/Non-Sexist

Homophobic/Queer Positive

Ageist/Non-Ageist

Transphobic/Trans Positive

In the following two tables, we present the collapsed Factors as an analytic unit. Factors are created by calculating the mean score for all responses provided for each item within each factor. Only individuals who responded to all included items were included in these analyses. Section A – Table 8: Perceptions of General Climate Elements (Factor 1: Mean Ratings) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

3.9 (614)

3.9 (324)

4.0 (281)

— (-)

4.0 (397)

3.9 (214)

Factor 1 Average

Section A – Table 9: Perceptions of DEI Climate Elements (Factor 2: Mean Ratings) Gender Identity

Race/Ethnicity

Transgender/Non- Binary

Total Woman

Man 3.9 (279)

White 3.9 (395)

BIPOC

4.0 (610)

4.0 (322)

— (-)

4.0 (212)

Factor 2 Average

Survey participants were asked to respond to a series of questions about various aspects, experiences, and perceptions of working or studying at their campus. Individuals rated their level of agreement with each statement using the following five-point scale: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree Nor Disagree (3), Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5). Tables X - X show combined responses for “Agree” plus “Strongly Agree” (4 + 5) ratings. Section A – Table 10: Levels of Agreement with Statements About Campus Aspects (% Strongly Agree + Agree Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

71.1% (425) 77.8% (465) 74.6% (447) 12.4% (74) 84.3% (504) 14.7% (88) 77.6% (463) 83.6% (501) 60.7% (363) 23.7% (142) 76.1% (456) 26.7% (160) 83.8% (502) 67.9% (407)

70.9% (227) 77.8% (249) 73.5% (236)

72.7% (197) 79.3% (215) 77.5% (210) 14.1% (38) 86.3% (234) 14.3% (39) 78.8% (215) 83.5% (228) 63.4% (173) 30.0% (82) 78.7% (214) 28.3% (77) 85.3% (232) 68.0% (185)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

72.4% (281) 80.4% (311) 76.8% (298) 11.1% (43) 86.8% (336) 14.5% (56) 79.6% (308) 89.4% (347) 61.8% (239) 24.7% (96) 79.4% (309) 21.6% (84) 85.3% (332) 68.1% (265)

69.1% (143) 73.6% (153) 71.2% (148) 14.0% (29) 80.3% (167) 14.4% (30) 74.5% (155) 73.7% (154) 59.3% (124) 21.5% (45) 70.5% (146) 35.7% (74) 81.6% (169) 68.1% (141)

I feel valued as an individual at MSU

I feel I belong at MSU

MSU has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion I have considered leaving MSU because I felt isolated or unwelcomed

9.7% (31)

84.1% (269) 13.5% (43) 77.6% (246) 84.6% (270) 58.8% (187) 17.9% (57) 75.3% (241) 24.7% (79) 83.8% (268) 69.4% (222)

I am treated with respect at MSU

I feel others don’t value my opinions at MSU MSU is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential I have opportunities at MSU for academic success that are similar to those of my peers I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at MSU There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion at MSU MSU provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse student body I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at MSU My experience at MSU has had a positive influence on my academic growth MSU places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion

Section A – Table 11: Frequency of Interactions with Diverse People in Past 12 Months (% Responses) Meaningful interactions with people… Never Seldom/Sometimes Often/Very Often …whose religious beliefs are different than your own 2.6% (15) 30.0% (175) 67.5% (394) …whose political opinions are different from your own 3.1% (18) 36.9% (216) 60.0% (351) …who are immigrants or from an immigrant family 7.5% (44) 46.2% (271) 46.3% (272) …who are of a different nationality than your own 2.4% (14) 24.9% (146) 72.7% (426) …who are of a different race or ethnicity than your own 1.9% (11) 20.0% (117) 78.2% (458) …whose gender is different than your own 1.2% (7) 17.1% (100) 81.7% (479) …whose sexual orientation is different than your own 4.8% (28) 44.4% (261) 50.9% (299) …who are from a different social class 2.6% (15) 32.4% (189) 65.1% (380) …who have physical or other observable disabilities

17.4% (102) 10.9% (64)

62.4% (366) 62.5% (366)

20.3% (119) 26.6% (156)

…who have learning, psychological, or other disabilities that are not readily apparent

The survey continued with questions related to whether survey participants have personally felt or experienced some form of discrimination at their campus during the past 12 months.

Section A – Table 12: Those Who Felt Discrimination in the Past 12 Months (% Responses) Gender Identity

Race/Ethnicity

Transgender/Non- Binary

Total Woman

Man 4.9% (13)

White

BIPOC

7.8% (46)

9.2% (29)

— (-)

5.5% (21)

11.3% (23)

Yes

Section A – Table 13: Frequency of Experience of One or More Discriminatory Events (% Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

3.6% (21)

3.5% (11) 9.9% (31)

2.6% (7)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

3.1% (12) 4.7% (18)

3.9% (8)

Ability or disability status

11.2% (66) 12.0% (71)

11.5% (31)

22.5% (46) 11.8% (24)

Racial or ethnic identity

16.9% (53)

5.9% (16) 4.9% (13) 5.2% (14) 1.9% (5) 4.5% (12) 7.0% (19) 7.4% (20)

12.0% (46)

Sex

4.3% (25) 6.6% (39) 1.9% (11) 4.7% (28) 7.1% (42) 7.5% (44) 8.5% (50) 9.8% (58)

2.6% (8) 6.4% (20)

2.9% (11) 5.5% (21) 1.8% (7) 4.2% (16) 2.3% (9) 6.3% (24) 7.3% (28) 7.8% (30)

6.4% (13) 8.3% (17)

Sexual orientation

Gender identity or gender expression

— (-)

Veteran status

3.8% (12) 5.8% (18) 6.1% (19) 5.4% (17) 8.9% (28)

4.9% (10)

Marital status

15.2% (31)

National origin

8.8% (18)

Age

10.8% (29)

10.3% (21) 12.7% (26) 10.7% (22) 12.2% (25) 12.2% (25)

Religion

9.7% (26)

Height or weight

14.0% (83)

12.4% (39)

15.2% (41)

15.7% (60)

Political orientation

9.5% (56) 9.6% (57)

9.2% (29)

8.5% (23) 7.0% (19)

7.8% (30) 7.8% (30)

Social class or Socioeconomic Status

10.5% (33)

Mental Health status

Students Section A - Part VIII: DEI Perceptions & Experiences

After responding to questions thinking about the campus as a whole, the next few items inquired about students’ communities prior to attending MSU, with questions addressing the racial/ethnic composition of the community in which they grew up, and the composition of the school they graduated from. Section A – Table 14: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Previous Community (% Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity How would you describe the racial/ethnic composition of the community where you grew up? Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

26.2% (155) 34.7% (205) 22.3% (132) 10.0% (59)

29.5% (93) 32.1% (101) 21.9% (69) 11.4% (36)

22.7% (61) 38.3% (103) 23.0% (62)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

26.6% (102) 43.3% (166) 23.5% (90)

25.9% (53) 18.0% (37) 20.0% (41) 22.0% (45) 14.1% (29)

All or nearly all people of my race/ethnicity

Mostly people of my race/ethnicity

Half my race/ethnicity and half people of other races/ethnicities

8.2% (22) 7.8% (21)

3.7% (14) 2.9% (11)

Mostly other types of races/ethnicities

6.8% (40)

5.1% (16)

All or nearly all other types of races/ethnicities

Section A – Table 15: Levels of Agreement with Statements About Classroom Aspects (% Strongly Agree + Agree Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity

In my classrooms and classroom settings (e.g., lectures, seminars, labs, workshops, studio sessions, etc.), I feel listened to by:

Transgender/Non- Binary

Total Woman

Man 77.2% (207) 77.5% (207) 79.9% (214) 76.4% (204)

White 73.2% (278) 77.0% (291) 81.8% (311) 71.8% (272)

BIPOC

73.9% (433) 76.2% (445) 78.5% (460) 71.3% (417)

71.4% (222) 75.8% (235) 78.5% (244) 67.5% (210)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

75.4% (153) 74.9% (152) 72.9% (148) 70.9% (144)

Faculty instructors

Student instructors (e.g., GSIs, TAs, etc.)

Other students

Staff instructors

Section A – Table 16: Levels of Agreement with Statements About Classroom Aspects (% Strongly Agree + Agree Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity In spaces outside the classroom, I feel valued by: Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

67.9% (393) 66.0% (382) 68.5% (396) 73.7% (426) 63.9% (368) 61.6% (356) 49.7% (286)

64.8% (199) 62.9% (193) 66.8% (205) 74.9% (230) 59.7% (182) 61.8% (189) 48.9% (149)

72.8% (193) 70.6% (187) 71.2% (188) 73.5% (194) 69.3% (183) 62.3% (165) 52.1% (137)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

65.3% (245) 64.5% (242) 67.4% (252) 75.7% (283) 63.5% (238) 59.6% (223) 50.9% (190)

72.8% (147) 68.8% (139) 70.3% (142) 70.3% (142) 64.8% (129) 64.9% (131) 47.5% (95)

Faculty instructors

Other faculty members

Student instructors (e.g., GSIs, TAs, etc.)

Other students

Staff members

University administrators

Other university mentors/advisors

Section A – Table 17: Levels of Agreement with Statements About Classroom Aspects (% Strongly Agree + Agree Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC I am treated fairly and equitably on campus in general 86.2% (499) 87.3% (267) 86.5% (230) — (-) 88.7% (331) 82.2% (166)

I am treated fairly and equitably in classrooms and classroom settings (e.g., lectures, seminars, labs, workshops, studio sessions, etc.) I am treated fairly and equitably in out-of- classroom MSU spaces (e.g., workshops, co- curricular offerings, etc.).

88.1% (509) 85.8% (494)

88.3% (271) 86.6% (266)

88.6% (234) 85.5% (224)

— (-) — (-)

89.9% (338) 87.1% (323)

85.4% (169) 83.6% (168)

Employees Section B — Part I: Data Collection Methods & Results

The population specific to each section of this report is noted in each section header. Section B includes the results for the following: Population B: Employees Employed at the institution as staff or faculty (permanent or temporary) as of September 16, 2022. Participants must have been 18 years old or older as of September 16, 2022. A total of 350 employees were invited to participate in the survey.

Respondent Incentives To encourage participation, all eligible study participants were entered into a random drawing to win one of ten $100 value gift cards. The random drawing was conducted after data collection was completed, and the incentives were delivered via email to the winner(s).

Data Collection Schedule

full survey in one session were included in this calculation. Additionally, some participants may have completed a portion of the survey and remained logged in, but they may have been called away from the survey or distracted by other tasks. As such, we often find a significant number of outliers in the total time variable. As such, our standard practice to identify the outliers is to determine the median number of minutes spent in the survey by those who completed the survey in one session. A top end outlier range was then set to be three-times the median value. For example, if the initial median completion time was 15 minutes; anyone who took more than 45 minutes was considered an outlier who likely did not spend that full time working on the questionnaire. Anyone who took above three times the median time were also excluded from the final length calculation. This is a standard practice in the survey research industry to estimate an accurate time to complete a web- based survey. Section B—Table 1 shows final estimates for the length of the web-based survey among the population identified in this section of the report. Section B - Table 1: Web Survey Completion Time Mean Time (minutes) Median Time (minutes) Employees 14.6 13

Employees Section B - Part II: Dispositions & Response Rates

Final Study Dispositions

Response Rates

5216 350

104 21

802 212

17.4% 66.6%

88.5% 91.0%

Total

Employees

Employees Section B - Part III: Demographics

To best understand the survey results, it is important to get an understanding of who completed the survey. The first section of the survey asked about several background and demographic elements. Characteristics of the responding population identified in the header of this report are shown in Table 3. Section B - Table 3: Selected Demographics Employees Age Average (Years) 48.1 (224) Gender Identity Woman 51.5% (117) Man 46.3% (105) Non-Binary or similar — (-) Transgender Yes — (-) Race/Ethnicity African American/Black Asian American/Asian/Pacific Islander 6.4 % ( 14 ) Hispanic/Latino/a Middle Eastern/North African Native American/Alaskan Native White More Than One Race/Ethnicity

22.3 % ( 49 ) 7.8 % (17) 46.9 (1 07 ) 51.3% (117) — (-) — (-) 10.7% (22) 13.6% (28) 14.6% (30) 11.8% (26) — (-) — (-) — (-) 71.4% (157) 5.0% (11) — (-) 57.3% (118) — (-) — (-) — (-)

Other Race/Ethnicity Religious Affiliation Christian Jewish Muslim Buddhist Religiously Minoritized Agnostic/Atheist None U.S. Born No

Disability Yes

Sex Male Female

Intersex Preferred response not listed Education High School/GED

— (-) — (-)

Associates Bachelors Post-Graduate Other

20.5% (45) 72.6% (159) — (-)

Employees Section B - Part IV: Black, Indigenous, & People of Color (BIPOC) Reporting In many places within this report, breakouts of individual race/ethnicity categories will result in cell sizes that are too small to report. As such, we will also present a collapsed version of race/ethnicity, which is abbreviated in report columns as BIPOC (meaning “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color”). This category will include any participant who identified as African American/Black, Asian American/Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino/a, Middle Eastern/North African, Native American/Alaskan Native, Other Race/Ethnicity, or More Than One Race/Ethnicity. The following data represents the distribution of the BIPOC categories for all of the population identified in the header of this report section. Section B - Table 4: Collapsed Race (BIPOC) Demographic Distribution of Respondents All Employees

28.6% (63) 71.4% (157)

BIPOC

White

Employees Section B — Part V: DEI Perceptions & Experiences: Campus Overall The second part of the survey asked respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with the campus climate/environment based on their experiences in the past 12 months. Section B – Table 7: Satisfaction with Overall Campus Climate Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

18.1% (40) 21.7% (48) 60.2% (133)

18.4% (21) 25.4% (29) 56.1% (64)

14.1% (14) 18.2% (18) 67.7% (67)

— (-) — (-) — (-)

15.6% (24) 25.3% (39) 59.1% (91)

16.9% (10) 15.3% (9) 67.8% (40)

Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied

Neutral

Very Satisfied/Satisfied

4 In the following chart, the higher the mean score shown in each bar, the closer ratings were to the positive attribute in each set of adjectives located on the right. A 7-point scale was used to evaluate the paired adjectives, thus the mean values in the following tables utilize the same scale. The colored bars represent the different groups, as defined below. Section B – Table 8: Perceptions of Overall DEI Aspects (Mean Ratings)* Hostile Friendly After considering overall satisfaction, survey participants reflected on several sets of opposite DEI related aspects using a scale called a semantic differential. In this scale, polar adjectives (opposite-meaning terms) are shown and survey participants select a rating for each aspect that they feel best represents their perception of the entity being studied – in this case, individual’s perceptions of the overall campus community.

Racist

Non-Racist

Homogenous

Diverse

Disrespectful

3.7

Respectful

Contentious

3.9

Collegial

Sexist

3.8

Non-Sexist

4.1 Collaborative *Note: respondents chose one of seven radio buttons in the survey spaced equally between opposite attributes; for analysis purposes, a 7-point scale was used in which 1=negative attribute and 7=positive attribute, mean ratings are calculated based on this 7-point scale. Individualistic

3.9 Section B – Table 9: Perceptions of Overall DEI Aspects - Continued (Mean Ratings)* Competitive

Cooperative

Homophobic

4.1

Queer Positive

Unsupportive

Supportive

Ageist

3.8

Non-Ageist

Unwelcoming

4.2

Welcoming

Elitist

4.1

Non-Elitist

4 Trans Positive *Note: respondents chose one of seven radio buttons in the survey spaced equally between opposite attributes; for analysis purposes, a 7-point scale was used in which 1=negative attribute and 7=positive attribute, mean ratings are calculated based on this 7-point scale. Transphobic Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical technique that condenses data by grouping variables into factors (sets of variables) based on shared variance, the statistical index of the degree to which two variables are associated (shared variance is indicated by correlation coefficients). Thus, the goal of EFA is to identify related underlying constructs within the survey responses to help make the data more comprehensible and useful for practical applications. EFA was conducted on each set of data (per population) separately, and EFA results differed for each group. Thus, each groups’ factors are unique and are comprised of different sets of aspects, for this reason, it is not advisable to make direct comparisons between EFA results. The EFA conducted on the semantic differential items answered by population B identified two factors: (1) General Climate Elements, and (2) DEI Climate Elements. The variables that make up each of the factors are: Factor 1 General Climate Elements Factor 2 DEI Climate Elements Hostile/Friendly

Homogenous / Diverse Disrespectful/Respectful Contentious/Collegial Individualistic/Collaborative Competitive/Cooperative Unsupportive/Supportive Unwelcoming/Welcoming Elitist / Non-Elitist

Racist/Non-Racist Sexist/Non-Sexist

Homophobic/Queer Positive

Ageist/Non-Ageist

Transphobic/Trans Positive

Section B – Table 10: Perceptions of General Climate Elements (Factor 1: Mean Ratings) Gender Identity

Race/Ethnicity

Transgender/Non- Binary

Total Woman

Man 3.9 (98)

White 3.9 (153)

BIPOC

3.9 (218)

3.9 (114)

— (-)

4.0 (58)

Factor 1 Average

Section B – Table 11: Perceptions of DEI Climate Elements (Factor 2: Mean Ratings) Gender Identity

Race/Ethnicity

Transgender/Non- Binary

Total Woman

Man 4.0 (98)

White 4.1 (153)

BIPOC

4.1 (214)

4.1 (111)

— (-)

4.0 (56)

Factor 1 Average

Survey participants were asked to respond to a series of questions about various aspects, experiences, and perceptions of working or studying on their campus. Individuals rated their level of agreement with each statement using the following five-point scale: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree Nor Disagree (3), Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5). Tables X - X show combined responses for “Agree” plus “Strongly Agree” (4 + 5) ratings. Section B – Table 12: Levels of Agreement with Statements About Work Aspects (% Strongly Agree + Agree Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

64.6% (137) 65.6% (139) 61.8% (131) 22.7% (48) 73.1% (155) 20.2% (43) 63.8% (136) 60.8% (129) 53.5% (114) 18.4% (39) 47.2% (100) 36.5% (77) 70.3% (149) 54.7% (116)

59.8% (67) 63.1% (70) 60.7% (68) 26.1% (29) 69.6% (78) 23.2% (26) 55.4% (62) 52.7% (59) 50.0% (56) 16.1% (18) 36.9% (41) 43.2% (48) 68.5% (76) 51.4% (57)

72.3% (68) 70.5% (67) 64.2% (61) 16.8% (16) 78.9% (75) 14.7% (14) 75.8% (72) 71.6% (68) 58.9% (56) 22.1% (21) 61.1% (58) 26.3% (25) 74.7% (71) 60.0% (57)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

64.2% (97) 65.8% (100) 68.4% (104) 22.4% (34) 73.0% (111) 21.2% (32) 65.6% (99) 60.3% (91) 55.6% (84) 19.9% (30) 47.0% (71) 33.8% (51) 70.9% (107) 58.3% (88)

70.4% (38) 68.5% (37) 48.1% (26) 20.4% (11) 77.8% (42) 12.7% (7) 63.6% (35) 65.5% (36) 50.9% (28) 10.9% (6) 50.0% (27) 40.7% (22) 74.1% (40) 48.1% (26)

I feel valued as an individual at MSU

I feel I belong at MSU

MSU has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion I have considered leaving MSU because I felt isolated or unwelcomed

I am treated with respect at MSU

I feel others don’t value my opinions at MSU MSU is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential I have opportunities at MSU for professional success that are similar to those of my colleagues I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at MSU There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion at MSU MSU provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse faculty/staff I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at MSU My experience at MSU has had a positive influence on my professional growth MSU places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion

A few survey questions directly focused on interactions with others, as well as personal experiences with discriminatory events in the past 12 months. Survey participants first considered the characteristics of individuals at their campus with whom they interact in a meaningful way on a regular basis. Section B – Table 13: Frequency of Interactions with Diverse People in Past 12 Months (% Responses) Meaningful interactions with people… Never Seldom/Sometimes Often/Very Often …whose religious beliefs are different than your own 2.5% (5) 36.6% (74) 60.9% (123) …whose political opinions are different from your own — (-) 44.3% (89) 53.7% (108) …who are immigrants or from an immigrant family 5.9% (12) 43.3% (88) 50.7% (103) …who are of a different nationality than your own — (-) 22.8% (47) 76.7% (158) …who are of a different race or ethnicity than your own — (-) 26.1% (54) 72.5% (150) …whose gender is different than your own — (-) 13.5% (28) 86.0% (178) …whose sexual orientation is different than your own 3.0% (6) 48.2% (96) 48.7% (97) …who are from a different social class 2.9% (6) 47.5% (97) 49.5% (101) …who have physical or other observable disabilities

9.8% (20)

74.5% (152) 64.5% (127) 11.6% (24) 59.2% (119)

15.7% (32) 25.4% (50) 87.9% (182) 28.9% (58)

10.2% (20)

…who have learning, psychological, or other disabilities that are not readily apparent …who are of a different generation than your own …whose veteran/military status is different than your own

— (-)

11.9% (24)

The survey continued with questions related to whether survey participants have personally felt or experienced some form of discrimination at their campus during the past 12 months. Section B – Table 14: Those Who Felt Discrimination in the Past 12 Months (% Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

15.6% (33)

20.0% (22)

8.4% (8)

— (-)

13.3% (20)

16.7% (9)

Yes

Section B – Table 15: Frequency of Experience of One or More Discriminatory Events (% Responses) Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Total Woman Man Transgender/Non- Binary White BIPOC

3.4% (7)

6.5% (7)

— (-)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

4.1% (6) 3.4% (5)

— (-)

Ability or disability status

10.2% (21) 15.0% (31)

13.9% (15) 26.9% (29)

5.3% (5)

25.9% (14)

Racial or ethnic identity

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

16.9% (25)

— (-) — (-) — (-) — (-)

Sex

2.5% (5) 4.4% (9) 4.9% (10) 4.4% (9)

— (-)

Sexual orientation

5.6% (6) 8.5% (9) 4.7% (5)

4.7% (7) 3.4% (5)

Gender identity or gender expression

Relationship status

— (-)

13.2% (7) 11.3% (6)

National origin

15.6% (32)

17.8% (19)

12.8% (12)

16.2% (24)

Age

3.4% (7) 3.4% (7)

4.7% (5)

— (-) — (-)

4.7% (7)

— (-) — (-) — (-)

Religion

— (-)

Height or weight

12.3% (25) 10.7% (22)

11.2% (12) 12.1% (13)

13.8% (13)

14.2% (21)

Political orientation

8.4% (8)

9.4% (14) 4.7% (7)

11.3% (6)

Social class or Socioeconomic Status

4.4% (9)

6.5% (7)

— (-)

Mental Health status

*Note: Veteran status was removed from this table as no respondents indicated they had experienced discrimination based on thier status as veterans. Survey participants who indicated that they had experienced some form of religious discrimination over the past 12 months at their campus, were asked whether they believe that any of the religious discriminatory events were related to their specific religion. Of the 3.0% of those who reported experiencing a discriminatory event because of their religion, 43.9% agree that they believe it was related to their specific religion.

Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29