2. Personnel Policies

The Academic Affairs CDSJ survey was completed in a climate of a diminishing University workforce, roller-coaster swings in staffing and morale, and economic uncertainty. Academic Affairs, in common with the other executive areas of the University, has risen to the call to undertake cost-cutting measures and to be increasingly independent of state funding, all the while continuing to exemplify the excellence and accomplishment which is its tradition. Clear themes emerged from responses to the CDSJ survey, some of which may seem predictable while others illuminate more subtly the range of perspectives held by broadly different members of Academic Affairs.

In general, within Academic Affairs, Whites see the campus as more diverse than do minorities, and white, male tenure-track faculty members report higher levels of satisfaction across a number of job-related items. An increasing presence of women in tenure-track faculty positions emerges as a positive aspect of diversity in Academic Affairs. Not surprisingly, "making good" on promises of diversity and equity emerges as a major challenge. The lack of contracts, loss of cost-of-living increases, and pay freezes are regularly cited by respondents as other top challenges. Also, respondents cite the disproportionate weight of redistributed workloads resulting from a diminished workforce at every level in Academic Affairs.

Theme To Build On

Gender Diversity Across Faculty

The survey focused on employee attitudes and experiences within Academic Affairs, but in terms of strengths, it is pertinent to note documented progress towards gender diversity in faculty hires. In the six-year period from 1995-2001, the University showed a steady increase in the percentage of women faculty, as shown in Table 1 below. However, according to the Availability and Utilization data from the Affirmative Action Plan 2001-2002, women tenure-system faculty are underutilized in at least one department within each school/college except Nursing and Engineering. (See Appendix D: Faculty Utilization Report, by Department/Program Within University Job Group, 3/31/01.) Given the unusually large turnover in the workforce in the past two years, more recent data should be examined carefully for any change in demographic patterns.

Detracting Themes

Minority Diversity Across Faculty

As shown in Table 1, minority diversity in faculty hires in Fall 2001 returned to the level of six years earlier, after several years of gains. The Availability and Utilization data from the Affirmative Action Plan 2001 - 2002 underscore that we have not, as stated by the Office's Associate Chancellor Esther Terry, "fared so well with bringing minorities into our community." According to those data, minority tenure-system faculty are underutilized in various departments in the majority of schools/colleges, with the exceptions of Management, Engineering, Nursing, and Education. (See Appendix D: Faculty Utilization Report, by Department/Program Within University Job Group, 3/31/01.)

Perceptions of Campus Diversity

Gains in minority diversity across the job classifications of professional and classified staff are documented for the six-year period 1995-2001. Minority professional staff increased from 11.9 percent in 1995 to 13.2 percent in 2001, and minority classified staff saw a larger gain, from 9.6 percent in 1995 to 11.9 percent in 2001. (See Appendix E: Race/Ethnicity and Gender of Staff by Job Classification.) Nonetheless, perceptions of the campus as diverse fall out along racial lines. On a scale of 1 (Does not have a diverse staff) to 5 (Has a diverse staff), Whites (at 3.61) and Asians (at 3.76) see the campus as more diverse than do other minority community members of Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans (at 3.09). In terms of employment position, classified staff members (at 3.80) see the campus as more diverse than do faculty members (at 3.43).

Satisfaction With Rewards/Compensation

In general, UMass employees do not feel that their pay is fair. When asked their level of agreement with the statement "My pay is fair for the work I do" on a scale of 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 4 (Agree Strongly), employees' mean responses by job classification all fall in the "disagree somewhat" category: classified staff (2.00), instructors/lecturers (2.10), professional staff (2.52), and faculty (2.58). As these means suggest, not only are all employees dissatisfied with their pay, but those at the lower end of the pay scales are more dissatisfied with their salaries than those nearer the top. Tenure-track faculty members are, in general, more satisfied than lecturers with their compensation, and professional staff members are, in general, more satisfied than classified staff members with their compensation. Classified staff also feel the least respected and appreciated for their contributions.

Employees across all job classifications indicate that they feel that their workload is increasing. In the focus groups with classified staff, many articulated dissatisfaction with the amount and degree of additional responsibilities that have fallen to them in recent years. A variety of factors are cited (e.g., PeopleSoft, budget cuts, early retirement and layoffs, poor supervision), but the underlying issue - being asked to respond to a far greater range of and more demanding tasks - remains consistent. Related to the perception of "workload creep" is the question of how well job descriptions match actual duties. Here, classified staff are the least likely of all employee groups to feel that their job description accurately reflects their duties, while faculty are the most likely to feel that it does. Specifically, 46 percent of classified staff indicate that they do not feel their job description accurately reflects their duties, while only 24 percent of faculty respond this way. In focus groups, classified staff expressed frustration with expectations that they perform well in tasks that are specifically outside the original range of classified work, with greater levels of decision-making and responsibility. The difference in perception between classified staff and faculty may reflect the reality that classified staff work under a civil-service system with complex requirements defining conditions for position upgrades, while faculty do not.

"Talk versus Deeds"

There is a perception across campus that there is a disjuncture between our "talk versus deeds" related to diversity issues. Respondents question the sincerity of the University in creating an equitable campus. However, questions emerge from two different perspectives.

1. Respondents perceive senior campus administrators as "doing a lot of talking" about support for diversity, but in action being busy dismantling such efforts. Examples cited in written comments on open-ended survey items include dismantling day-care services, collapsing or doing away with student services targeted toward particular minority groups, changing admissions criteria, etc.

2. Other respondents perceive some programs and policies (e.g., AA/EEO) as the actual problem. Some respondents perceive that such efforts constitute an unfair system of protection of underskilled employees (i.e., managers afraid to confront underperforming employees due to fear of accusations of racism or protracted disputes). Related to these comments, other respondents report perceptions of "reverse discrimination," wherein minorities are gaining unfair advantages over Whites and that it is these very policies and initiatives that are "creating the problems."