Perceptions of the Campus Climate

The concept “campus climate” is rooted in a 1982 report that investigated the “classroom climate” for women students within higher education contexts.*This groundbreaking work documented that the learning climate was “chilly,” disadvantaged women students, and stymied equal educational opportunity. In the early 1990s, the influential work of higher education scholar Sylvia Hurtado provided important insights about the “racial climate” for students of color within higher education, including how inhospitable campus environments – both academic and social – impacted outcomes for students. By the late 1990s, the more expansive concept “campus climate” gained traction as inquiry about identity-based marginalization and discrimination within higher education contexts extended beyond gender and race/ethnicity to sexual orientation, disability, and socio-economic status.

The CCS’s measure of campus climate was developed by drawing on nearly two-decades of campus climate research conducted at a wide variety of universities in the U.S. Given the complex, multi-faceted nature of the concept, the measure is composed of several items that gauge different dimensions or aspects of the campus social environment (e.g., friendliness, inclusiveness, sense of community). Survey participants were instructed to rate the campus overall on ten 5-point rating scales, each anchored by polar opposite adjectives (see dashboard, below). These ten items, once combined, form a robust composite measure** of perceived campus climate.

Before we explore similarities and differences in campus climate perceptions among social identity categories, it is worthwhile to consider the individual items that comprise the composite measure of campus climate. The dashboard below shows mean scores (ranging from 1 on the negative end to 5 on the positive end) and standard deviations (SD) for each of the ten campus climate dimensions, sortable by population (undergraduates, graduate students, staff, and faculty).

Mean ratings across all ten items and among all four populations range from a low of 3.1 to a high of 4.2. Among graduate students, staff, and faculty, the Unsafe-Safe dimension received the highest rating (G=4.0, S=4.0, F=4.2), whereas among undergraduates Unwelcoming-Welcoming received the highest rating (3.9). In contrast, Weak sense of community-Strong sense of community received the lowest rating among undergraduates (3.5), graduate students (3.3), and staff (3.1), whereas among faculty, Not Diverse-Diverse received the lowest rating (3.1). Exploration of the dashboard by population reveals that faculty have the greatest variation among item mean scores, whereas undergraduates have the least variation.

*Hall, R. M. and Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Project on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, D.C: Association of American Colleges.

**Cronbach’s alpha: UG=.93, G=.95, S=.93, F=.93

Successful development and fostering of a campus climate of inclusion, particularly given UMass Amherst’s history as a predominately white institution (PWI), depends on community members’ developing connections – including friendships – with others whose backgrounds and identity characteristics are different from their own. Disrupting and shifting the human tendency to form connections based on similarity*, rather than difference, necessitates intentionality, opportunity, and supportive community structures.

To provide some insight about the extent to which students, staff, and faculty have close connections with UMass Amherst community members whose identity characteristics are different from their own, all CCS participants were asked to consider their five closest friends or acquaintances at UMass Amherst (a grouping we will reference here as “five closest friends”). For these five friends, respondents reported the number who are of a different gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic background from their own. These four social identity aspects were selected as focal points from the broader array in order to make the question set manageable for participants. In the University’s next CCS, this question set will focus on other social identity aspects, such as disability, job classification, and political beliefs.

When reflecting on the social identities of their five closest friends at UMass Amherst, respondents could indicate that they were “Unsure.” The first dashboard below shows that across all four populations, survey participants were more likely to indicate uncertainty about the sexual orientations and socioeconomic backgrounds of their five closest friends than about their races/ethnicities and genders. This finding is understandable, given that some social identity aspects tend to be more centered in human interactions than others.

Lastly, exploration of the population-specific dashboards reveals a variety of differences across social identity categories.  When considering these, it is important to keep in mind that many reflect substantial differences in size among social identity groups – a circumstance that understandably constrains opportunities for interpersonal connection.  In contrast, some differences (such as differences among women and men) are likely attributable to people’s social dispositions and behaviors.

Undergraduates

The dashboard below shows that overall, vast majorities of undergraduates reported that at least one of their five closest friends at UMass Amherst is of a gender different from their own (80%), and that at least one is of a race/ethnicity different from their own (79%). Among undergraduates knowledgeable about the socioeconomic class background of their five closest friends, 81% indicated that at least one has a class background different from their own. Among those knowledgeable of the sexual orientations of their five closest friends, approximately two-thirds (67%) indicated that at least one has a sexual orientation different from their own. Exploration of the results by social identity aspects reveals some differences among groups (see dashboard below). For example, men were much more likely than women to indicate that None of their five closest friends has a sexual orientation different from their own (44% v. 27%). Another example is that International students were somewhat more likely than others to indicate that None of their five closest friends has a sexual orientation different from their own (41% v. 27%-38%).

Graduate Students

Overall results for graduate students are very similar to those of undergraduates. The dashboard below shows that overall, vast majorities of graduate students reported that at least one of their five closest friends at the University is of a gender different from their own (85%), and that at least one is of a race/ethnicity different from their own (80%). Among graduate students knowledgeable about the socioeconomic class background of their five closest friends, 77% indicated that at least one has a class background different from their own. Among those knowledgeable of the sexual orientations of their five closest friends, nearly two-thirds (64%) indicated that at least one has a sexual orientation different from their own. Exploration of the results by social identity aspects reveals some differences (see dashboard, below). For example, International students were much more likely than others to indicate that None of their five closest friends has a sexual orientation different from their own (52% v. 19%-30%). Another example is that men were slightly more likely than women to indicate that None of their five closest friends has a sexual orientation different from their own (45% v. 33%). 

Staff

The dashboard below shows that vast majorities of staff (83%) indicated that at least one of their five closest university friends is of a gender different from their own, and (among those with knowledge) that at least one is of a class background different from their own (74%). Among those knowledgeable of the sexual orientations of their five closest friends, two-thirds (66%) indicated that at least one has a sexual orientation different from their own. Lastly, 69% reported that at least one friend is of a race/ethnicity different from their own. As is the case with students, exploration of the results by social identity aspects reveals some differences (see dashboard below). For example, administrators were more likely than most others to report having at least one close university friend of a gender different from their own, a race/ethnicity different from their own, a sexual orientation different from their own, and a class background different from their own. 

Faculty

Vast majorities of all faculty reported having at least one close university friend of a gender different from their own (91%), and a friend of a race/ethnicity different from their own (81%). In contrast, nearly one-third indicated that None of their close friends has a sexual orientation different from their own and that None of their close friends has a class background different from their own. As is the case with the other three campus populations, exploration of the results by social identity aspects reveals some differences (see dashboard below). For example, women were twice as likely as men to indicate that None of their five closest University friends is a gender different from their own (12% v. 5%), and men were somewhat more likely than women to report that None of their five closest friends has a sexual orientation different from their own (38% v. 29%). 

Although knowledge about differences in campus climate perceptions holds substantial intrinsic value, insight about the relationship between campus climate perceptions and important outcome variables can deepen understanding of why the campus climate matters. The CCS included a question that asked undergraduates, staff, and faculty* how likely or unlikely they are to recommend UMass Amherst to others (as a place to go to school, as a place to work). The dashboard below shows, for each population, mean campus climate measure scores by likelihood of recommending the University. The same stark pattern exists across all three populations: Those indicating they are Very Likely to recommend the University to others perceive the campus climate much more positively than those who are only Somewhat Likely to recommend it, or who are Somewhat Unlikely or Very Unlikely to recommend. The association between these two variables suggests implications for both recruitment and retention of students, staff, and faculty.

*The graduate student version of the CCS included a slightly different question that asked whether they would select UMass Amherst if they were to start their graduate studies all over again.

The CCS included a question about the campus racial climate, specifically. This question was included in the 2016 CCS, but current societal and campus contexts heighten its importance (for more information about context see our backgrounds and methods). 

Responses to this 4-point satisfaction question are quite split across all four populations. For example, among undergraduates overall, 14 percent indicated they are Very Satisfied with the racial climate, 37 percent said Somewhat Satisfied, 31 percent said Somewhat Dissatisfied, and 17 percent reported being Very Dissatisfied. As you engage with the dashboards below, we encourage you to keep in mind that people’s lived experiences shape their perceptions of their social environments.

Undergraduate and Graduate Students

As might be anticipated, students’ perceptions of the campus racial climate vary considerably by race/ethnicity. The dashboard below shows that for undergraduates, satisfaction is highest among International students and Asian students, and lowest among Black and Latinx students. Among Black and Latinx undergraduates, the high levels of dissatisfaction are quite alarming: 76 percent of Black students, 61 percent of Latinx students, and 56 percent of Multiracial students reported dissatisfaction. Lower, but still quite substantial, proportions of Asian and White undergraduates also reported dissatisfaction (44% and 49%, respectively). As is the case with undergraduates, satisfaction is highest – by far – among International graduate students (38% Very Satisfied and 44% Somewhat Satisfied). Satisfaction is lowest among Black and Multiracial graduate students. Only 26 percent of Black graduate students and 25 percent of Multiracial graduate students reported being Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied with the campus racial climate. For both undergraduate and graduate students, perceptions of the campus racial climate also vary by other social identity aspects (see the dashboards, below).

Staff and Faculty

Among both staff and faculty, Asian employees were most likely to indicate satisfaction with the campus racial climate, whereas Black and Latinx employees were least likely to indicate satisfaction. Levels of dissatisfaction (Somewhat or Very) are especially high among Black, Latinx, and Multiracial staff (69%, 63%, and 60%, respectively), and among Black and Latinx faculty (62% and 59%, respectively). The dashboards below show only negligible variation by staff job classification and faculty rank, but perceptions of the campus racial climate vary by other social identity aspects.

Vast majorities of undergraduates, graduate students, staff, and faculty indicated that UMass Amherst is Very Committed or Somewhat Committed to inclusion (75%, 78%, 81%, and 83%, respectively), which is an encouraging finding. But the dashboards below reveal that perceived institutional commitment to inclusion varies by social identity aspects across all four populations.

Undergraduate and Graduate Students

For both undergraduate and graduate students, perceived institutional commitment to inclusion does not vary by first-generation status. Similarly, there is no variation by transfer status (for undergraduates) and only slight variation by Doctoral/Master’s status (for graduate students). Variation does exist, however, by several other social identity aspects (see dashboards, below). For example, undergraduate and graduate students with a mental health disability were more likely than those with no disability to perceive that the University is uncommitted (Somewhat or Very) to inclusion (35% v. 20% and 34% v. 16%, respectively). Another example is that among both undergraduate and graduate students, nonbinary students were more likely than women or men to perceive that the University is uncommitted to inclusion.

Staff and Faculty

For both faculty and staff, one of the most pronounced differences in perception of institutional commitment to inclusion is between individuals who do and do not have a disability. Among staff, 34% of those with a disability perceive the institution is uncommitted to inclusion (Somewhat or Very), compared to 16% of those who do not have a disability. Among faculty, 30% of those with a disability perceive the institution is uncommitted compared to 15% of faculty who do not have a disability. The dashboards below show additional variation by social identity aspects. Among faculty, in particular, most of these differences are not pronounced.