An aim of our survey was to examine how well we have been doing in becoming a multicultural campus that values diversity, social justice, and community. Turning first to the survey data, central findings will be highlighted. Second, comments from the open-ended section of the survey and focus groups will be used to provide further insight into the survey data.

Theme to Build On

CDSJ and the Mission of UMass

There is a strong endorsement for CDSJ values guiding the mission of UMass Amherst. Specifically, respondents were asked how central issues of community, diversity, and social justice should be to the University mission, to education, to one's department, and to one's discipline. On a scale ranging from 1 (not central) to 5 (central), means for the entire sample of employees range from 4.1 to 4.4.

Significant differences arise, however, when looking at these responses within gender and job classification subgroups. Specifically, females report that CDSJ issues should be more central to University life than males. Meanwhile, compared to classified and professional employees, faculty feel that CDSJ issues should be less central to the University mission. Interestingly, no mean differences emerge across racial and ethnic groups. These results suggest that faculty and males believe CDSJ issues should be less central to the UMass mission than other groups report.

Detracting Themes

CDSJ and Day-to-Day Experiences

While CDSJ goals and values receive strong support "in theory" from members of the UMass community, they appear to be less central to individuals' lived, daily experiences. Respondents were asked to rate how central CDSJ concepts were to their day-to-day work, interactions with students and co-workers, research activities, teaching and service. Findings reveal that, on a scale of 1 (not central) to 5 (central), the mean falls at about 3.8 in terms of centrality. While a mean of 3.8 is still above the middle point, it appears that in general we are better at "talking the talk" than "walking the walk" when it comes to valuing CDSJ.

Responses to the open-ended item on the survey reflect this perception that a gulf exists between language endorsing CDSJ and living it. As respondents noted, our energy must be in "doing":

"Nowhere does this survey associate these values with quality in education: the emphasis (implicit) seems to be on content. Community, diversity, and social justice are utterly essential but repeating them (as this questionnaire will inevitably lead to) does not ensure those values or necessarily increase the quality of educational experience. They need to be lived realities not slogans."

"I believe it is important to address the ethos of the campus . . . . We must work to increase diversity (particularly students and faculty of color) so that we are perceived as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'."

Looking closer at disciplinary comparisons¹, when we look at the percentage of faculty who rate each area of faculty life at a 4 or 5 in terms of CDSJ centrality, differences emerge. In general, a higher proportion of faculty in Education, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Humanities and Fine Arts rank CDSJ issues as more central than do individuals in Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Management, and Engineering. (See Appendix C: CDSJ Centrality to Faculty on Various Parts of Faculty Life.)

Some respondents also made a distinction between centrality and importance and, in some instances, linked this distinction to the relative importance of research and intellectual work:

"'Centrality' is a relative concept; not everything that is important can be central . . . It should not be, but I sometimes feel that scholarship is considered less central to the mission of the university than community, etc. That, in the long run, is misguided and self-defeating."

"Does a commitment to diversity spur intellectual work and learning? I don't think there's a direct correlation though I do think a commitment to diversity is very important for other reasons."

Another set of questions asked respondents about their perceptions of the diversity climate at UMass. Looking specifically at items reflecting the University's commitment to diversity (i.e., respect for cultural differences; emphasis on building a diverse staff; emphasis on creating an inclusive work environment; lack of tolerance for prejudice and bigotry on campus), the overall mean on the four-point scale for this set of questions is fairly high (3.13), indicating that respondents agree that the UMass climate is characterized by the statements above. However, the responses evidence marked differences in perception by race and ethnicity.

Whites and Asians are significantly more likely to endorse this perception of the climate than are Blacks, Latinos, or Native Americans. When asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement, "UMass is socially and culturally diverse," 82 percent of White respondents and 83 percent of Asian respondents agree, while 58 percent of Black, Latino, and Native American respondents agree with this statement. In terms of gender, males are more likely to agree with these items than females.

Classism

Finally, one other significant theme comes through quite clearly in the narrative comments provided in response to open-ended items on the survey. People feel a lack of respect across the socioeconomic strata of job classifications across campus. Sample written comments include:

"On campus, I think the most pervasive and stressful struggles are between classified and professional staff . . . I think the survey should have addressed this form of classism more directly."

"[I am made aware of 'class' issues when I have] to say I am calling 'on behalf' of someone to be taken seriously even though I am the one making the arrangements and I know more about it than my boss does."

¹The School of Nursing and Commonwealth College are not included in these school/college comparisons because of small faculty respondent sample size (N<10).