1
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2
Background Context
Over the last three years, the University of Oregon (UO) Office of the Vice President for Equity and
Inclusion (VPEI) has worked diligently to institutionalize the process of collecting and analyzing data on
the ethnic, racial, and gender diversity of our faculty, staff, and students. This report on racial, ethnic
and gender diversity among faculty and academic leadership ranks is the product of collaborative work
with the Office of Institutional Research, the Center for Assessment, Statistics and Evaluation (CASE),
Affirmative Action, the Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs1. Our initial efforts focused on access
to data, reporting methodology, data presentation and intended use of the data. Since then, we have
developed mechanisms to more thoroughly consider these data as a touch point for intervention and
accountability. These mechanisms include: a Deans’ Diversity Task Force, established in 2013 to
engage in quarterly discussions around issues of recruitment, retention and to provide specific advice
targeted to nine schools and colleges, the President’s Diversity Advisory Community Council (PDACC)
that enlists the advice and support of talented leaders around the State of Oregon to institutionalize
our diversity efforts, and the University Wide Diversity Committee (UWDC) that relied on these data as
well as feedback from campus-wide conversations to formulate the strategies and tactics for the
Inclusion, Diversity, Evaluation, Achievement and Leadership (IDEAL) framework. All of these efforts
are aimed at advancing our institutional mission to achieve excellence in the area of equity, inclusion,
and diversity, especially as they relate to the recruitment, retention and advancement of excellent
faculty who are diverse across race, ethnicity, class, beliefs, gender, and experience. This is especially
important as the university seeks to hire 80 new faculty members over the next four years. In this
report, we focus specifically on faculty composition for tenure track and non-tenure track ranks, as well
as academic leadership positons at the UO. In future reports, we hope to examine issues of salary
equity, retention and climate.
Introduction
While the focus of this report is on faculty, we do so being mindful of our students toward whom so
much of our research, teaching and service activitiesare directed. Students from a variety of racial,
economic, ethnic, religious, gender, age, ability and national backgrounds are diversifying college and
university campuses across America. Female students now outnumber male students in US higher
education. Increasingly, campuses that were racially homogenous are beginning to reflect the diversity
of our country and our world. This pattern is reflected in the student demographics at the UO (Chart 1).
1 At DEI, we work as a team for the benefit of our campus community. I am grateful to my colleagues in DEI for
their contributions and support. Special thanks to Vanessa Teck and Sunhi Park for the development of graphics in the report. We are immensely grateful to JP Monroe and his team in Institutional Research for the data that serve as the basis for our analysis. We are also grateful to Terri Ward for her analysis and earlier interpretive draft of the data. We also appreciate Karen Ford, Scott Coltrane, Naomi Zack, Erik Girvan, Mariann Hyland, Krista Chronister, Lamia Karim, Vickie DeRose, Bruce Blonigen, Sari Pascoe, Gordon Hall, AB Assensoh, Lauren Witherspoon and Doug Blandy for their useful comments on an earlier version of this report. As the primary author, however, I, in my capacity as VP for Equity and Inclusion, take responsibility for any omissions or errors.
3
Yet, as the demographics of UO students have changed, the demographic composition of our tenure-
track faculty and academic leadership has remained largely the same: male and white (Charts 3, 7, 30-
34). Nationally, on most campuses, women now comprise a third of the faculty, and faculty of color2
continue to comprise only a small percentage, with Asian and Pacific Islanders3 constituting the
majority of underrepresented faculty. Due largely to the consequences of historical discrimination,
including limited access to educational opportunities as well as contemporary implicit bias, growth
among African American and Native faculty has stagnated nationally, while the Latino professoriate is
growing at a slow, but steady pace overall.
The extremely slow pace of change in faculty demographics is an issue of concern to colleges and
universities nationally, especially as universities attempt to enlist the best talent in support of efforts to
enhance research excellence and to educate students in the most inclusive way. Research shows that
diversity is crucial to academic excellence, creativity, and transformational leadership4. A diverse
faculty attracts diverse students. Diversity in the classroom enhances learning and increases the ability
of students to work across cultures and compete effectively in the global marketplace5.
2 Faculty of color includes American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN), Asian, Black (BLAA) and African American,
Latino, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI), faculty who identify as two or more races (TOMR) and nonresident aliens (NONresAlien) faculty members. 3 Pacific Islanders represent a tiny fraction of the larger body of Asian faculty.
4 Bernardo M. Ferdmann. 2014. Diversity At Work: The Practice of Inclusion Jossey-Bass (San Francisco, CA);
Damon Williams. 2013. Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education. Stylus (Sterling, Virginia). 5 Sylvia Hurtado and Adriana Alvarado. Diversity in Teaching and Learning: Affirming Students as Empowered
Learners” Diversity and Democracy, Summer 2013, Vol. 16, #3.
American Indian/Alaskan Native,
0.6%
Asian, 5.5%
Black/African American, 2.0%
Latino, 9.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, 0.4%
International, 13.8%
Two or more races, 6.1%
White, 62.2%
Chart 1. Total UO Students Enrollment
4
Faculty diversity supports research excellence. Studies have shown that diverse research teams are
more innovative, more productive, and more capable of problem solving than their homogenous
counterparts6. This holds true across race, ethnicity, and gender. Additionally, research findings have
shown that it matters who teaches. One of the most successful predictors of success for female
undergraduates is the number of women faculty at their institution. For female students of color,
faculty diversity is even more important. Of the African American women who received doctorates in
biology, over 75% graduated from Spelman and Bennett colleges, two Historically Black Colleges
(HBCs) for women. It is incontrovertible that a diverse faculty benefits the university by offering a
multiplicity of talent in teaching, mentoring, research and in their engagements with professional and
community interests beyond the university community. A diverse faculty positions us to better teach,
discover, and learn.7
This report focuses specifically on faculty composition for tenure-track, non-tenure track, and academic
leadership positions campus wide. We examine the racial, ethnic, and gender patterns for each group.
The racial, ethnic, and gender data are self-reported.8 When possible, data are examined separately for
our schools and colleges and also disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity so that we can
understand how situations vary across different academic units.
Faculty Demographics
The faculty at the UO is comprised of both tenure-related and non-tenure related colleagues. Overall,
our faculty is almost gender balanced (Chart 2), predominantly white and predominantly American
born (Chart 3). Among the faculty of color, Asian and Latino faculty predominate (Chart 4). However,
as subsequent data will show, there are significant demographic differences in the composition of the
tenure versus non-tenure ranks9. Our tenure-related faculty achieve tenure primarily on the basis of
research and creative activity. Our non-tenure track faculty members contribute in diverse ways
including as teachers, researchers and librarians. As shown on Chart 5, UO’s non-tenure track faculty
outnumbers its tenure track faculty. Over the last 10 years, tenure track faculty members have
comprised less than 40% of UO’s faculty.
Historical decisions about the ratio of tenure and non-tenure faculty made in response to state
disinvestment in higher education have partially shaped the racial, ethnic, and gender contours of the
faculty. This is because non-tenure related faculty positions tend to be yearly appointments that rely on
hiring from the local market of a predominately-white state. However, the data show that
demographics for tenure-related faculty are not much different. This suggests that more than state-
6 Katherine W. Phillips. September 16, 2014. Scientific American. “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
7 Sylvia Hurtado’s work demonstrates that a diverse faculty and curricula are beneficial for all students and faculty
on campus. Hurtado is the author of Diverse Learning Environments, among other studies and was an Expert in Residence at Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in 2015. 8 In terms of racial and ethnic identification, faculty members have the option of identifying their ethnic or gender
identity, which may contrast with how they are seen by others. Faculty also have the option of not reporting their racial and ethnic identity, and faculty who chose not to identify their racial, ethnic or gender identity are not included in this report. 9 Non-tenure track faculty includes all non-tenure teachers, librarians and researchers at the UO.
5
wide demographics may influence the dearth of Black, Native, Latino, and Asian faculty among both
non-tenure and tenure-related faculty at the University of Oregon.
54.0% 53.5% 52.9% 53.4% 53.2% 51.7% 51.2% 50.5% 51.1% 50.8%
46.0% 46.5% 47.1% 46.6% 46.8% 48.3% 48.8% 49.5% 48.9% 49.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 2. Al l Facu lty by Gender
Male Female
10.8% 10.6% 11.5% 12.0% 12.1% 13.1% 13.4% 13.8% 14.1% 14.3%
5.2% 5.9% 5.3% 4.9% 5.2% 5.4% 4.8% 4.1% 3.8% 4.0%
84.0% 83.5% 83.2% 83.1% 82.7% 81.5% 81.8% 82.1% 82.1% 81.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 3. Al l Facu lty by Race/Ethnicity
Faculty Of Color International White
6
10.6% 9.9% 8.5% 7.9% 6.8% 6.6% 5.5% 6.5% 5.6% 4.2%
46.2% 48.0% 48.7% 48.5% 47.9% 48.2% 48.4% 47.1% 44.4% 44.9%
9.5% 6.4% 5.8% 5.9% 5.0% 7.4% 7.9% 8.4%
9.3% 9.1%
26.0% 27.5% 29.1% 29.3% 29.3%
28.4% 31.1% 32.7% 32.6% 32.1%
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5% 0.9% 0.8%
0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 1.0%
7.7% 8.2% 6.8% 7.9% 10.1% 8.6% 6.7% 4.9% 7.4% 8.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 4. Facu lty of Color by Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Black or African American
Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or more races
38.9% 37.5% 37.2% 37.0% 35.4% 35.1% 35.3% 35.4% 35.6% 35.0%
61.1% 62.5% 62.8% 63.0% 64.6% 64.9% 64.7% 64.6% 64.4% 65.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 5. Ratio of Tenu re -Related to Non -Tenu re Facu lty
Tenure-Related Non-Tenure Faculty
7
Gender in the Non-Tenure Related and Tenure-Related Faculty
The percentage of women faculty in both our tenure and non-tenure-related faculty has changed very
little over the last ten years, but women predominate among non-tenure ranks, while men predominate
among tenured faculty (Charts 6 and 7). For example, among non-tenure track faculty, women
constitute a higher percentage of the faculty (55.9% in 2006-2007 and 56.3% in 2015-2016), while
among the tenure related-faculty, men predominate, (65.0% in 2006-2007 and 61.4% in 2015-2016).
This gender difference in the composition of tenure and non-tenure-related ranks is important given
the potential for long term influence that tenure-track and tenured faculty play in the institution,
compared with their non tenure-related faculty counterparts (Chart 7). While each group makes
important contributions to the university, tenure-related faculty, where women constitute a steady
minority, are better positioned to influence institutional change than their non-tenure- related
counterparts. Tenure-related faculty typically receive higher salaries, better benefits and often
significant research resources that go along with tenure-related status.
44.1% 44.8% 45.0% 46.4% 45.7% 43.7% 43.0% 42.6% 43.8% 43.7%
55.9% 55.2% 55.0% 53.6% 54.3% 56.3% 57.0% 57.4% 56.2% 56.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 6. Non -Tenu re-Track Facu lty by Gender
Male Female
8
65.0% 64.0% 62.9% 62.7% 64.5% 64.0% 63.8% 62.0% 62.0% 61.4%
35.0% 36.0% 37.1% 37.3% 35.5% 36.0% 36.2% 38.0% 38.0% 38.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 7. Tenu re -Related Facu lty by Gender
Male Female
9
Over the last ten years, tenure-related female faculty, especially those in the social sciences and the
humanities, have been advancing steadily through the ranks from assistant to associate to full
professor. Over the last decade, for example, women have come to comprise almost a third of the full
professor rank at UO (Chart 8). As women move through the ranks and achieve tenure and full
professor status, their opportunities for leadership and influence also increase. Also important is our
comparative status among our AAU peers: UO has outpaced its peers on the representation of women
among the faculty every year over the last decade and by as much as 9% in 2006-2007. However, the
difference between UO and the AAU has decreased to just 6% in 2014-2015 (Chart 9).
26
%
27%
29
%
29
%
28
% 30
%
28
% 30
%
30%
31%
35%
36%
35%
38%
37%
39%
41%
41%
43%
43%
45%
48
% 50
%
48
%
42
%
39%
39%
42
%
41%
42
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 8. Female Tenu re -Related Facu lty by Rank
Professor Associate Assistant
10
The gender composition of non-tenure-track faculty across our schools and colleges and the three
divisional units (Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences) in the College of Arts and Sciences
(CAS) present a more varied picture (Charts 10-11). Following a procedure suggested by Frehill et al.,10
we assessed the gender ratio (percent of faculty by gender) and race/ethnicity ratio (percent of faculty
by race/ethnicity) within each college. The categories as suggested by Frehill, which are developed to
reflect the representation of these groups in the population more generally, are defined as follows: low
female representation (0-17% female); female minority (18-35% female); gender balanced (36-64%
female); male minority (65-82% female) and low male representation (83-100% female).
Based on these criteria, there is a current gender balance in the non-tenure faculty ranks across five UO
units: Architecture and Allied Arts (AAA), CAS Natural Sciences, CAS Social Sciences, Lundquist College
of Business, School of Music and Dance. There are male minorities among the faculty in the College of
Education, CAS Humanities and the Law School. In the School of Journalism and Communication,
female faculty are in the minority.
Among tenure-track female faculty, there is gender balance in AAA, CAS Humanities, CAS Social
Sciences, College of Education, School of Law and School of Journalism and Communication (SOJC).
There is a female minority among tenure-related faculty in the CAS Natural Sciences, Lundquist School
of Business and the School of Music and Dance. In the Honors College, there is a male minority (Chart
11) .
10
Frehill, L.M., Jeser-Cannavale, C., & Malley, J.E. (2007). Measuring outcomes: Intermediate indictors of institutional transformation. In A.J. Stewart, J.E. Malley, & D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.), Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women (198-317). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. great!
36% 34% 35% 36% 36% 35% 36% 36%
38% 38%
27% 28% 29% 29% 30% 30% 30% 31% 31% 32%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15
C h a r t 9 . C o m p a r i s o n o f Wo m e n F a c u l t y B e t w e e n U O a n d A A U P u b l i c s
UO Avg.for Public AAUs
11
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
AAA 60% 47% 75% 43% 47% 41% 46% 41% 45% 44%
CAS_Hu 77% 80% 80% 81% 82% 82% 81% 80% 71% 72%
CAS_NS 24% 24% 24% 26% 29% 32% 32% 42% 35% 39%
CAS_SS 50% 54% 58% 50% 42% 42% 57% 54% 44% 54%
Education 76% 75% 76% 76% 76% 77% 78% 76% 73% 72%
Law 83% 71% 83% 80% 100% 100% 83% 83% 83% 78%
LCB 38% 38% 36% 37% 38% 35% 41% 36% 35% 39%
Jour.&Comm. 20% 20% 25% 26% 29% 25% 29% 29% 33% 32%
Music&Dance 27% 27% 23% 25% 25% 33% 25% 33% 46% 50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chart 10. Female Non-Tenure-Related Faculty by College
12
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
AAA 39% 42% 39% 41% 42% 42% 43% 46% 46% 49%
CAS_Hu 50% 51% 53% 51% 48% 47% 44% 44% 47% 48%
CAS_NS 19% 20% 21% 20% 19% 17% 17% 19% 19% 21%
CAS_SS 36% 34% 36% 36% 36% 38% 38% 40% 41% 41%
Education 46% 50% 53% 54% 47% 50% 52% 54% 57% 55%
Honors College 67% 73% 80% 82% 67% 69% 77% 71% 69% 67%
Law 38% 43% 52% 52% 50% 56% 57% 56% 54% 54%
LCB 18% 21% 21% 22% 26% 29% 33% 40% 33% 30%
Journalism&Communication 50% 58% 47% 50% 43% 44% 40% 44% 39% 39%
Music&Dance 37% 33% 32% 33% 30% 29% 31% 29% 31% 31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Chart 11. Female Tenure-Related Faculty by College
13
Women in Science
Like many of our peers, we have concerns about the recruitment and retention of women in the sciences. We
have a special concern about gender equity among the departments of CAS Natural Sciences (Chart 12-13).
Though the UO has a little over a half dozen women at full professor rank in Biology and four full professors in
Chemistry, those numbers have remained largely unchanged at the full professor level for almost a decade and
there are only six female professors in the assistant and associate ranks in Biology who could advance to full
status. In Chemistry, the numbers are particularly problematic, with only one woman in each of the assistant
and associate ranks. The STEM department with the most representation among women is Psychology, which
includes five women professors at full rank, three at the associate level and four at the assistant level. Even
though the numbers are small and below national gender norms for psychology, the pattern that is evident in
the Psychology Department is key to retention and continuous hiring for other science, technology and math
departments. For example, in our Psychology department, there is a cluster of women at each level of the
tenure-ladder rank, which provides an available pool for advancement. Overall, the most problematic areas in
terms of female gender and faculty development are in Computer and Information Sciences, Geological
Sciences, Math, Human Physiology and Physics, where there are either no women in the assistant, associate, or
full ranks, only one, or long periods of time, where no women were present. Equally as problematic is the
dearth of women of color across all departments. There are no Black, Latino, or Native American female faculty
in any of the STEM departments, but there are efforts in Chemistry and other STEM areas to recruit and train
more under-represented graduate students, who will hopefully build capacity in these areas in the future.
14
In an effort to increase the recruitment, hiring and retention of women faculty, the Vice President for Equity
and Inclusion in collaboration with Academic Affairs designed the Career Partners Program, which built on the
1 1 1
4
7
5
1
2
1
3 3 3
1 1 1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Computer andInformation
Science
HumanPhysiology
Physics Geology Chemistry Math Biology Psychology
Chart 12. Female Faculty in CAS Natural Sciences (2015-2016)
Professor Associate Assistant
25% 26% 27% 27% 24% 22% 22% 25% 26% 29%
80% 80% 79% 79% 80% 82% 82% 80% 80% 78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 13. STEM Tenu re -Track Facu lty by Gender
Female Male
15
Dual Career Bridge Program, which provided funding for a limited period of time. Based on the awareness that
women in science increasingly have spouses who are also academics, the Career Partners Program seeks to
meet the needs of such women in providing an academic home for talented spouses as well. This program has
met with some success, but as a new initiative, there are a number of variables and unknowns that complicate
its success. First, buy-in for the program as well as training in how to leverage its resources is uneven on
campus. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the partner being offered to another department fits
departmental needs. There is also a need for better infrastructure to fast track internal and external
negotiations. Thus far, Colleges that have participated successfully in the Career Partners Program include
College of Arts and Sciences the Honors College, and Architecture and Allied Arts.
Women of Color
Black, Native, Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander as well as women faculty of two or more races are a tiny
minority on our campus. They are more likely to be represented at the Assistant professor ranks, without
tenure. The smallest number of women faculty of color is found at the full professor rank, with only four women
at the full professor rank during the last ten years. These senior women must be encouraged to continue their
research in order to advance to the endowed and named professor status. Chart 15, however, also provides
some hope and encouragement. The Associate Professor rank is continuing to grow, albeit slowly. If properly
nurtured, the women of color at the associate rank will most certainly advance to full professorial status. At the
same time, we must be vigilant in recruiting women of color and providing those who are already here with the
resources to thrive. This includes support for research, providing protection from burdensome service
requirements and facilitating opportunities to engage in professional development activities that lead to
directorships, headships and deanships.
Race and Ethnicity
0.9
(2
)
0.8
% (
2)
1.7%
(4)
1.6
% (
4)
1.6
% (
4)
1.6
% (
4)
1.6
% (
4)
1.2
% (
3)
1.5%
(4
)
1.4
% (
4)
5.7%
(13
)
5.5%
(13
)
4.8
% (
11)
5.6
% (
14)
4.8
% (
12)
5.6
% (
15)
4.9
% (
13)
7.0
% (
18)
8.0
% (
21)
8.5
% (
22
)
6.1
% (
10)
7.6
% (
12)
8.5
% (
14)
8.8
% (
14)
9.3
% (
16)
8.5
% (
15)
12.6
% (
24
)
12.1
% (
24
)
11.7
% (
23)
11.6
% (
23)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 14. Tenu re -Related Female Facu lty of Color
Professor Associate Assistant
16
Data in this section provide a similar analysis for race and ethnicity, focusing initially on campus-wide data and
then on data for schools and colleges. When compared with our AAU public peers, the UO falls below the
national average in terms of faculty race and ethnicity. At the same time, we have achieved growth in this area,
especially over the last few years, with the percentage of faculty of color growing 5% since 2012 (Chart 15).
Three interventions have helped to facilitate this change. The Underrepresented Minority Recruitment
Program (UMRP) provides up to $90,000 to the hiring unit per selected faculty member and it has been in
operation for over a decade. Since 2013, the Initiative for Faculty Diversity (IFD) has assisted schools and
colleges in recruiting, retaining and providing resources for diverse faculty. In addition to these programs, the
VPEI initiated a collaboration with Academic Affairs and Affirmative Action in meeting with each Dean to
discuss applicant pools as well as strategies that each school and college should be utilizing to enhance the
diversity of its applicant pools and to ensure that the search processes are fair and equitable. Deans have
utilized these conversations as opportunities to engage faculty in strategies aimed at more equitable and
inclusive search processes. The IDEAL framework provides resources and incentives toward these ends.
11% 11% 11% 12% 12%
13% 13% 14%
16%
18% 17% 17%
18% 18% 19%
20% 20% 21% 21%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15
C h a r t 1 5 . C o m p a r i s o n o f F a c u l t y o f C o l o r B e t w e e n U O a n d A A U P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t i e s
UO Avg.for Public AAUs
17
11
Chart 16 reflects the percentages of faculty of color at the UO and at public AAU institutions, respectively, in
specific academic programs. The chart shows that faculty of color at the UO are overrepresented in area,
ethnic, cultural, gender and group studies, surpassing the AAU average for this category. In contrast, there are
11 [1] The percentages reflect the counts of faculty at other public AAUs that have programs that
fall into categories at the University of Oregon. Consequently, faculty in programs like engineering are not counted. [2] Based on AAUDE's 2014-15 Faculty Profile by CIP. AAU percentages include these participating institutions: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, SUNY-Buffalo, SUNY-Stony Brook, Texas, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, and UCLA. [3] Faculty of Color include: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific, and Two or more races. Source: UO Office of Institutional Research.
13.2%
66.7%
7.0%
34.1%
27.3%
20.0%
31.8%
17.1%
16.4%
0.0%
11.1%
21.4%
15.4%
21.4%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
8.5%
19.4%
27.3%
10.1%
22.8%
33.7%
63.4%
31.2%
35.7%
31.2%
41.2%
38.5%
43.8%
29.9%
31.9%
42.6%
44.1%
35.1%
41.2%
23.7%
24.0%
23.1%
35.2%
37.4%
40.7%
35.7%
32.7%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
ARCHITECTURE AND RELATED SERVICES
AREA, ETHNIC, CULTURAL, GENDER, AND GROUP STUDIES
BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES
BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT, MARKETING, AND RELATED…
COMMUNICATION, JOURNALISM, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCES AND SUPPORT…
EDUCATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE/LETTERS
FOREIGN LANGUAGES, LITERATURES, AND LINGUISTICS
HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS
HISTORY
LEGAL PROFESSIONS AND STUDIES
LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES, GENERAL STUDIES AND…
MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS
MULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES
NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
PSYCHOLOGY
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE PROFESSIONS
SOCIAL SCIENCES
VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS
Chart 16. Comparison of University of Oregon with AAU Publics Percentage of Faculty of Color by CIP (Classification of Instructional Program)
AAU Publics Oregon
18
areas like the social sciences, history and the physical sciences where faculty of color are underrepresented,
presenting a real opportunity for hiring in these areas. While these data present information on faculty of color,
there is still a need for disaggregation to understand how specific racial and gender groups fair across these
areas as well.
12.7% 15.0% 15.0% 17.0% 17.0% 18.0% 20.0% 21.0% 22.0% 21.0%
6.9% 6.7% 6.1%
6.7% 7.6% 8.6% 8.1% 5.1% 3.5% 5.7%
80.4% 78.3% 78.9% 76.3% 75.4% 73.4% 71.9% 73.9% 74.5% 73.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 17. Tenu re -related Facu lty by Race/National ity
Faculty Of Color International White
19
As Chart 18 illustrates, among faculty of color, the two largest groups are Latino and Asian and Pacific Islander.
The steepest decline in faculty has occurred among Native Faculty, with an apex of 8% in 2006-2007 and a
zenith of 2% in 2015-2016. Since 2012, Black faculty have increased at about one percent per year to a current
level of 9% of faculty of color, but the issue of retention for Black and Native Faculty in particular continues to
be problematic. When these percentages are compared with our AAU peers, the UO has fallen below the AAU
average every single year over the last decade, with the highest gap of 7% in 2010-2011, and the lowest gap of
4% in 2014-2015.
Similar to the situation for tenure-related faculty, Asian and Latino faculty comprise the majority of non-
tenure-related faculty of color at the UO. While Native, Black, and multiracial faculty still constitute the lowest
shares of faculty of color, the actual number of Black (n=14), Native (n=9), and multiracial (n=16) non-tenure-
track faculty is higher than the numbers of these groups within the tenure-related faculty. Given the absence of
job security and the lower salary levels, non-tenure-related faculty members are less likely to drive institutional
change even as they contribute to institutional diversity.
In terms of faculty diversity across the assistant, associate, and full professorial ranks, the findings show there
are four more professors of color now than a decade ago. Currently, there are approximately 24 faculty of color
in the full professorial ranks, which is 8 % of an institutional total of 300 full professors. Especially troubling is
the slow pace of change in the number of full professors of color, which reached a high of 30 during the 2010-
2011 academic year. Almost a fourth of full professors of color are in CAS, with Journalism and the Law School
having the smallest number of full professors of color. Among assistant professors, there is evidence of growth
8% 7% 7% 5% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4% 2%
52% 49% 48% 54% 51% 55%
55% 55% 53% 53%
6% 7% 6%
5% 5%
7% 7% 8% 9%
9%
28% 30% 32% 29% 30%
26% 28% 29% 29%
29%
6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 4% 5% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 18. Tenu re -Related Facu lty of Color by Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Black/African American Latino Two or more races
20
from 16% in 2006 to 27% in 2016 (Chart 19), with the highest numbers of assistant professors of color
represented in AAA, CAS Humanities, and Journalism.
As the data on Chart 19 show, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, were the zenith years for assistant professors of color,
with a total of 52, the highest number in the last decade. Since that time, the number of assistant professors of
color has declined to 50 in 2015-2016, suggesting the need to focus simultaneously on recruiting more assistant
professors and retaining them as well. The most encouraging patterns among faculty of color have occurred in
the associate professor ranks, with the largest number of associate professors of color found in CAS Social
Science. A decade ago, there were only 36 associate professors of color, constituting only 16% of that faculty.
Today, that number has almost doubled to 59, such that associate professors of color comprise 25% of this
faculty rank. While there has been some attrition, the pattern of slow but steady growth has continued more
consistently in this rank than the other two. This ascendancy across the ranks is just the type of pattern that we
need to accelerate and continue if faculty of color are to become incorporated at the University of Oregon.
[VA
LU
E] (
20
)
[VA
LU
E] (
20
)
[VA
LU
E] (
24
)
[VA
LU
E] (
25)
[VA
LU
E] (
26
)
[VA
LU
E] (
30)
[VA
LU
E] (
29
)
[VA
LU
E] (
29
)
[VA
LU
E] (
25)
[VA
LU
E] (
26
)
[VA
LU
E] (
24
)
[VA
LU
E] (
32)
[VA
LU
E] (
36)
[VA
LU
E] (
35)
[VA
LU
E] (
31)
[VA
LU
E] (
34)
[VA
LU
E] (
32)
[VA
LU
E] (
38)
[VA
LU
E] (
39)
[VA
LU
E] (
45)
[VA
LU
E] (
53)
[VA
LU
E] (
59)
[VA
LU
E] (
25)
[VA
LU
E] (
21)
[VA
LU
E] (
25)
[VA
LU
E] (
29
)
[VA
LU
E] (
31)
[VA
LU
E] (
36)
[VA
LU
E] (
40
)
[VA
LU
E] (
51)
[VA
LU
E] (
52)
[VA
LU
E] (
52)
[VA
LU
E] (
50)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 5 - 0 6 0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 19. Facu lty of Color by Rank
Professor Associate Assistant
21
Similar to the procedure used for gender ratios (Frehill et al.12), we assessed the race/ethnicity ratio (percent of
faculty by race/ethnicity) within each college. The race/ethnicity categories are defined as: low
underrepresented racial/ethnic group representation (0-9% racial/ethnic group); underrepresented racial/ethnic
group minority (10-19% racial/ethnic group); underrepresented minority group full representation (20% and
over racial/ethnic group). Ideally, successful departments and colleges would be gender balanced, that is, 36-
64% female, and underrepresented minority groups would be fully represented, that is, more than 20% from an
underrepresented racial/ethnic group13. While these criteria offer some guidance, they are problematic in so far
as they lump all faculty of color into one group. The criteria mask both success and challenge as universities
attempt to recruit and retain the most diverse faculty. Such aggregation masks the challenges we face even in
the most diverse units.
For example, with respect to tenure-related faculty, only four of our academic units reach under-represented
group full representation: the Law School, the Lundquist School of Business, the School of Journalism and
Communication, and the School of Music and Dance only during the past couple of years (Charts 20- 29). When
one delves deeper into these data, where faculty of color are “fully represented” because of aggregation, there
are nevertheless some departments among this group where there is not a single Black or Native faculty
member, even though availability exists in terms of applicant pools. This suggests the need for more
intentionality in accessing underrepresented applicant pools, with a strong focus on groups that are not
currently represented on our campus. The most promising practices in these areas include dissertation and
postdoctoral fellowship programs coupled with target of opportunity hiring programs that use active
recruitment strategies, search-committee training as well as accountability to enhance candidate pools and
frequently lead to hiring under-represented faculty. These best practices could incentivize hiring of faculty of
color.
12
Freehill, L.M., Jeser-Cannavale, C., & Malley, J.E. (2007). Measuring outcomes: Intermediate indictors of institutional transformation. In A.J. Stewart, J.E. Malley, & D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.), Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women (198-317). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. great! 13
See Freehill for a similar discussion of race.
22
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
AAA 6.8% 8.8% 8.7% 11.3% 11.4% 13.9% 17.3% 19.0% 19.4% 18.1%
6.8%
8.8% 8.7%
11.3% 11.4%
13.9%
17.3% 19.0% 19.4%
18.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Chart 20. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in AAA
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
CAS_Hu 17.3% 17.6% 18.0% 16.5% 15.7% 16.2% 15.4% 15.0% 16.3% 17.6%
17.3%
17.6%
18.0%
16.5%
15.7%
16.2%
15.4%
15.0%
16.3%
17.6%
14%
14%
15%
15%
16%
16%
17%
17%
18%
18%
19%
Chart 21. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in CAS Humanities
23
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
CAS_NS 9.5% 9.6% 9.7% 10.2% 10.0% 11.5% 12.4% 11.6% 12.3% 11.3%
9.5% 9.6% 9.7% 10.2% 10.0%
11.5%
12.4%
11.6% 12.3%
11.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Chart 22. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in CAS Natural Sciences
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
CAS_SS 13.1% 14.3% 13.1% 14.2% 15.3% 16.7% 16.0% 15.3% 15.1% 17.5%
13.1%
14.3%
13.1%
14.2%
15.3%
16.7% 16.0%
15.3% 15.1%
17.5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Chart 23. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in CAS Social Sciences
24
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Education 7.8% 10.0% 11.1% 15.9% 15.4% 20.0% 20.4% 19.6% 19.5% 14.3%
7.8%
10.0% 11.1%
15.9% 15.4%
20.0% 20.4% 19.6% 19.5%
14.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Chart 24. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in Education
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Honors College 7.1% 6.7% 7.7% 16.7% 14.3% 7.1% 6.7% 11.1% 11.8% 11.1%
7.1% 6.7%
7.7%
16.7%
14.3%
7.1% 6.7%
11.1% 11.8%
11.1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Chart 25. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in the Honors College
25
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Law 16.3% 13.7% 12.1% 17.1% 19.4% 16.2% 17.1% 18.8% 19.4% 20.7%
16.3%
13.7%
12.1%
17.1%
19.4%
16.2% 17.1%
18.8% 19.4%
20.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Chart 26. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in the Law School
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
LCB 18.0% 18.0% 21.7% 18.8% 14.8% 19.6% 25.9% 29.2% 32.6% 32.7%
18.0% 18.0%
21.7%
18.8%
14.8%
19.6%
25.9%
29.2%
32.6% 32.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Chart 27. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in the Lundquist College of Business
26
Academic Leadership:
The Demographic Composition of Department Heads and Deans
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Journ&Comm 9.7% 9.1% 10.3% 10.7% 16.7% 22.2% 26.7% 22.6% 25.0% 30.8%
9.7% 9.1% 10.3% 10.7%
16.7%
22.2%
26.7%
22.6%
25.0%
30.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Chart 28. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in Journalism and Communication
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Music&Dance 3.9% 6.5% 6.7% 8.5% 10.6% 11.4% 13.6% 17.0% 19.6% 20.0%
3.9%
6.5% 6.7%
8.5%
10.6% 11.4%
13.6%
17.0%
19.6% 20.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Chart 29. Tenure-Related Faculty of Color in Music and Dance
27
Crucial to changing the diversity of our faculty ranks is the demographic make-up of university leadership,
especially the Deans and Department Heads who oversee hiring, tenure, promotion, and retention. The
category of Deans includes the Dean and Associate Deans of each of our schools and colleges. The Deans are
the decision-makers in most of the schools and colleges. They are positioned to interact with senior leaders on
campus and often have final authority for hiring, program development, and cross-campus collaborations. The
role of the Associate Dean varies across schools and colleges, yet many of them have faculty standing and are
responsible for administering discrete parts of the Dean’s larger portfolio. The chart shows that women, rather
than faculty of color are well represented in these ranks (Chart 30 and Chart 31).
The gender composition of the Deanship has changed slightly over the last decade, but men continue to
predominate. Similarly, the racial and ethnic composition of the Deanship has changed very little over the last
decade. In 2005, 100% of all Deans were white and although there has been some minor change across the
years, we remain at 93.8% in 2016 (see Chart 31). The most consistent patterns of diversity in deanship service
have occurred among Asians, followed by Latinos, whereas not a single Black or Native faculty has served in an
academic deanship.
47.8% 47.8% 46.2% 52.0% 51.9% 50.0% 44.4% 44.8% 40.0% 42.4%
52.2% 52.2% 53.8% 48.0% 48.1% 50.0% 55.6% 55.2% 60.0% 57.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 30 . UO Deans by Gender
Female Male
28
A review of the Department Heads continues to reveal disparities with respect to gender (Chart 32) and race
(see Chart 33), as well as for women of color (see Chart 34). For example, over the last decade, men have served
predominately as Heads. While there has certainly been variation, it is nevertheless the case that the decade
began and ended with approximately 70% of the departmental headships occupied by men (Chart 32). In 2006-
2007, over 80% of the heads were white, reaching a zenith in 2010-2011 with 95.1% white department heads
(Chart 33). Just over 3% of all Department Heads are women of color (Chart 34)
4.3% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 3.7% 3.7% 3.1%
3.7% 3.7% 3.1%
100.0% 100.0% 95.7%
100.0% 100.0% 96.0% 95.8% 95.8%
92.6% 92.6% 93.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 - 0 6 0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 31. UO Deans of Color
Asian Latino White
29
31% 31% 29% 30% 38%
47% 47% 39%
44% 39%
69% 69% 71% 70% 62%
53% 53% 61%
56% 61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 32. UO Department Heads by Gender
Female Male
3.7% 1.8% 6.9% 8.5% 7.4% 5.7% 7.3%
13.3% 9.6% 10.7%
8.9% 4.9%
3.4% 6.1% 5.6%
1.9% 7.3%
86.7% 90.4% 85.5% 89.3%
95.1% 89.7%
85.4% 87.0% 92.5%
85.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 6 - 0 7 0 7 - 0 8 0 8 - 0 9 0 9 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 - 1 6
Chart 33. UO Department Heads By Race and Ethnicty
Asian Black/African American Latino White
30
Among under-represented faculty, Latinos have served most consistently in the headship role, with numbers as
high as (13%) in 2006-2007, but as low as (2%) in 2014-2015. Much of this service has occurred in CAS Social
Science, the College of Education, and more recently in Lundquist College of Business. No Native American
faculty and only one Black faculty member has served as department head over the last decade. The pattern of
departmental leadership for Women of Color is equally as problematic. Women of Color, specifically, Asian and
Latino women, have served as Department Heads in only three areas: CAS Humanities, CAS Social Science and
LCB Business. Over the last decade, none of our Native, Black or faculty who identify as two or more races has
served as Department Heads in any of UO’s schools and colleges. Given the current make up of our faculty,
more diversity in the academic leadership ranks is likely to occur most immediately by hiring external heads and
Deans to occupy these positions at the UO.
Conclusion
The report demonstrates that changes toward greater racial, ethnic and gender diversity among the faculty
have been slow, and in some cases non-existent. While there is evidence of effort and activity on these fronts,
hard work alone will not move us to the excellence that we seek at the UO. Instead, we need to employ a
0% 0%
1.8% (1)
1.8% (1)
0%
3.4% (2)
3.4% (2)
3.7% (2) 1.9%
(1)
3.6% (2)
24.4% (11)
25.0% (13)
28.1% (16)
28.6% (16)
37.7% (23)
41.4% (24)
42.4% (25)
35.2% (19)
41.5% (22)
32.7% (18)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Chart 34. Female Department Heads of Color
Female of Color White Female
31
multifaceted approach that aligns our resources, hiring strategies, evaluation, Strategic Plan and IDEAL
framework in coordinated ways that institutionalize equity at all levels of the institution. In this conclusion, we
summarize the most promising practices in this area, which can be categorized into two principle categories:
structural and cultural.
Structural
1. Coordinate hiring processes in ways that provide opportunities for professional development,
intervention, and resource allocation around the goals of accountability and equity.
2. Develop multiple options for campus–wide training and insist that all search committee chairs and
members engage in the training. Train and develop a cadre of faculty search advocates, who work to
ensure that search processes are fair and unbiased.
3. Encourage and reward collaboration so that schools and colleges work together to hire and retain
faculty.
4. Expect excellence in the recruitment and retention processes so that search committees and
departments are required to utilize the most promising practices to facilitate diverse pools of
candidates and hiring of diverse faculty.
5. Help department heads develop and/or enhance the skills that facilitate diverse candidate pools,
diverse hiring as well as retention, and a climate that is welcoming and productive for all.
6. Examine the allocation of resources and, where necessary, deploy them in the service of equity.
7. Develop and enforce policies that facilitate accountability around search processes, retention and
climate.
8. Grow and develop our own leaders by encouraging women and underrepresented faculty to advance
through the academic ranks, and provide opportunities to develop leadership capacity.
9. Showcase and reward progress and leadership in diversity, equity and inclusion.
10. Coordinate and deploy consistent messaging about the importance of these issues from leadership.
11. Institutionalize resources and support for underrepresented faculty, women faculty of color and
women in science, who are likely to be overburdened with service requests.
Cultural:
1. Develop an expectation of welcoming environment for all and support academic leaders as they
enforce expectations.
2. Train campus faculty, student and staff in areas of cultural agility and cultural fluidity. Develop a
campus code of values and conduct that is utilized as a basis for community norms.
3. Focus simultaneously on recruitment and retention through training, resources allocation, and
accountability structures.
4. Develop and implement onboarding systems throughout the university that reinforce institutional
commitment to diversity and equity.
5. Incentivize the desired behavior while also consistently interrupting behavior that is inconsistent with
equity and inclusion. This includes stopping searches, removing ineffective leaders, calling out
inappropriate behavior, and reallocating search lines for departments that tolerate inhospitable
climates.
Related Documents
