November 2020 Town Halls

During November of 2020 Rankin & Associates unveiled and summarized the key findings of the belong@SJSU campus climate for inclusion survey during two virtual town halls that were attended by over 300 people. Thanks to all who attended and posted questions to the panelists.

Below you can find:

Town Hall Video Recordings
Questions Asked & Answers from the Town Halls
Original Email Invitation to the Town halls

Presentation Slidedeck used during the Town Halls**
_{(**Please make sure you are logged into your SJSU Google account before attempting
to access these documents. You will not have access to these documents unless you
log onto your SJSU account.)}

A more comprehensive set of slides that include the deck used during the Town Halls can be found on the main findings page here

Town Hall Videos

November 12, 2020

*** Broken component ***

November 13, 2020

*** Broken component ***

Questions Asked During the Town Hall Meetings

Please note that the questions contained in secton were compiled directly from questions submitted by participants during the two Town Halls through the Q & A function on Zoom. Some of these questions were answered live during the town hall by panelists from Rankin and Associates and by SJSU administrators. Some of these questions were not answered live due to limitations of the thirty minute Q & A session. These questions are also answered below.

How do the demographics in the survey results presentation compare to SJSU as a community? In other words, how representative is the sample?

• The overall response rate was 12%.

• Undergraduate and Graduate students were underrepresented in the sample, and Faculty and Staff were overrepresented in the sample.

• Asian/Filipinx/Southeast Asian, Black/African/African American, Latinx/Chicanx/Hispanic, and Missing/Other were underrepresented in the sample.

• White/European American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Multiracial, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders were overrepresented in the sample.

• Middle Eastern and Jewish individuals were identified in the sample but not in the population

•Women were overrepresented, Men were underrepresented

More women responded than men. Across students, staff, and faculty, how many were women (in terms of percentage)? How does that affect analysis?

Women were overrepresented in the sample

• Women (n=2636) 61%
• Men (n=1,415) 33%
• Trans-spectrum (n=210) 5%
• Missing (n=37) 1%

In general, nationally, women are overrepresented in social science surveys across all categories.

Did the issue of chauvinism register in the survey results?

The issue of gender bias did come up throughout the report, in both the open ended and in the quantitative questions.

When the findings discuss trans-spectrum respondents compared to other respondents, are we comparing trans-spectrum respondents to cis-women and cis-men respondents?

The survey asked respondents to explain their gender/gender identity and options included “woman,” “man” and other options that included gender non-conforming, non-binary, questioning/not sure, genderfluid, genderqueer, transgender, two-spirit, intersex, and a gender not listed here. People could also check more than one. Anyone who checked more than one or checked something other than “woman” and “man” were recorded into “trans-spectrum”.

How were groups with smaller numbers of responses data handled? I know you said they were not statistically significant, but how does that fare in terms of taking those individual (smaller group) concerns into consideration despite them not meeting the "standard thresholds"

The overall number of people that completed the survey were too few to allow for viable statistical analysis. This was the case, for example, for the following groups that were identified in the report and Town Halls as:

• Alaska Native
• American Indian/Native/Indigenous
• Black/African/African American
• Filipinx
• Jewish
• Middle Eastern
• Native Hawaiian
• Pacific Islander
• Southeast Asian
• A racial/ethnic identity not listed here.

Nevertheless, at the request of SJSU, Rankin & Associates did provide descriptive statistics for some key climate questions for this group.

• Comfort with climate
• Experienced harassment
• Observed harassment
• Seriously considered leaving

Are you able to cut the data by College? Will data be available by college or department? I serve on a committee investigating our college climate as compared to the university. Is that data available? By department?

The data can be disaggregated in a variety of ways. A data request process is being developed so that SJSU community members can request data and/or analyses. There will be efforts to provide some high-level summary data in cases where populations are too small to be representative. As long as there is a representative sample of the population requested is greater than 30%, traditional statistical analyses may be provided.

What conclusions can we draw from the campus climate survey findings (if any) for students, faculty, and staff who have disabilities?

Rankin & Associates did report an entire section on barriers at SJSU for respondents with disabilities. 558 respondents indicated that they had a disability. The specifics of this will be reported in the larger slide deck and in the full report. Some key findings include:

• Facilities - 17% each reported barriers with classroom buildings and campus transportation/parking
• Technology - 13% reported barriers with accessible online format
• Instructional/campus materials - 9% each video-closed captioning and text description along with textbooks/course readers
• Identity - 9% reported barriers with electronic databases (e.g., MySJSU, Peoplesoft, one.SJSU)

Qualitative: Respondents also talked about difficulties with elevators, parking, non-physical or invisible disabilities, resources, and the overall inaccessible campus

For staff and faculty, did you include their length of time at the university? This would seem to help identify trends - either better or worse experiences over time.

We did ask students, faculty, and staff how long they have been at the institution. Those results are just not reported here but will be in the full report and in the slide deck available on the findings section of this website.

Of the 677 Faculty respondents, how many were Non-Tenure Track and how many were Tenure Track faculty respondents?

• 385 were Non-tenure-track
• 292 were Tenured or Tenure-Track

The presenter said that non-tenure-track faculty are more comfortable than tenure-track faculty. For faculty, is there any data about the source of discomfort (e.g., daily experienced microaggressions vs. extremely high pressure to publish)?

In the open-ended question asking people to elaborate on the exclusionary conduct that they experienced, non-tenure-track faculty did talk about exclusionary behavior from others. A summary of the comments is provided in the final report (beginning page 121).

Can you say again what the top reasons are for faculty considering leaving?

• Low salary/pay rate - 63%
• Cost of living in the Bay area - 47%
• Limited advancement opportunities, 37%
• Insufficient institutional support (e.g., technical support, understaffed, laboratory space/equipment) - 33%
• Increased workload - 32%

Were there any suggestions solicited in the survey as to how to overcome the challenges (e.g., exclusion, discomfort, etc.)?

The belong@SJSU survey asked one open ended question at the end of the survey that solicited specific recommendations for improving the climate. The answers to this open ended question will be summarized by our campus. This information will be made available to the campus. The new Campus Climate on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, a standing committee which will make recommendations to the President will utilize the findings and summary from this study to make recommendations.

How can students participate in the work to support efforts to improve our campus climate?

Students can attend a student Forum at the beginning of the Spring Semester. Register the fora website:
Students can nominate themselves or other students for the Campus Climate for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee and become a member of the committee. Several student positions are available. Students can nominate themselves or others at this website.
Offer input and feedback through your Associated Students representative
Offer input and feedback through other Faculty, Staff, and Administrators
Connect with the Student Success Centers: El Centro, BLOC, UndocuSpartans, Veterans Resource Center, as well as with MOSAIC, Cesar Chavez Community Action Center, Gender Equity, and PRIDE, and other spaces and places on campus.

Was Homelessness asked about in the survey?

• There was not an official option to ask about homelessness. However, there was an “other” option where students could indicate if they were housing insecure. Overall 365 of student respondents indicated that they were in “other” housing.

• The Campus Climate and Belonging Committee was informed that there will be a Needs Assessment survey administered in Spring 2021 which will give a more detailed look at basic needs including housing insecurity, food insecurity, economic insecurity. It will also assess access and knowledge about resources.

How do the statistics shared at the Town Hall meetings compare with other local universities? particularly for: leaving the institution, and unwanted sexual engagement? How does the data compare to universities across the nation?

Rankin & Associates typically do not benchmark with other institutions as each institution is unique and the circumstances can be very different based on various institutional factors. Rather Rankin & Associates encourages the institution to use these data as a benchmark going forward. SJSU now owns the survey and is welcome to administer it. Rankin & Associates usually recommends administering a survey like the belong@SJSU survey every 5 years.

What was the strategy for communicating the survey to students? Although COVID-19 was likely a factor, it is disappointing to see a low percentage completion. How does that affect where we go from here in terms of student needs?

• The students were communicated via MySJSU twice in addition to the several emails sent to the whole campus.
• We had over 8 pizza parties in University Housing, as well as tables in 7th Street Plaza and the Student Service Center where students received information about the survey plus some give-aways like t-shirts, reusable bottles, stickers, and buttons from the start of the Survey on February 25, 2020, to March 13, 2020 when Shelter-in-Place guidelines were made mandatory.
• Sammy Spartan and social media apps like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook were used to promote the survey as well.

Since the student response is so low, will anything be done to ensure to gather additional feedback from students before anything is implemented?

Students can attend a student Forum at the beginning of the Spring Semester. Register at the fora website
Students can nominate themselves or other students for the Campus Climate for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee and become a member of the committee. Several student positions are available. Students can nominate themselves or others at this website.
Offer input and feedback through your Associated Students representative
Offer input and feedback through other Faculty, Staff, and Administrators
Connect with the Student Success Centers: El Centro, BLOC, UndocuSpartans, Veterans Resource Center, as well as with MOSAIC, Cesar Chavez Community Action Center, Gender Equity, and PRIDE, and other spaces and places on campus.

I have seen many SJSU complain about problems with their advisors and asked two questions: Has SJSU ever reviewed SJSU's reddit page on the thoughts of SJSU advisors? Will SJSU deal with issues/problems regarding advisors?

The Office of the Provost is looking at what students have been sharing about advising in surveys, and other forms of information. The office is also looking at reorganization and changes to advising based on these student critiques.

There are only so many ways to help 33,000 students be connected to the campus such as through jobs, committees and student orgs. How else can we help students feel that connection and increase retention rates? How will SJSU help students socialize and connect with their peers while being online?

These questions are good questions likely brought to mind by the findings that state that one of the reasons that SJSU students report wanting to leave the institution is a lack of a sense of belonging.

In this ongoing online context, our campus leaders in Student Affairs, Academic Affairs and other units are developing programs and initiatives to help students, staff, and faculty connect more meaningfully and socially to form spaces of community.

Was anything to do with affirmative action asked or analyzed? And if not, why not? In the midst of the climate we are in as well as affirmative action being struck down in California in this last election, I want to know if it was even addressed considering the survey was put out there earlier in the year?

We did not ask specific questions about affirmative action. There are lots of questions asking about race and racial difference but not about this specific policy. At the time that the survey items were developed by the CCBC and Rankin & Associates in Summer of 2019 the election activities around affirmative action (and specifically Proposition 16) had not been as prominent as they were this spring and fall.

How do the numbers compare to the survey that was completed in 2015? How do these results compare to any previous SJSU survey results?

More information can be found at the History section of this website.

The last time SJSU held a campus climate assessment was in 2015. The participation rates for the 2015 survey were:
• Students - 17%
• Faculty - 21%
• Staff - 15%

The participation rates for the 2020 belong@SJSU campus climate survey were:

• Undergraduate students - 9%
• Graduate students - 8%
• Faculty - 35%
• Staff - 41%

Please keep in mind that in the 3rd week of the administration of the 2020 belong@SJSU survey, our campus and Santa Clara County went into Shelter-In-Place. Many of the in person recruitment parties and incentives that we had been planned for student participation were cancelled.

Can the data for staff, which includes MPPs and other classifications, be sorted out to look at various classifications and experiences based on classifications? The same for faculty and their various classifications (i.e., assistant, associate, and full) and do those factors show relevant information and dynamics?

We did not specifically ask staff to distinguish if they were MPP versus other classifications.

However, faculty were asked to distinguish between tenured, tenure-track and non-tenure track, as each faculty group was asked a unique set of questions. Again, this survey can be a benchmark by which you can ask future questions to more specific subsets of faculty and staff.

• 385 were non-tenure-track
• 292 were Tenured or Tenure-Track

Were there specific questions asked on ‘physical safety’ particularly since SJSU is located in downtown?’

There was one open ended question at the end of the survey asking if their experiences on campus were different from those experiences in the community surrounding campus. The details can be found in the full report, but one of the overall themes included respondents feeling “safer on campus than within the community.” (p.461 Final Report)

November 9, 2020 Invitation to the Campus Community

Dear campus community,

At SJSU, one of our ongoing values is to create and maintain an environment characterized by openness, fairness and equal access for all students, staff and faculty. In that spirit, many of you might recall that we conducted the belong@SJSU campus climate survey during spring semester.

The process was led by the Campus Climate and Belonging Committee (CCBC) in collaboration with a highly respected consulting firm, Rankin & Associates. The CCBC worked with our consultants for nearly a full year to conduct focus groups, design the survey, and make decisions about how to conduct the analysis, including how to address potentially low response rates.

Despite the delays caused by extending the survey period due to COVID-19, we can now report that the results are ready to share. Two town hall meetings have been scheduled where Rankin & Associates will unveil and summarize the key findings. The presentation portion of the town halls will be recorded and made available for the campus community.

At the town halls, the campus community will hear findings from the belong@SJSU campus climate survey, which was open from February through May of this year. You will not hear recommendations on what to do with the findings, which is a responsibility our community bears, not our consultants. The results of the survey will enable us to develop programs and practices that will increase inclusivity in areas that have struggled. Survey results will also allow us to enhance and replicate programs and practices that are shown to be successful in meeting the needs of our campus community.

By design, we have not read the report. From the beginning, our plan was to receive the report at the same time as the rest of the community, which is the standard practice of Rankin & Associates and is, in fact, one reason that we chose them. However, we have been informed that response rates among some groups precluded certain statistical analyses. We share this information now to help manage the expectations about what the findings will tell us about our community.

The report we will receive represents what we hope to be the first of many efforts to analyze the data. It will be posted on the belong@SJSU website the week of November 16. The complete data set will be provided to SJSU later this year, and we will create a campus process for developing reports and requests for analysis. It will be up to us to take advantage of the rich dataset that we have to extract findings that can guide our work.

Use the links below to register for one of the town halls:

Thursday, November 12, 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm
Friday, November 13, 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm

We hope to see you there!

Sincerely,

Kathleen Wong(Lau)
Chief Diversity Officer, Office of the President
Co-Chair, Campus Climate and Belonging Committee

Lisa Millora
Vice President for Strategy and Chief of Staff, Office of the President
Co-Chair, Campus Climate and Belonging Committee