Introduction

Background

A climate survey was conducted by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) and the Grainger College of Engineering (GCOE) in collaboration with the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (CITL) during spring semester 2023. Survey questions were developed by a College of LAS committee working on inclusive excellence and cover a variety of topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This survey was administered to all current faculty and staff as of February 28, 2023. In addition, LAS also surveyed all current graduate and undergraduate students. Administrative data was provided by the ATLAS data group.

The LAS survey was in the field from February 28 to May 21, 2023. Data on survey invitations, numbers of respondents, and response rates are listed in the table below. Respondents who had not yet completed the survey were reminded up to four times. This survey was conducted under Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol #23467.

Response Rate

Table:Total Number of Respondents by
Employment Status (LAS, Unweighted)
Employment Status Invitations Sent Number of Respondents Response Rate
Faculty 1343 502 37.4%
Graduate Staff 317 48 15.1%
Graduate Student 2349 619 26.4%
Postdoc 135 25 18.5%
Staff 677 297 43.9%
Undergrad Staff 142 12 8.5%
Total 4963 1503 30.3%

 

The response rates for faculty, staff, and graduate students are higher than the typical response rates observed in comparable University of Illinois faculty and staff and student surveys conducted by CITL. The lower response rates for postdocs and student employees are typical for student surveys. Besides the groups above, LAS undergraduate students were also asked to participate but it was determined that their observed response rate (3.4%) was not high enough to yield representative results at this time for this report. So, undergraduate students are excluded from this report.

Readers may notice a different number of responses for each table. Respondents were free to skip any question they did not want to answer, aside from the first question asking for consent, and some questions were only shown to respondents who answered a certain way on a previous question or belonged to a particular demographic category. For example, if a respondent indicated that they had never experienced harassment then they would not be shown questions about the characteristics of that harassment. Some questions were specifically designed for specific employment categories. For example, faculty were asked about tenure fairness and equity while graduate students were asked about TA assignments and funding.

To mitigate potential non-response bias, a coordinated approach was undertaken, including the use of multiple reminders and invitations originating from both college-level and departmental sources. Reminders were sent only to individuals who had not yet completed the survey. Throughout the survey administration process, a diligent monitoring of response rates was maintained, with a focus on continuous improvement.

Weight

A calculated weight was applied to the survey data as a measure to estimate the true university population. This weight is a post-stratification rate that aims to account for differential non-response and was constructed based on college, department, employment group, sex, and underrepresented minority group status. All data presented in this report is weighted except for response rate tables. Please note, some individuals have a weight of less than .5, which may be reported as a zero in a table.

Report Layout

The response rates for the respondent demographic characteristics, including employment status, sex, race/ethnicity, and international status can be found in the Respondent Demographics section under Metadata. For purposes of confidentiality, groups which had fewer than five responses have been redacted.

This report contains several constructed indices, tabular results of each question, respondent characteristics, and information about the data. In addition, statistical analyses were performed to examine differences among respondents by their departments group, associate dean, and overall college. For this report, comparisons between the groups within each demographic characteristics were made.

The groups within each demographic characteristics are listed below:

  • Employment Status
    • Faculty
    • Graduate Staff
    • Graduate Students
    • Postdocs
    • Staff
    • Undergraduate Staff
  • Gender Identity
    • Man
    • Woman
    • Transgender
    • Non-binary/Self-described
  • Race/Ethnicity
    • White
    • Asian
    • URM
  • International Status
    • Domestic
    • International
  • LGBTQ+
    • LGBTQ+
    • Non-LGBTQ+
  • Disability
    • Self-identified as having a disability (Disability)
    • No Disability

For Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Terminology, Please see: Definitions

Data ‘At A Glance’

Overall Response Rate

30.3%

Average DEI Score

3.5 out of 5


Note: Average DEI is a constructed index

Survey Indices

Indice Description

To aid in understanding the data, we employed factor analysis to construct key topical indices and successfully developed four robust indices that exhibit strong internal consistency. These four indices measure:

  • Departmental Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (15 items)
  • Departmental Fair and Equitable Practices (33 items)
  • Departmental Incivility or Harassment (36 items)
  • Psychological Depression (9 items)

Each of these indices was created by calculating the mean value of the included items. These index values range from 1 to 5, where a score of 5 indicates the highest level and a score of 1 represents the lowest level of each underlying construct.

For the list of questions that were used to construct each index, please see: Index Questions

Note: Due to the small number of postdocs across all departments of LAS, the index Postdocs on fair and equitable practice will not be included here.

 

Indices Comparisons

This following section provides the descriptive statistics for the constructed survey indices. Indices are organized into positive and adverse indices. Descriptive statistics tables are provided which include the mean and standard deviation of each index. Box-plots, whose information are derived from the aforementioned tables, are also provided. The colored box represents the middle 50% of the data. The vertical black line within each box indicates the weighted median. Each individual black dot indicates an individual’s response that is considered an outlier. The black line represents the range of all the non-outlier responses.

 

Positive Indices

The following indices follow a 5 point scale where higher scores are better

Positive Indices,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation Cronbach’s alpha N
Departmental DEI 3.54 0.86 0.94 1495
Faculty on fair and equitable practices 3.73 1.04 0.97 330
Staff on fair and equitable practices 3.38 0.99 0.94 188
Graduate students on fair and equitable practices 3.39 1.00 0.96 540

 

A Box-plot of the positive survey indices

 

Adverse Indices

The following indices follow a 5 point scale where lower scores are better

Adverse Indices,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation Cronbach’s alpha N
Departmental incivility or harassment 1.87 0.98 0.98 1003
Depression 2.86 1.07 0.93 1125

 

index A Box-plot of the adverse survey indices

 

Indices by Employment Status

Postive Survey Indices - Faculty,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation N
Departmental DEI 3.69 0.9 428
Faculty on fair and equitable practices 3.73 1.04 330

 

A Box-plot of the faculty positive survey indices

 

Adverse Survey Indices - Faculty,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation N
Departmental incivility or harassment 1.83 0.97 278
Depression 2.54 0.98 324

 

A Box-plot of the faculty adverse survey indices

 

Positive Survey Indices - Staff,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation N
Departmental DEI 3.64 0.79 198
Staff on fair and equitable practices 3.52 0.94 148

 

A Box-plot of the positive staff survey indices

 

Adverse Survey Indices - Staff,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation N
Departmental incivility or harassment 1.61 0.81 127
Depression 2.6 0.95 154

 

A Box-plot of the staff adverse survey indices

 

Positive Survey Indices - Graduate Student,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation N
Departmental DEI 3.42 0.83 764
Graduate students on fair and equitable practices 3.39 1 540

 

A Box-plot of the graduate student positive survey indices

 

Adverse Survey Indices - Graduate Student,
Descriptive Statistics
Index Mean Standard Deviation N
Departmental incivility or harassment 1.93 1 532
Depression 3.12 1.08 579

 

A Box-plot of the graduate student adverse survey indices

 

Significant Differences

All indices except Departmental incivility or harassment and Depression follow a positive 5 point Likert scale, the higher the better. Departmental incivility or harassment and Depression are on a inverted 5 point scale, where lower scores are better. Overall significance are determined by either One-way ANOVA or student’s t-test. All comparisons are significant on a 95% level. Directional difference are determined by either Tukey’s HSD test or Games-Howell test. Groups that does not appear in Directional Comparison tables are insignificant. Difference column indicates whether the mean of Selected Group is higher or lower than the mean of Comparison Group(s).

Table: Mean Differences
Index Employment Status Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity International Status LGBTQ+ Disability
Departmental DEI Significant Significant Insignificant Significant Significant Significant
Departmental incivility or harassment Not Applicable Significant Insignificant Significant Significant Significant
Faculty on fair and equitable practices Not Applicable Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Significant Insignificant
Staff on fair and equitable practices Not Applicable Insufficent sample size Insufficent sample size Insignificant Significant Insignificant
Graduate students on fair and equitable practices Insufficent sample size Insignificant Insignificant Significant Significant Significant
Depression Significant Significant Insignificant Insignificant Significant Significant
Table: Significant Directional Comparison
Index: Departmental DEI
Selected Difference Comparison(s)
Graduate Student Lower than Faculty, Staff, Undergrad Staff
Undergrad Staff Higher than Faculty, Graduate Staff, Postdoc, Staff
Non-binary/Self-described Lower than Man, Transgender, Woman
Domestic Lower than International
Non-LGBTQ+ Higher than LGBTQ+
No Disability Higher than Disability
Table: Significant Directional Comparison
Index: Departmental incivility or harassment
Selected Difference Comparison(s)
Woman Lower than Non-binary/Self-described
Man Lower than Woman, Non-binary/Self-described
Domestic Higher than International
Non-LGBTQ+ Lower than LGBTQ+
No Disability Lower than Disability
Table: Significant Directional Comparison
Index: Faculty on fair and equitable practices
Selected Difference Comparison(s)
Non-LGBTQ+ Higher than LGBTQ+
Table: Significant Directional Comparison
Index: Staff on fair and equitable practices
Selected Difference Comparison(s)
Non-LGBTQ+ Higher than LGBTQ+
Table: Significant Directional Comparison
Index: Graduate students on fair and equitable practices
Selected Difference Comparison(s)
Domestic Lower than International
Non-LGBTQ+ Higher than LGBTQ+
No Disability Higher than Disability
Table: Significant Directional Comparison
Index: Depression
Selected Difference Comparison(s)
Graduate Student Higher than Faculty, Staff, Undergrad Staff
Undergrad Staff Lower than Postdoc
Non-binary/Self-described Higher than Man, Woman
Non-LGBTQ+ Lower than LGBTQ+
No Disability Lower than Disability

 

 

Survey Results

Departmental Climate

 

How would you rate the overall climate of your school ’s administrative office (Office of the Director and its staff)?

Table: Overall school climate,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Very good 130 40.1%
Good 110 34.0%
Fair 63 19.5%
Poor 15 4.7%
Very poor 6 1.7%
Weighted Total 323 100.0%
Mean 4.06

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Overall school climate

Table: Overall school climate,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Very good 98 (44.8%) 9 (24.9%) 9 (33.6%)
Good 75 (34.2%) 18 (48.4%) 7 (27.8%)
Fair 34 (15.5%) 8 (21.2%) 6 (24.1%)
Poor 9 (4.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (11.4%)
Very poor 3 (1.2%) 2 (5.5%) 1 (3.1%)
Weighted Total 219 (100.0%) 36 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
Mean 4.17 3.87 3.77
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Overall school climate  
Table: Overall school climate,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Very good 84 (42.9%) 5 (18.1%)
Good 68 (34.7%) 10 (38.0%)
Fair 34 (17.3%) 10 (39.4%)
Poor 9 (4.4%) 0 (1.6%)
Very poor 2 (0.8%) 1 (2.9%)
Weighted Total 196 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%)
Mean 4.14 3.67
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Overall school climate  
Table: Overall school climate,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Very good 85 (41.9%) 4 (20.8%)
Good 74 (36.5%) 4 (19.5%)
Fair 33 (16.4%) 11 (55.7%)
Poor 9 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Very poor 2 (0.8%) 1 (4.0%)
Weighted Total 203 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%)
Mean 4.14 3.53

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Overall school climate  

 

Overall, how would you rate the climate of your department  prior to the Covid-19 pandemic?

Table: Pre-COVID climate,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Very good 287 31.2%
Good 323 35.2%
Fair 192 20.9%
Poor 85 9.3%
Very poor 31 3.4%
Weighted Total 919 100.0%
Mean 3.82

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Pre-COVID cliamte

Table: Pre-COVID climate,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Very good 137 (39.0%) 14 (33.1%) 89 (23.7%) 1 (13.3%) 46 (32.4%)
Good 116 (32.9%) 12 (29.6%) 135 (35.9%) 1 (17.8%) 59 (41.6%)
Fair 60 (17.1%) 11 (27.5%) 85 (22.7%) 5 (68.9%) 30 (21.0%)
Poor 28 (8.1%) 4 (9.8%) 47 (12.6%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.9%)
Very poor 11 (3.0%) 0 (0.0%) 19 (5.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.1%)
Weighted Total 352 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%) 376 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 141 (100.0%)
Mean 3.97 3.86 3.61 3.44 4.00
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Pre-COVID climate  
Table: Pre-COVID climate,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Very good 144 (31.2%) 129 (31.3%) 10 (52.3%) 4 (15.5%)
Good 173 (37.5%) 141 (34.1%) 3 (16.1%) 7 (27.5%)
Fair 89 (19.4%) 97 (23.4%) 2 (11.3%) 4 (14.0%)
Poor 43 (9.3%) 32 (7.7%) 4 (20.2%) 7 (26.7%)
Very poor 12 (2.7%) 15 (3.5%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (16.4%)
Weighted Total 461 (100.0%) 414 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%)
Mean 3.85 3.82 4.01 2.99
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Pre-COVID climate  
Table: Pre-COVID climate,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Very good 177 (30.9%) 21 (31.6%) 26 (24.5%)
Good 209 (36.5%) 27 (40.2%) 31 (29.7%)
Fair 122 (21.3%) 10 (15.1%) 26 (24.9%)
Poor 46 (8.1%) 7 (9.9%) 15 (14.7%)
Very poor 19 (3.2%) 2 (3.2%) 6 (6.2%)
Weighted Total 572 (100.0%) 67 (100.0%) 104 (100.0%)
Mean 3.84 3.87 3.52
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Pre-COVID climate  
Table: Pre-COVID climate,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Very good 185 (36.8%) 17 (14.0%)
Good 173 (34.4%) 36 (30.1%)
Fair 98 (19.4%) 35 (29.6%)
Poor 34 (6.7%) 22 (18.6%)
Very poor 14 (2.7%) 9 (7.7%)
Weighted Total 504 (100.0%) 119 (100.0%)
Mean 3.96 3.24
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Pre-COVID climate  
Table: Pre-COVID climate,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Very good 182 (35.2%) 20 (18.8%)
Good 175 (33.7%) 35 (32.8%)
Fair 106 (20.4%) 27 (26.0%)
Poor 37 (7.2%) 19 (17.6%)
Very poor 18 (3.5%) 5 (4.7%)
Weighted Total 518 (100.0%) 105 (100.0%)
Mean 3.90 3.43

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Pre-COVID climate  

 

Overall, how would you rate the climate of your department over the last 12 months?

Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Very good 375 25.1%
Good 507 34.0%
Fair 354 23.8%
Poor 180 12.1%
Very poor 74 5.0%
Weighted Total 1490 100.0%
Mean 3.62

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Pre-COVID cliamte

Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Very good 148 (34.8%) 15 (23.9%) 145 (18.9%) 6 (26.2%) 49 (24.9%) 12 (64.8%)
Good 148 (34.9%) 18 (28.1%) 255 (33.4%) 6 (24.7%) 76 (38.6%) 4 (22.2%)
Fair 73 (17.2%) 12 (19.6%) 206 (27.0%) 9 (40.3%) 51 (26.0%) 2 (13.0%)
Poor 35 (8.2%) 18 (28.4%) 114 (14.9%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (6.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Very poor 20 (4.8%) 0 (0.0%) 45 (5.9%) 2 (8.9%) 7 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 425 (100.0%) 63 (100.0%) 764 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 197 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%)
Mean 3.87 3.47 3.45 3.59 3.75 4.52
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Climate in the Past 12 Months  
Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Very good 180 (25.5%) 176 (25.2%) 10 (34.9%) 9 (15.5%)
Good 255 (35.9%) 234 (33.6%) 7 (24.4%) 11 (19.7%)
Fair 157 (22.2%) 173 (24.8%) 5 (17.9%) 20 (34.7%)
Poor 80 (11.3%) 87 (12.4%) 6 (20.3%) 7 (12.6%)
Very poor 36 (5.1%) 28 (4.0%) 1 (2.6%) 10 (17.5%)
Weighted Total 709 (100.0%) 697 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.65 3.64 3.69 3.03
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Climate in the Past 12 Months  
Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Very good 199 (23.9%) 32 (29.5%) 34 (20.8%)
Good 286 (34.4%) 36 (33.6%) 38 (23.6%)
Fair 195 (23.4%) 27 (25.2%) 55 (34.3%)
Poor 107 (12.8%) 9 (8.5%) 22 (13.4%)
Very poor 46 (5.5%) 3 (3.2%) 13 (8.0%)
Weighted Total 832 (100.0%) 109 (100.0%) 161 (100.0%)
Mean 3.58 3.78 3.36
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Climate in the Past 12 Months  
Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Very good 265 (24.0%) 110 (28.4%)
Good 360 (32.7%) 146 (37.7%)
Fair 278 (25.2%) 77 (19.8%)
Poor 137 (12.5%) 42 (10.9%)
Very poor 62 (5.6%) 12 (3.2%)
Weighted Total 1102 (100.0%) 388 (100.0%)
Mean 3.57 3.77
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Climate in the Past 12 Months  
Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Very good 244 (31.5%) 28 (12.0%)
Good 246 (31.8%) 69 (30.1%)
Fair 174 (22.5%) 72 (31.4%)
Poor 79 (10.2%) 37 (16.1%)
Very poor 31 (4.1%) 24 (10.4%)
Weighted Total 774 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.77 3.17
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Climate in the Past 12 Months  
Table: Climate in the Past 12 Months,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Very good 250 (29.6%) 21 (13.4%)
Good 269 (31.8%) 47 (29.4%)
Fair 193 (22.9%) 53 (33.5%)
Poor 95 (11.2%) 21 (13.2%)
Very poor 39 (4.6%) 17 (10.5%)
Weighted Total 846 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
Mean 3.71 3.22

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Climate in the Past 12 Months  

 

Overall Climate Ratings – Bar chart

Two stacked bar charts comparing 1 the departmental climate prior to the COVID pandemic and 2 during the past 12 months

 

Overall, to what extent do you believe that people in your department  include you in opportunities that will help your career or future career as much as they include others in your position?

Table: Include you in opportunities,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
They include me to the greatest extent 349 23.8%
They include me to a large extent 494 33.6%
They include me to a moderate extent 385 26.2%
They include me to a small extent 167 11.4%
They do not include me at all 73 5.0%
Weighted Total 1469 100.0%
Mean 3.60

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Include you in opportunities

Table: Include you in opportunities,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
They include me to the greatest extent 140 (33.6%) 10 (15.9%) 147 (19.4%) 4 (17.8%) 37 (19.3%) 11 (65.3%)
They include me to a large extent 125 (30.1%) 21 (32.3%) 273 (36.2%) 6 (25.2%) 64 (33.3%) 5 (27.6%)
They include me to a moderate extent 79 (19.0%) 19 (29.1%) 230 (30.5%) 6 (26.7%) 50 (25.7%) 1 (7.1%)
They include me to a small extent 51 (12.2%) 12 (18.4%) 70 (9.2%) 6 (27.4%) 29 (15.0%) 0 (0.0%)
They do not include me at all 22 (5.2%) 3 (4.3%) 35 (4.7%) 1 (3.0%) 13 (6.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 417 (100.0%) 64 (100.0%) 754 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 193 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%)
Mean 3.75 3.37 3.57 3.27 3.44 4.58
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Include you in opportunities,  
Table: Include you in opportunities,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
They include me to the greatest extent 221 (28.6%) 38 (16.4%)
They include me to a large extent 274 (35.4%) 66 (28.6%)
They include me to a moderate extent 183 (23.6%) 66 (28.5%)
They include me to a small extent 63 (8.2%) 44 (19.2%)
They do not include me at all 33 (4.2%) 17 (7.2%)
Weighted Total 773 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.76 3.28
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Include you in opportunities,  
Table: Include you in opportunities,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
They include me to the greatest extent 226 (26.8%) 33 (20.5%)
They include me to a large extent 303 (35.9%) 37 (23.1%)
They include me to a moderate extent 201 (23.8%) 47 (29.6%)
They include me to a small extent 84 (9.9%) 24 (15.0%)
They do not include me at all 30 (3.6%) 19 (11.9%)
Weighted Total 844 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%)
Mean 3.72 3.25

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Include you in opportunities,  

 

Overall, how socially isolated (separated from others, alone) did you feel in your department  before the Covid-19 pandemic?

Table: Socially isolated, pre-COVID,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Not at all isolated 278 31.6%
Not very isolated 283 32.2%
Moderately isolated 215 24.5%
Very isolated 75 8.5%
Extremely isolated 27 3.1%
Weighted Total 878 100.0%
Mean 2.19

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Socially isolated, pre-COVID

Table: Socially isolated, pre-COVID,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Not at all isolated 154 (35.1%) 114 (28.9%) 5 (30.6%) 5 (16.3%)
Not very isolated 138 (31.3%) 136 (34.7%) 2 (14.3%) 7 (22.5%)
Moderately isolated 98 (22.2%) 104 (26.4%) 6 (35.3%) 8 (28.7%)
Very isolated 34 (7.7%) 32 (8.1%) 3 (17.8%) 6 (21.4%)
Extremely isolated 16 (3.7%) 7 (1.9%) 0 (2.1%) 3 (11.2%)
Weighted Total 440 (100.0%) 392 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 29 (100.0%)
Mean 2.14 2.19 2.46 2.89
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Socially isolatedpre-COVID  
Table: Socially isolated, pre-COVID,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Not at all isolated 236 (32.8%) 42 (26.6%)
Not very isolated 234 (32.5%) 49 (30.9%)
Moderately isolated 173 (24.1%) 42 (26.7%)
Very isolated 57 (8.0%) 18 (11.1%)
Extremely isolated 20 (2.8%) 7 (4.7%)
Weighted Total 720 (100.0%) 157 (100.0%)
Mean 2.15 2.37
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Socially isolatedpre-COVID  
Table: Socially isolated, pre-COVID,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Not at all isolated 178 (36.8%) 29 (23.6%)
Not very isolated 159 (32.9%) 40 (32.4%)
Moderately isolated 110 (22.8%) 25 (20.1%)
Very isolated 29 (6.1%) 20 (16.4%)
Extremely isolated 7 (1.4%) 9 (7.5%)
Weighted Total 483 (100.0%) 124 (100.0%)
Mean 2.02 2.52
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Socially isolatedpre-COVID  
Table: Socially isolated, pre-COVID,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Not at all isolated 186 (37.4%) 21 (19.4%)
Not very isolated 166 (33.4%) 32 (29.9%)
Moderately isolated 95 (19.0%) 41 (37.4%)
Very isolated 36 (7.3%) 14 (12.4%)
Extremely isolated 15 (3.0%) 1 (1.0%)
Weighted Total 498 (100.0%) 109 (100.0%)
Mean 2.05 2.46

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Socially isolatedpre-COVID  

 

Over the last twelve months, how socially isolated (separated from others, alone) have you felt in your department ?

Table: Socially isolated, in the last 12 months,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Not at all isolated 308 21.2%
Not very isolated 453 31.2%
Moderately isolated 430 29.6%
Very isolated 181 12.5%
Extremely isolated 79 5.4%
Weighted Total 1450 100.0%
Mean 2.50

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Socially isolated, in the last 12 months

Table: Socially isolated, in the last 12 months,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Not at all isolated 102 (24.4%) 16 (25.4%) 126 (17.0%) 3 (11.8%) 51 (26.7%) 11 (65.3%)
Not very isolated 130 (31.1%) 22 (34.6%) 233 (31.4%) 7 (29.1%) 57 (29.9%) 5 (29.6%)
Moderately isolated 107 (25.6%) 16 (26.4%) 235 (31.8%) 6 (25.2%) 64 (33.8%) 1 (5.1%)
Very isolated 60 (14.3%) 6 (9.4%) 103 (13.9%) 3 (10.9%) 10 (5.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Extremely isolated 19 (4.7%) 3 (4.2%) 43 (5.8%) 5 (23.0%) 8 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 417 (100.0%) 62 (100.0%) 741 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 190 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%)
Mean 2.44 2.32 2.60 3.04 2.31 1.40
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Socially isolatedin the last 12 months  
Table: Socially isolated, in the last 12 months,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Not at all isolated 149 (21.5%) 150 (22.2%) 7 (25.4%) 3 (5.2%)
Not very isolated 219 (31.7%) 212 (31.5%) 10 (34.2%) 12 (20.6%)
Moderately isolated 204 (29.5%) 199 (29.5%) 4 (13.1%) 23 (40.6%)
Very isolated 76 (11.1%) 88 (13.0%) 5 (17.1%) 12 (21.4%)
Extremely isolated 43 (6.2%) 26 (3.9%) 3 (10.2%) 7 (12.2%)
Weighted Total 691 (100.0%) 675 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 2.49 2.45 2.52 3.15
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Socially isolatedin the last 12 months  
Table: Socially isolated, in the last 12 months,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Not at all isolated 177 (22.8%) 28 (12.3%)
Not very isolated 262 (33.8%) 69 (30.1%)
Moderately isolated 221 (28.5%) 73 (31.7%)
Very isolated 89 (11.4%) 34 (14.8%)
Extremely isolated 27 (3.5%) 25 (11.1%)
Weighted Total 775 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 2.39 2.82
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Socially isolatedin the last 12 months  
Table: Socially isolated, in the last 12 months,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Not at all isolated 188 (22.2%) 17 (10.8%)
Not very isolated 289 (34.2%) 42 (26.4%)
Moderately isolated 243 (28.7%) 51 (32.1%)
Very isolated 93 (11.0%) 30 (18.7%)
Extremely isolated 34 (4.0%) 19 (12.0%)
Weighted Total 846 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
Mean 2.40 2.95

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Socially isolatedin the last 12 months  

 

How socially isolated did you feel – Bar Chart

Two stacked bar charts comparing 1 social isolation pre-COVID and 2 during the past 12 months

 

How likely are you to recommend your department as a good place to work or study?

Table: Recommend the department,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
I definitely would recommend 572 39.5%
I probably would recommend 370 25.6%
I might or might not 246 17.0%
I probably would not recommend 168 11.6%
I definitely would not recommend 92 6.3%
Weighted Total 1449 100.0%
Mean 3.80

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Recommend the department

Table: Recommend the department,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
I definitely would recommend 232 (55.6%) 13 (21.9%) 214 (28.9%) 11 (46.9%) 88 (46.1%) 13 (78.6%)
I probably would recommend 78 (18.8%) 16 (25.5%) 221 (30.0%) 3 (11.4%) 49 (25.6%) 3 (19.4%)
I might or might not 51 (12.3%) 11 (18.0%) 145 (19.7%) 3 (11.4%) 36 (18.6%) 0 (2.0%)
I probably would not recommend 34 (8.2%) 19 (30.7%) 98 (13.2%) 5 (23.0%) 12 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%)
I definitely would not recommend 21 (5.1%) 2 (3.9%) 60 (8.1%) 2 (7.4%) 6 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 417 (100.0%) 62 (100.0%) 739 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 191 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%)
Mean 4.11 3.31 3.58 3.67 4.05 4.77
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Recommend the department,  
Table: Recommend the department,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
I definitely would recommend 282 (40.7%) 264 (39.3%) 14 (48.0%) 12 (20.8%)
I probably would recommend 175 (25.2%) 184 (27.4%) 4 (15.3%) 7 (12.9%)
I might or might not 111 (16.1%) 118 (17.5%) 6 (21.7%) 11 (19.8%)
I probably would not recommend 76 (11.0%) 74 (10.9%) 1 (2.7%) 18 (31.7%)
I definitely would not recommend 48 (7.0%) 32 (4.7%) 3 (12.3%) 8 (14.8%)
Weighted Total 692 (100.0%) 672 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.82 3.86 3.84 2.93
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Recommend the department,  
Table: Recommend the department,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
I definitely would recommend 356 (45.9%) 49 (21.2%)
I probably would recommend 195 (25.1%) 53 (22.9%)
I might or might not 120 (15.5%) 45 (19.3%)
I probably would not recommend 60 (7.8%) 57 (24.6%)
I definitely would not recommend 44 (5.7%) 28 (12.0%)
Weighted Total 776 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.98 3.17
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Recommend the department,  
Table: Recommend the department,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
I definitely would recommend 356 (42.0%) 49 (30.7%)
I probably would recommend 210 (24.8%) 38 (23.7%)
I might or might not 138 (16.3%) 27 (16.7%)
I probably would not recommend 90 (10.6%) 27 (16.8%)
I definitely would not recommend 53 (6.2%) 19 (12.0%)
Weighted Total 846 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%)
Mean 3.86 3.44

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Recommend the department,  

 

 

Departmental Diversity & Inclusion

 

How satisfied are you with the overall diversity of faculty, staff and students in your department ?

Table: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Extremely satisfied 203 15.8%
Very satisfied 372 28.9%
Moderately satisfied 431 33.5%
Not very satisfied 207 16.1%
Not at all satisfied 74 5.8%
Weighted Total 1286 100.0%
Mean 3.33

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Satisfaction with departmental diversity

Table: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely satisfied 122 (19.4%) 68 (11.7%) 8 (31.7%) 5 (10.4%)
Very satisfied 182 (29.1%) 183 (31.3%) 5 (18.7%) 2 (3.9%)
Moderately satisfied 200 (31.9%) 204 (34.8%) 4 (16.3%) 23 (45.8%)
Not very satisfied 88 (14.1%) 99 (16.9%) 8 (31.0%) 12 (23.4%)
Not at all satisfied 33 (5.3%) 32 (5.4%) 1 (2.4%) 8 (16.4%)
Weighted Total 625 (100.0%) 587 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 50 (100.0%)
Mean 3.43 3.27 3.46 2.68
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,  
Table: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Extremely satisfied 114 (15.9%) 16 (16.6%) 13 (8.7%)
Very satisfied 185 (25.9%) 32 (32.6%) 22 (14.8%)
Moderately satisfied 251 (35.1%) 24 (23.8%) 66 (44.5%)
Not very satisfied 126 (17.6%) 18 (18.6%) 30 (20.1%)
Not at all satisfied 39 (5.5%) 8 (8.3%) 18 (11.8%)
Weighted Total 716 (100.0%) 99 (100.0%) 149 (100.0%)
Mean 3.29 3.31 2.89
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,  
Table: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely satisfied 143 (14.8%) 60 (18.6%)
Very satisfied 240 (24.9%) 132 (41.0%)
Moderately satisfied 341 (35.4%) 89 (27.7%)
Not very satisfied 175 (18.1%) 32 (9.9%)
Not at all satisfied 65 (6.7%) 9 (2.8%)
Weighted Total 964 (100.0%) 323 (100.0%)
Mean 3.23 3.63
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,  
Table: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely satisfied 126 (17.3%) 25 (11.4%)
Very satisfied 229 (31.4%) 31 (14.4%)
Moderately satisfied 244 (33.5%) 75 (34.3%)
Not very satisfied 100 (13.7%) 61 (27.9%)
Not at all satisfied 30 (4.2%) 26 (12.0%)
Weighted Total 729 (100.0%) 219 (100.0%)
Mean 3.44 2.85
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,  
Table: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely satisfied 131 (16.4%) 20 (13.5%)
Very satisfied 238 (29.9%) 22 (14.5%)
Moderately satisfied 266 (33.4%) 53 (35.2%)
Not very satisfied 127 (16.0%) 33 (22.0%)
Not at all satisfied 34 (4.3%) 22 (14.8%)
Weighted Total 796 (100.0%) 152 (100.0%)
Mean 3.38 2.90

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Satisfaction with departmental diversity,  

 

How weak or strong is your sense of belonging in your department ?

Table: Sense of belonging,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
I have an extraordinary sense of belonging 128 9.4%
I have a strong sense of belonging 445 32.7%
I have a moderate sense of belonging 455 33.4%
I have a weak sense of belonging 246 18.0%
I feel I don’t belong at all 89 6.5%
Weighted Total 1364 100.0%
Mean 3.20

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Sense of belonging

Table: Sense of belonging,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
I have an extraordinary sense of belonging 56 (13.8%) 2 (4.2%) 45 (6.6%) 0 (1.5%) 19 (10.3%) 6 (40.0%)
I have a strong sense of belonging 163 (40.1%) 11 (21.8%) 188 (27.4%) 8 (33.6%) 70 (39.3%) 5 (30.0%)
I have a moderate sense of belonging 96 (23.6%) 30 (57.1%) 259 (37.8%) 7 (30.6%) 61 (34.0%) 2 (14.4%)
I have a weak sense of belonging 63 (15.4%) 2 (4.0%) 153 (22.3%) 3 (11.4%) 23 (12.8%) 2 (15.6%)
I feel I don’t belong at all 29 (7.1%) 7 (12.9%) 41 (6.0%) 5 (23.0%) 6 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 406 (100.0%) 52 (100.0%) 687 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 179 (100.0%) 16 (100.0%)
Mean 3.38 3.00 3.06 2.79 3.40 3.94
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Sense of belonging,  
Table: Sense of belonging,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
I have an extraordinary sense of belonging 74 (11.1%) 53 (8.6%) 1 (4.8%) 0 (0.0%)
I have a strong sense of belonging 223 (33.6%) 199 (32.4%) 14 (48.2%) 10 (17.7%)
I have a moderate sense of belonging 209 (31.4%) 218 (35.5%) 6 (22.4%) 23 (40.3%)
I have a weak sense of belonging 113 (17.0%) 115 (18.8%) 3 (12.3%) 14 (25.6%)
I feel I don’t belong at all 47 (7.0%) 29 (4.8%) 3 (12.3%) 9 (16.4%)
Weighted Total 665 (100.0%) 614 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.25 3.21 3.21 2.59
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Sense of belonging,  
Table: Sense of belonging,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
I have an extraordinary sense of belonging 82 (10.6%) 9 (3.9%)
I have a strong sense of belonging 298 (38.5%) 47 (20.6%)
I have a moderate sense of belonging 251 (32.4%) 89 (38.7%)
I have a weak sense of belonging 107 (13.8%) 65 (28.1%)
I feel I don’t belong at all 36 (4.7%) 20 (8.7%)
Weighted Total 774 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.37 2.83
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Sense of belonging,  
Table: Sense of belonging,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
I have an extraordinary sense of belonging 85 (10.0%) 7 (4.2%)
I have a strong sense of belonging 307 (36.3%) 39 (24.3%)
I have a moderate sense of belonging 284 (33.6%) 56 (35.6%)
I have a weak sense of belonging 130 (15.3%) 41 (26.0%)
I feel I don’t belong at all 40 (4.8%) 16 (9.9%)
Weighted Total 846 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
Mean 3.31 2.87

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Sense of belonging,  

 

How supported and included do you feel by the following groups:

Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Response Unit leaders, department head, school directors? Department staff? Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
Extremely supported 352 (27.4%) 466 (35.8%) 337 (25.7%)
Very supported 374 (29.1%) 488 (37.4%) 489 (37.4%)
Moderately supported 268 (20.9%) 248 (19.0%) 339 (25.9%)
Not very supported 195 (15.2%) 75 (5.8%) 118 (9.0%)
Not supported at all 93 (7.3%) 26 (2.0%) 26 (2.0%)
Weighted Total 1282 (100.0%) 1304 (100.0%) 1309 (100.0%)
Mean 3.54 3.99 3.76

 

How supported do you feel by the following groups – Bar chart

Three bar charts comparing how supported by respondents felt by different groups of colleagues

 

Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Unit leaders, department head, school directors?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely supported 156 (40.3%) 7 (14.4%) 128 (19.6%) 5 (24.8%) 55 (32.5%)
Very supported 115 (29.8%) 13 (26.9%) 189 (28.9%) 6 (27.0%) 50 (29.7%)
Moderately supported 60 (15.6%) 16 (31.9%) 146 (22.3%) 7 (31.0%) 39 (23.2%)
Not very supported 35 (9.2%) 10 (21.1%) 124 (18.9%) 4 (17.2%) 22 (12.9%)
Not supported at all 20 (5.2%) 3 (5.6%) 67 (10.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (1.7%)
Weighted Total 387 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%) 655 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 169 (100.0%)
Mean 3.91 3.23 3.29 3.59 3.78
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Unit leaders, department head, school directors? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Unit leaders, department head, school directors?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely supported 188 (29.9%) 150 (26.2%) 5 (19.1%) 9 (16.1%)
Very supported 182 (28.9%) 175 (30.6%) 10 (35.8%) 7 (13.0%)
Moderately supported 128 (20.4%) 122 (21.4%) 6 (21.1%) 12 (21.8%)
Not very supported 91 (14.5%) 87 (15.2%) 3 (10.5%) 15 (26.9%)
Not supported at all 40 (6.3%) 38 (6.6%) 4 (13.5%) 12 (22.2%)
Weighted Total 628 (100.0%) 573 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%)
Mean 3.62 3.55 3.36 2.74
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Unit leaders, department head, school directors? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Unit leaders, department head, school directors?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely supported 261 (27.0%) 91 (28.6%)
Very supported 267 (27.7%) 107 (33.5%)
Moderately supported 208 (21.6%) 61 (19.0%)
Not very supported 152 (15.8%) 43 (13.7%)
Not supported at all 76 (7.9%) 17 (5.2%)
Weighted Total 964 (100.0%) 318 (100.0%)
Mean 3.50 3.67
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Unit leaders, department head, school directors? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Unit leaders, department head, school directors?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely supported 243 (32.8%) 31 (14.3%)
Very supported 213 (28.7%) 49 (22.6%)
Moderately supported 151 (20.3%) 45 (20.8%)
Not very supported 92 (12.4%) 65 (30.0%)
Not supported at all 42 (5.7%) 27 (12.3%)
Weighted Total 741 (100.0%) 217 (100.0%)
Mean 3.71 2.97
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Unit leaders, department head, school directors? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Unit leaders, department head, school directors?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely supported 242 (30.0%) 33 (21.5%)
Very supported 234 (29.1%) 27 (18.0%)
Moderately supported 165 (20.5%) 31 (20.3%)
Not very supported 119 (14.8%) 38 (25.0%)
Not supported at all 45 (5.6%) 23 (15.2%)
Weighted Total 806 (100.0%) 152 (100.0%)
Mean 3.63 3.06
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Unit leaders, department head, school directors? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Department staff?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely supported 173 (44.6%) 15 (30.7%) 214 (31.8%) 6 (25.2%) 58 (34.5%)
Very supported 132 (34.0%) 24 (47.0%) 258 (38.3%) 8 (35.5%) 66 (39.2%)
Moderately supported 62 (16.0%) 8 (16.1%) 140 (20.8%) 4 (17.8%) 34 (20.2%)
Not very supported 18 (4.7%) 1 (1.4%) 43 (6.4%) 5 (21.5%) 8 (5.0%)
Not supported at all 3 (0.7%) 2 (4.8%) 19 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.1%)
Weighted Total 388 (100.0%) 50 (100.0%) 674 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 168 (100.0%)
Mean 4.17 3.97 3.90 3.64 4.01
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Department staff? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Department staff?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely supported 290 (38.6%) 70 (31.7%)
Very supported 272 (36.2%) 79 (35.6%)
Moderately supported 138 (18.4%) 50 (22.9%)
Not very supported 39 (5.2%) 18 (8.0%)
Not supported at all 13 (1.7%) 4 (1.8%)
Weighted Total 752 (100.0%) 221 (100.0%)
Mean 4.05 3.87
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Department staff? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely supported 102 (26.5%) 7 (14.3%) 174 (25.6%) 5 (22.7%) 48 (28.1%)
Very supported 142 (36.9%) 18 (35.6%) 249 (36.7%) 14 (61.5%) 66 (38.4%)
Moderately supported 101 (26.2%) 18 (35.4%) 173 (25.5%) 3 (14.3%) 43 (25.3%)
Not very supported 30 (7.8%) 7 (14.7%) 70 (10.3%) 0 (1.5%) 10 (6.1%)
Not supported at all 10 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.2%)
Weighted Total 385 (100.0%) 51 (100.0%) 679 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 171 (100.0%)
Mean 3.77 3.50 3.74 4.05 3.84
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely supported 182 (28.1%) 133 (22.9%) 8 (28.5%) 14 (26.6%)
Very supported 248 (38.2%) 221 (38.2%) 10 (37.0%) 10 (18.6%)
Moderately supported 155 (23.9%) 162 (28.0%) 8 (28.1%) 14 (26.1%)
Not very supported 52 (8.0%) 53 (9.2%) 1 (3.7%) 12 (22.1%)
Not supported at all 12 (1.8%) 10 (1.8%) 1 (2.7%) 4 (6.7%)
Weighted Total 648 (100.0%) 579 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%)
Mean 3.83 3.71 3.85 3.36
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely supported 234 (23.9%) 103 (31.1%)
Very supported 353 (36.1%) 136 (41.0%)
Moderately supported 273 (27.9%) 66 (19.9%)
Not very supported 92 (9.4%) 26 (7.8%)
Not supported at all 25 (2.6%) 1 (0.2%)
Weighted Total 977 (100.0%) 332 (100.0%)
Mean 3.69 3.95
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely supported 223 (29.5%) 46 (20.5%)
Very supported 309 (40.8%) 55 (24.6%)
Moderately supported 162 (21.3%) 84 (37.8%)
Not very supported 53 (7.1%) 33 (14.8%)
Not supported at all 10 (1.4%) 5 (2.3%)
Weighted Total 758 (100.0%) 222 (100.0%)
Mean 3.90 3.46
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)? 
Table: How supported and included do you feel by:
Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely supported 236 (28.6%) 33 (21.1%)
Very supported 323 (39.3%) 40 (25.7%)
Moderately supported 195 (23.7%) 51 (32.4%)
Not very supported 56 (6.8%) 30 (19.2%)
Not supported at all 13 (1.6%) 3 (1.7%)
Weighted Total 823 (100.0%) 157 (100.0%)
Mean 3.87 3.45

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How supported and included do you feel by: Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)? 

 

How comfortable do you feel expressing your personal identity/identities in your department ?

Table: Comfortable expressing personal identity,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Extremely comfortable 390 28.9%
Very comfortable 445 33.0%
Moderately comfortable 310 22.9%
Not very comfortable 148 11.0%
Not at all comfortable 56 4.2%
Weighted Total 1349 100.0%
Mean 3.71

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Comfortable expressing personal identity

Table: Comfortable expressing personal identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely comfortable 161 (40.5%) 7 (13.3%) 155 (22.7%) 7 (30.6%) 50 (28.1%) 10 (66.7%)
Very comfortable 117 (29.5%) 23 (43.8%) 227 (33.3%) 5 (20.7%) 71 (39.9%) 2 (12.2%)
Moderately comfortable 61 (15.5%) 14 (26.2%) 184 (27.0%) 5 (19.8%) 42 (23.8%) 3 (21.1%)
Not very comfortable 40 (10.2%) 3 (6.7%) 87 (12.7%) 7 (28.9%) 10 (5.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Not at all comfortable 17 (4.3%) 5 (10.0%) 30 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 396 (100.0%) 52 (100.0%) 683 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 178 (100.0%) 16 (100.0%)
Mean 3.92 3.44 3.57 3.53 3.85 4.46
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Comfortable expressing personal identity,  
Table: Comfortable expressing personal identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely comfortable 209 (31.9%) 163 (26.8%) 7 (23.1%) 11 (20.0%)
Very comfortable 216 (32.9%) 213 (35.1%) 11 (38.8%) 5 (9.2%)
Moderately comfortable 136 (20.7%) 151 (24.9%) 6 (23.0%) 16 (28.8%)
Not very comfortable 72 (10.9%) 61 (10.0%) 1 (2.5%) 14 (25.5%)
Not at all comfortable 24 (3.6%) 20 (3.3%) 4 (12.6%) 9 (16.5%)
Weighted Total 657 (100.0%) 608 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.78 3.72 3.57 2.91
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Comfortable expressing personal identity,  
Table: Comfortable expressing personal identity,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Extremely comfortable 246 (32.0%) 25 (26.1%) 44 (29.2%)
Very comfortable 251 (32.7%) 29 (30.1%) 32 (21.2%)
Moderately comfortable 164 (21.4%) 22 (22.4%) 41 (27.0%)
Not very comfortable 76 (9.9%) 17 (17.0%) 23 (15.4%)
Not at all comfortable 30 (4.0%) 4 (4.4%) 11 (7.2%)
Weighted Total 769 (100.0%) 97 (100.0%) 151 (100.0%)
Mean 3.79 3.56 3.50
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Comfortable expressing personal identity,  
Table: Comfortable expressing personal identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely comfortable 252 (32.6%) 42 (18.2%)
Very comfortable 281 (36.3%) 70 (30.6%)
Moderately comfortable 153 (19.8%) 63 (27.4%)
Not very comfortable 65 (8.4%) 40 (17.3%)
Not at all comfortable 23 (3.0%) 15 (6.5%)
Weighted Total 773 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.87 3.37
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Comfortable expressing personal identity,  
Table: Comfortable expressing personal identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely comfortable 251 (29.7%) 43 (27.0%)
Very comfortable 325 (38.5%) 26 (16.2%)
Moderately comfortable 170 (20.2%) 45 (28.3%)
Not very comfortable 73 (8.6%) 33 (20.4%)
Not at all comfortable 25 (3.0%) 13 (8.0%)
Weighted Total 844 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%)
Mean 3.83 3.34

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Comfortable expressing personal identity,  

 

Are the communities you belong to or the identities of people like you represented in your department in the following ways?

Table: Are the communities you belong represented:
Overall Selection
Response In the curriculum/courses? In faculty research? At departmental/unit events? In the faculty? In the staff? In the post-doctoral scholars? In the graduate students? In the undergraduate students? Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Yes 703 (79.7%) 670 (74.4%) 782 (78.8%) 736 (71.7%) 644 (68.3%) 439 (70.9%) 913 (88.0%) 713 (90.0%) 95 (13.8%)
No 179 (20.3%) 230 (25.6%) 210 (21.2%) 291 (28.3%) 299 (31.7%) 180 (29.1%) 125 (12.0%) 79 (10.0%) 591 (86.2%)
Weighted Total 882 (100.0%) 900 (100.0%) 993 (100.0%) 1026 (100.0%) 943 (100.0%) 619 (100.0%) 1037 (100.0%) 792 (100.0%) 686 (100.0%)

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

Are the communities you belong to represented: – Bar Chart

A group of stack bar charts identifying whether the communities respondents belong to are represented

 

Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the curriculum/courses?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 37 (13.1%) 8 (25.6%) 123 (24.8%) 6 (10.5%) 2 (34.2%)
Yes 247 (86.9%) 24 (74.4%) 373 (75.2%) 53 (89.5%) 5 (65.8%)
Weighted Total 285 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%) 497 (100.0%) 59 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the curriculum or courses? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the curriculum/courses?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 60 (13.5%) 92 (23.9%) 9 (41.3%) 19 (52.6%)
Yes 382 (86.5%) 292 (76.1%) 12 (58.7%) 17 (47.4%)
Weighted Total 442 (100.0%) 383 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 36 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the curriculum or courses? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the curriculum/courses?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 76 (15.2%) 19 (28.9%) 45 (47.0%)
Yes 423 (84.8%) 46 (71.1%) 51 (53.0%)
Weighted Total 499 (100.0%) 64 (100.0%) 96 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the curriculum or courses? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the curriculum/courses?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 140 (21.2%) 39 (17.5%)
Yes 519 (78.8%) 184 (82.5%)
Weighted Total 659 (100.0%) 223 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the curriculum or courses? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the curriculum/courses?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 67 (12.7%) 68 (43.4%)
Yes 463 (87.3%) 88 (56.6%)
Weighted Total 530 (100.0%) 156 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the curriculum or courses? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the curriculum/courses?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 91 (15.7%) 44 (41.1%)
Yes 488 (84.3%) 63 (58.9%)
Weighted Total 580 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the curriculum or courses? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In faculty research?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 49 (16.4%) 5 (19.4%) 159 (32.3%) 7 (41.7%) 8 (13.7%) 2 (34.2%)
Yes 251 (83.6%) 19 (80.6%) 334 (67.7%) 9 (58.3%) 53 (86.3%) 5 (65.8%)
Weighted Total 300 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 493 (100.0%) 16 (100.0%) 62 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In faculty research? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In faculty research?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 82 (17.5%) 113 (30.3%) 7 (37.6%) 29 (67.7%)
Yes 386 (82.5%) 260 (69.7%) 11 (62.4%) 14 (32.3%)
Weighted Total 467 (100.0%) 372 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In faculty research? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In faculty research?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 92 (18.4%) 23 (31.0%) 54 (53.6%)
Yes 411 (81.6%) 52 (69.0%) 46 (46.4%)
Weighted Total 504 (100.0%) 76 (100.0%) 100 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In faculty research? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In faculty research?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 169 (25.0%) 61 (27.5%)
Yes 510 (75.0%) 160 (72.5%)
Weighted Total 679 (100.0%) 221 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In faculty research? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In faculty research?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 87 (16.1%) 85 (54.6%)
Yes 454 (83.9%) 70 (45.4%)
Weighted Total 542 (100.0%) 155 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In faculty research? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In faculty research?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 121 (20.4%) 51 (48.8%)
Yes 471 (79.6%) 54 (51.2%)
Weighted Total 592 (100.0%) 105 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In faculty research? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
At departmental/unit events?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 56 (17.5%) 9 (24.6%) 123 (24.7%) 5 (36.8%) 15 (13.0%) 2 (28.6%)
Yes 261 (82.5%) 27 (75.4%) 375 (75.3%) 9 (63.2%) 104 (87.0%) 6 (71.4%)
Weighted Total 317 (100.0%) 36 (100.0%) 497 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 120 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: At departmental or unit events? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
At departmental/unit events?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 74 (15.5%) 107 (23.8%) 8 (38.7%) 21 (50.4%)
Yes 406 (84.5%) 343 (76.2%) 13 (61.3%) 21 (49.6%)
Weighted Total 480 (100.0%) 449 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 42 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: At departmental or unit events? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
At departmental/unit events?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 83 (14.7%) 21 (27.8%) 50 (45.3%)
Yes 480 (85.3%) 55 (72.2%) 60 (54.7%)
Weighted Total 563 (100.0%) 76 (100.0%) 109 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: At departmental or unit events? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
At departmental/unit events?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 153 (20.5%) 57 (23.4%)
Yes 595 (79.5%) 187 (76.6%)
Weighted Total 748 (100.0%) 244 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: At departmental or unit events? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
At departmental/unit events?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 84 (14.2%) 75 (41.6%)
Yes 510 (85.8%) 106 (58.4%)
Weighted Total 594 (100.0%) 181 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: At departmental or unit events? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
At departmental/unit events?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 107 (16.5%) 52 (42.3%)
Yes 544 (83.5%) 71 (57.7%)
Weighted Total 651 (100.0%) 124 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: At departmental or unit events? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the faculty?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 63 (18.6%) 15 (35.0%) 178 (34.8%) 7 (49.0%) 24 (23.5%) 3 (24.1%)
Yes 277 (81.4%) 28 (65.0%) 333 (65.2%) 7 (51.0%) 80 (76.5%) 11 (75.9%)
Weighted Total 341 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%) 510 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 104 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the faculty? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the faculty?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 110 (21.8%) 144 (31.2%) 6 (29.3%) 30 (76.2%)
Yes 392 (78.2%) 318 (68.8%) 15 (70.7%) 10 (23.8%)
Weighted Total 502 (100.0%) 463 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 40 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the faculty? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the faculty?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 126 (21.4%) 31 (35.9%) 61 (50.6%)
Yes 463 (78.6%) 54 (64.1%) 60 (49.4%)
Weighted Total 589 (100.0%) 85 (100.0%) 121 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the faculty? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the faculty?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 218 (27.4%) 73 (31.5%)
Yes 577 (72.6%) 158 (68.5%)
Weighted Total 795 (100.0%) 231 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the faculty? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the faculty?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 116 (19.1%) 108 (58.1%)
Yes 490 (80.9%) 78 (41.9%)
Weighted Total 605 (100.0%) 185 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the faculty? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the faculty?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 164 (24.5%) 59 (49.0%)
Yes 506 (75.5%) 61 (51.0%)
Weighted Total 670 (100.0%) 120 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the faculty? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the staff?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 69 (24.4%) 14 (34.8%) 189 (41.7%) 7 (55.0%) 17 (11.8%) 3 (24.1%)
Yes 214 (75.6%) 27 (65.2%) 263 (58.3%) 5 (45.0%) 124 (88.2%) 11 (75.9%)
Weighted Total 283 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%) 452 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 141 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the staff? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the staff?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 128 (28.9%) 139 (31.5%) 8 (44.2%) 23 (60.6%)
Yes 316 (71.1%) 303 (68.5%) 10 (55.8%) 15 (39.4%)
Weighted Total 444 (100.0%) 442 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 38 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the staff? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the staff?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 85 (15.3%) 38 (59.9%) 69 (60.8%)
Yes 471 (84.7%) 26 (40.1%) 44 (39.2%)
Weighted Total 556 (100.0%) 64 (100.0%) 113 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the staff? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the staff?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 192 (26.2%) 107 (50.7%)
Yes 541 (73.8%) 103 (49.2%)
Weighted Total 733 (100.0%) 210 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the staff? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the staff?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 139 (24.6%) 98 (59.2%)
Yes 427 (75.4%) 68 (40.8%)
Weighted Total 566 (100.0%) 166 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the staff? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the staff?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 185 (29.7%) 52 (47.4%)
Yes 436 (70.3%) 58 (52.6%)
Weighted Total 621 (100.0%) 110 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the staff? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the post-doctoral scholars?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 34 (18.9%) 7 (32.8%) 123 (36.9%) 2 (8.2%) 13 (22.5%) 2 (23.7%)
Yes 145 (81.2%) 14 (67.2%) 210 (63.1%) 18 (91.8%) 44 (77.5%) 8 (76.3%)
Weighted Total 179 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 333 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the post-doctoral scholars? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the post-doctoral scholars?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 82 (24.7%) 74 (30.2%) 6 (39.5%) 18 (72.0%)
Yes 251 (75.3%) 172 (69.8%) 9 (60.5%) 7 (28.0%)
Weighted Total 333 (100.0%) 246 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the post-doctoral scholars? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the post-doctoral scholars?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 59 (18.2%) 19 (35.9%) 45 (59.1%)
Yes 266 (81.8%) 34 (64.1%) 31 (40.9%)
Weighted Total 325 (100.0%) 52 (100.0%) 76 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the post-doctoral scholars? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the post-doctoral scholars?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 123 (27.1%) 57 (34.7%)
Yes 331 (72.9%) 108 (65.3%)
Weighted Total 454 (100.0%) 165 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the post-doctoral scholars? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the post-doctoral scholars?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 81 (21.8%) 56 (51.3%)
Yes 290 (78.2%) 53 (48.6%)
Weighted Total 371 (100.0%) 110 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the post-doctoral scholars? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the post-doctoral scholars?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 101 (24.4%) 36 (54.8%)
Yes 314 (75.6%) 29 (45.2%)
Weighted Total 416 (100.0%) 65 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the post-doctoral scholars? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the graduate students?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 33 (11.2%) 1 (2.3%) 76 (13.1%) 1 (5.5%) 11 (12.2%) 2 (28.6%)
Yes 265 (88.8%) 44 (97.7%) 508 (86.9%) 10 (94.5%) 79 (87.8%) 6 (71.4%)
Weighted Total 299 (100.0%) 45 (100.0%) 584 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%) 90 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the graduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the graduate students?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 50 (9.7%) 61 (13.4%) 5 (26.4%) 9 (18.2%)
Yes 462 (90.3%) 397 (86.6%) 14 (73.6%) 40 (81.8%)
Weighted Total 512 (100.0%) 458 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the graduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the graduate students?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 51 (8.7%) 16 (20.9%) 39 (37.1%)
Yes 537 (91.3%) 61 (79.1%) 66 (62.9%)
Weighted Total 588 (100.0%) 77 (100.0%) 105 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the graduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the graduate students?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 106 (13.8%) 18 (6.9%)
Yes 664 (86.2%) 249 (93.1%)
Weighted Total 770 (100.0%) 268 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the graduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the graduate students?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 63 (10.5%) 23 (11.9%)
Yes 540 (89.5%) 174 (88.1%)
Weighted Total 604 (100.0%) 197 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the graduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the graduate students?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 60 (9.0%) 27 (20.6%)
Yes 611 (91.0%) 103 (79.4%)
Weighted Total 671 (100.0%) 130 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the graduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the undergraduate students?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 26 (8.8%) 0 (1.1%) 43 (11.8%) 8 (8.2%) 2 (24.6%)
Yes 267 (91.2%) 31 (98.9%) 321 (88.2%) 84 (91.8%) 7 (75.4%)
Weighted Total 292 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%) 364 (100.0%) 92 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the undergraduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the undergraduate students?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 33 (8.0%) 38 (11.6%) 2 (11.6%) 6 (19.3%)
Yes 387 (92.0%) 286 (88.4%) 15 (88.4%) 25 (80.7%)
Weighted Total 421 (100.0%) 324 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the undergraduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the undergraduate students?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 23 (4.6%) 9 (15.4%) 21 (25.0%)
Yes 467 (95.4%) 49 (84.6%) 64 (75.0%)
Weighted Total 490 (100.0%) 58 (100.0%) 85 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the undergraduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the undergraduate students?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 53 (8.3%) 26 (16.5%)
Yes 580 (91.7%) 133 (83.5%)
Weighted Total 633 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the undergraduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the undergraduate students?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 46 (9.9%) 14 (10.0%)
Yes 420 (90.1%) 126 (90.0%)
Weighted Total 466 (100.0%) 140 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the undergraduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
In the undergraduate students?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 43 (8.4%) 17 (17.9%)
Yes 467 (91.6%) 79 (82.1%)
Weighted Total 509 (100.0%) 97 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: In the undergraduate students? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 174 (88.4%) 15 (85.8%) 311 (84.7%) 6 (48.8%) 76 (95.3%) 9 (72.6%)
Yes 23 (11.6%) 2 (14.2%) 56 (15.3%) 6 (51.2%) 4 (4.7%) 3 (27.4%)
Weighted Total 197 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 366 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 80 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: Missing completely from the department or unit's environment? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 298 (87.3%) 259 (85.8%) 9 (70.0%) 26 (84.0%)
Yes 43 (12.7%) 43 (14.2%) 4 (30.0%) 5 (16.0%)
Weighted Total 341 (100.0%) 301 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: Missing completely from the department or unit's environment? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 359 (93.4%) 41 (84.2%) 61 (67.9%)
Yes 25 (6.6%) 8 (15.8%) 29 (32.1%)
Weighted Total 385 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%) 90 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: Missing completely from the department or unit's environment? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 462 (88.2%) 130 (79.8%)
Yes 62 (11.8%) 33 (20.2%)
Weighted Total 524 (100.0%) 163 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: Missing completely from the department or unit's environment? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 362 (87.6%) 106 (86.7%)
Yes 51 (12.4%) 16 (13.3%)
Weighted Total 413 (100.0%) 122 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: Missing completely from the department or unit's environment? 
Table: Are the communities you belong to represented:
Missing completely from the department/unit’s environment?
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 395 (87.5%) 73 (86.7%)
Yes 56 (12.5%) 11 (13.3%)
Weighted Total 451 (100.0%) 84 (100.0%)

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Are the communities you belong to represented: Missing completely from the department or unit's environment? 

 

 

Departmental Incivility or Harassment

Survey questions under this section use an inverted 5-point scale where lower scores and means are better.

 

In the last 12 months, as far as you know, how often have faculty or staff members in your department from these categories experienced inappropriate, harmful, dismissive, or offensive behavior/comments based on that identity or intersection of identities?

Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Response Racial identity? Ethnic identity? Gender, gender identity, or gender expression? Sexual orientation? International identity? Religious identity? Disability or need for accommodation? Economic status? Level of education attained?
Never 430 (66.5%) 456 (70.7%) 442 (61.9%) 486 (77.8%) 433 (66.4%) 479 (77.8%) 458 (73.3%) 475 (76.1%) 472 (73.7%)
Rarely 111 (17.1%) 96 (14.8%) 98 (13.8%) 73 (11.7%) 114 (17.4%) 83 (13.5%) 76 (12.2%) 80 (12.8%) 82 (12.8%)
Sometimes 79 (12.3%) 73 (11.2%) 109 (15.2%) 53 (8.5%) 76 (11.6%) 47 (7.7%) 71 (11.3%) 51 (8.1%) 62 (9.6%)
Often 17 (2.6%) 15 (2.4%) 44 (6.2%) 8 (1.3%) 21 (3.2%) 3 (0.5%) 11 (1.7%) 13 (2.1%) 16 (2.4%)
Very often 9 (1.4%) 5 (0.8%) 21 (2.9%) 5 (0.7%) 9 (1.3%) 4 (0.6%) 10 (1.6%) 6 (1.0%) 10 (1.5%)
Weighted Total 647 (100.0%) 645 (100.0%) 714 (100.0%) 624 (100.0%) 651 (100.0%) 616 (100.0%) 625 (100.0%) 624 (100.0%) 641 (100.0%)
Mean 1.55 1.48 1.74 1.35 1.56 1.33 1.46 1.39 1.45

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing the frequency with which faculty or staff may have experienced offensive behavior based on demographic categories

 

Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 134 (65.6%) 12 (61.1%) 200 (64.5%) 7 (86.4%) 77 (74.3%)
Rarely 30 (14.6%) 2 (12.1%) 62 (19.8%) 1 (9.1%) 16 (15.4%)
Sometimes 25 (12.3%) 5 (26.8%) 40 (12.9%) 0 (4.5%) 9 (8.3%)
Often 8 (4.1%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (2.0%)
Very often 7 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 204 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 311 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 104 (100.0%)
Mean 1.65 1.66 1.55 1.18 1.38
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 223 (66.3%) 32 (58.6%) 44 (54.4%)
Rarely 64 (19.1%) 7 (12.2%) 13 (16.1%)
Sometimes 36 (10.9%) 9 (17.6%) 17 (21.1%)
Often 9 (2.7%) 3 (5.2%) 5 (6.3%)
Very often 3 (1.0%) 3 (6.4%) 2 (2.2%)
Weighted Total 336 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%) 80 (100.0%)
Mean 1.53 1.88 1.86
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 298 (63.4%) 132 (74.9%)
Rarely 83 (17.8%) 27 (15.3%)
Sometimes 63 (13.4%) 17 (9.4%)
Often 17 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 8 (1.8%) 1 (0.4%)
Weighted Total 470 (100.0%) 177 (100.0%)
Mean 1.63 1.36
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 319 (73.2%) 41 (43.7%)
Rarely 76 (17.3%) 18 (19.1%)
Sometimes 34 (7.9%) 25 (27.3%)
Often 6 (1.4%) 5 (5.7%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 4 (4.2%)
Weighted Total 435 (100.0%) 93 (100.0%)
Mean 1.38 2.08
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 324 (72.5%) 35 (43.2%)
Rarely 76 (17.0%) 17 (21.2%)
Sometimes 39 (8.8%) 20 (25.2%)
Often 5 (1.1%) 6 (8.0%)
Very often 3 (0.7%) 2 (2.4%)
Weighted Total 447 (100.0%) 81 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 2.05
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 231 (69.1%) 32 (59.4%) 45 (57.7%)
Rarely 54 (16.1%) 7 (12.7%) 12 (14.7%)
Sometimes 39 (11.5%) 12 (22.9%) 15 (19.3%)
Often 9 (2.8%) 1 (2.1%) 5 (6.2%)
Very often 2 (0.4%) 2 (2.8%) 2 (2.1%)
Weighted Total 335 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
Mean 1.49 1.76 1.80
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 308 (66.1%) 148 (82.9%)
Rarely 72 (15.5%) 23 (13.1%)
Sometimes 66 (14.1%) 6 (3.6%)
Often 15 (3.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 5 (1.0%) 1 (0.4%)
Weighted Total 467 (100.0%) 178 (100.0%)
Mean 1.58 1.22
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 329 (75.2%) 49 (55.8%)
Rarely 66 (15.0%) 16 (17.9%)
Sometimes 37 (8.4%) 16 (17.8%)
Often 5 (1.2%) 5 (6.0%)
Very often 1 (0.2%) 2 (2.4%)
Weighted Total 438 (100.0%) 87 (100.0%)
Mean 1.36 1.81
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 335 (74.6%) 43 (56.4%)
Rarely 68 (15.2%) 13 (17.3%)
Sometimes 40 (8.9%) 12 (16.4%)
Often 4 (0.8%) 7 (9.1%)
Very often 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 449 (100.0%) 76 (100.0%)
Mean 1.37 1.80
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 130 (56.1%) 13 (46.2%) 220 (65.4%) 6 (72.7%) 73 (66.7%)
Rarely 36 (15.6%) 1 (2.5%) 43 (12.9%) 2 (22.7%) 16 (14.7%)
Sometimes 41 (17.5%) 7 (24.1%) 46 (13.8%) 0 (4.5%) 15 (13.3%)
Often 14 (5.9%) 8 (27.2%) 18 (5.2%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (4.7%)
Very often 11 (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.6%)
Weighted Total 232 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 337 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 110 (100.0%)
Mean 1.88 2.32 1.67 1.32 1.58
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 240 (68.5%) 184 (58.7%) 10 (53.6%) 8 (24.5%)
Rarely 51 (14.6%) 42 (13.5%) 0 (2.4%) 4 (13.3%)
Sometimes 35 (9.9%) 59 (18.9%) 4 (20.7%) 11 (34.7%)
Often 17 (4.8%) 18 (5.9%) 3 (17.9%) 5 (17.4%)
Very often 7 (2.1%) 9 (3.0%) 1 (5.5%) 3 (10.1%)
Weighted Total 351 (100.0%) 314 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%)
Mean 1.57 1.81 2.19 2.75
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 296 (55.9%) 146 (79.0%)
Rarely 85 (16.0%) 13 (7.2%)
Sometimes 93 (17.5%) 16 (8.9%)
Often 36 (6.7%) 8 (4.6%)
Very often 20 (3.8%) 1 (0.4%)
Weighted Total 530 (100.0%) 185 (100.0%)
Mean 1.86 1.40
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 321 (68.9%) 43 (35.8%)
Rarely 66 (14.2%) 17 (14.4%)
Sometimes 59 (12.7%) 31 (26.2%)
Often 12 (2.5%) 22 (18.6%)
Very often 8 (1.7%) 6 (5.1%)
Weighted Total 466 (100.0%) 119 (100.0%)
Mean 1.54 2.43
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 327 (65.8%) 37 (41.7%)
Rarely 67 (13.4%) 17 (18.9%)
Sometimes 67 (13.4%) 24 (26.8%)
Often 28 (5.7%) 6 (6.4%)
Very often 8 (1.7%) 5 (6.2%)
Weighted Total 496 (100.0%) 88 (100.0%)
Mean 1.64 2.17
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 152 (75.5%) 13 (88.5%) 232 (76.9%) 7 (95.5%) 82 (82.1%)
Rarely 24 (11.7%) 1 (4.6%) 41 (13.5%) 0 (4.5%) 8 (7.9%)
Sometimes 19 (9.5%) 1 (6.9%) 24 (7.9%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (9.4%)
Often 3 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.6%)
Very often 4 (1.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 201 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 301 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 99 (100.0%)
Mean 1.42 1.18 1.35 1.05 1.28
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 262 (81.1%) 200 (76.5%) 12 (68.7%) 12 (51.7%)
Rarely 34 (10.5%) 35 (13.5%) 2 (12.3%) 1 (6.7%)
Sometimes 22 (6.7%) 22 (8.5%) 2 (12.0%) 7 (31.9%)
Often 4 (1.4%) 3 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.1%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.4%) 1 (6.9%) 1 (6.6%)
Weighted Total 323 (100.0%) 261 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%)
Mean 1.29 1.35 1.64 2.06
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 336 (74.0%) 150 (87.9%)
Rarely 64 (14.2%) 9 (5.0%)
Sometimes 43 (9.4%) 11 (6.2%)
Often 7 (1.6%) 1 (0.4%)
Very often 4 (0.8%) 1 (0.5%)
Weighted Total 454 (100.0%) 171 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 1.21
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 355 (83.6%) 49 (53.1%)
Rarely 45 (10.6%) 14 (15.1%)
Sometimes 24 (5.5%) 24 (26.1%)
Often 1 (0.3%) 4 (4.6%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%)
Weighted Total 425 (100.0%) 92 (100.0%)
Mean 1.23 1.85
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 361 (81.5%) 43 (58.2%)
Rarely 47 (10.5%) 12 (16.4%)
Sometimes 32 (7.1%) 16 (21.5%)
Often 4 (0.8%) 2 (2.4%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.4%)
Weighted Total 443 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%)
Mean 1.27 1.72
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 124 (58.5%) 10 (54.6%) 212 (68.5%) 7 (95.5%) 78 (76.7%)
Rarely 45 (21.2%) 5 (27.1%) 52 (16.9%) 0 (4.5%) 11 (10.3%)
Sometimes 29 (13.8%) 3 (18.2%) 33 (10.8%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (9.4%)
Often 10 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (3.6%)
Very often 4 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (1.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 213 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 309 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 102 (100.0%)
Mean 1.70 1.64 1.51 1.05 1.40
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 228 (68.7%) 183 (66.6%) 11 (54.5%) 11 (42.7%)
Rarely 58 (17.5%) 47 (17.0%) 4 (19.2%) 5 (20.8%)
Sometimes 37 (11.1%) 32 (11.8%) 5 (22.5%) 2 (7.8%)
Often 6 (1.7%) 10 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 4 (16.3%)
Very often 3 (1.0%) 2 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (12.4%)
Weighted Total 332 (100.0%) 274 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%)
Mean 1.49 1.55 1.76 2.35
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 297 (63.8%) 136 (73.0%)
Rarely 84 (17.9%) 30 (16.2%)
Sometimes 58 (12.6%) 17 (9.2%)
Often 20 (4.2%) 1 (0.7%)
Very often 7 (1.5%) 2 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 466 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
Mean 1.62 1.40
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 316 (71.2%) 46 (48.5%)
Rarely 71 (16.0%) 19 (20.1%)
Sometimes 43 (9.6%) 20 (21.0%)
Often 11 (2.5%) 7 (7.8%)
Very often 3 (0.8%) 2 (2.5%)
Weighted Total 444 (100.0%) 95 (100.0%)
Mean 1.46 1.96
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 323 (70.2%) 39 (49.3%)
Rarely 70 (15.1%) 21 (26.2%)
Sometimes 53 (11.4%) 10 (12.7%)
Often 10 (2.1%) 9 (11.0%)
Very often 5 (1.1%) 1 (0.7%)
Weighted Total 460 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
Mean 1.49 1.88
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 151 (74.1%) 15 (94.5%) 222 (77.0%) 7 (95.5%) 84 (83.4%)
Rarely 28 (13.6%) 1 (5.5%) 42 (14.6%) 0 (4.5%) 12 (11.9%)
Sometimes 21 (10.3%) 0 (0.0%) 22 (7.5%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (4.8%)
Often 2 (1.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 203 (100.0%) 16 (100.0%) 289 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 101 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 1.05 1.33 1.05 1.21
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 321 (72.8%) 158 (90.3%)
Rarely 69 (15.7%) 14 (7.9%)
Sometimes 45 (10.2%) 2 (1.3%)
Often 3 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 3 (0.6%) 1 (0.5%)
Weighted Total 441 (100.0%) 175 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 1.13
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 356 (80.7%) 42 (62.8%)
Rarely 57 (13.0%) 12 (18.1%)
Sometimes 25 (5.7%) 11 (17.2%)
Often 2 (0.4%) 1 (1.0%)
Very often 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.9%)
Weighted Total 441 (100.0%) 66 (100.0%)
Mean 1.27 1.59
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 143 (72.1%) 15 (88.5%) 218 (72.8%) 7 (95.5%) 75 (72.7%)
Rarely 24 (12.0%) 2 (9.4%) 37 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (12.8%)
Sometimes 23 (11.5%) 0 (2.1%) 35 (11.6%) 0 (4.5%) 13 (12.2%)
Often 6 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (1.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%)
Very often 3 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (1.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.0%)
Weighted Total 198 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 299 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 104 (100.0%)
Mean 1.50 1.14 1.47 1.09 1.45
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 248 (78.8%) 189 (70.2%) 12 (69.0%) 9 (38.5%)
Rarely 38 (11.9%) 31 (11.6%) 3 (20.0%) 4 (16.2%)
Sometimes 27 (8.4%) 39 (14.5%) 0 (2.0%) 5 (19.6%)
Often 2 (0.6%) 6 (2.4%) 0 (2.8%) 2 (8.1%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 4 (1.4%) 1 (6.1%) 4 (17.7%)
Weighted Total 315 (100.0%) 270 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%)
Mean 1.32 1.53 1.57 2.50
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 305 (67.6%) 154 (87.9%)
Rarely 65 (14.5%) 11 (6.1%)
Sometimes 64 (14.3%) 6 (3.6%)
Often 11 (2.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 6 (1.2%) 4 (2.4%)
Weighted Total 451 (100.0%) 175 (100.0%)
Mean 1.55 1.23
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 334 (78.4%) 46 (50.9%)
Rarely 48 (11.3%) 14 (15.8%)
Sometimes 37 (8.7%) 20 (21.7%)
Often 5 (1.2%) 4 (4.6%)
Very often 2 (0.5%) 6 (7.0%)
Weighted Total 426 (100.0%) 91 (100.0%)
Mean 1.34 2.01
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 345 (79.2%) 35 (43.1%)
Rarely 49 (11.2%) 14 (16.7%)
Sometimes 33 (7.7%) 23 (28.7%)
Often 7 (1.6%) 2 (2.9%)
Very often 2 (0.4%) 7 (8.6%)
Weighted Total 436 (100.0%) 81 (100.0%)
Mean 1.33 2.17
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 261 (80.1%) 190 (72.9%) 11 (66.3%) 13 (62.2%)
Rarely 41 (12.7%) 33 (12.8%) 3 (18.8%) 2 (9.2%)
Sometimes 21 (6.4%) 28 (10.6%) 1 (6.1%) 1 (4.4%)
Often 2 (0.5%) 7 (2.6%) 1 (6.8%) 3 (14.8%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 3 (1.1%) 0 (2.0%) 2 (9.4%)
Weighted Total 325 (100.0%) 260 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%)
Mean 1.28 1.46 1.59 2.00
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 312 (69.2%) 163 (94.1%)
Rarely 74 (16.4%) 6 (3.3%)
Sometimes 46 (10.2%) 5 (2.6%)
Often 13 (2.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 6 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 450 (100.0%) 174 (100.0%)
Mean 1.51 1.09
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 339 (79.7%) 54 (63.9%)
Rarely 52 (12.2%) 13 (15.3%)
Sometimes 29 (6.9%) 10 (11.2%)
Often 2 (0.5%) 6 (6.5%)
Very often 2 (0.6%) 3 (3.2%)
Weighted Total 426 (100.0%) 85 (100.0%)
Mean 1.30 1.70
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 349 (79.2%) 45 (63.6%)
Rarely 52 (11.9%) 13 (18.2%)
Sometimes 31 (6.9%) 8 (12.0%)
Often 6 (1.3%) 2 (3.0%)
Very often 3 (0.7%) 2 (3.1%)
Weighted Total 441 (100.0%) 70 (100.0%)
Mean 1.32 1.64
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 259 (78.2%) 188 (70.1%) 10 (55.6%) 15 (63.7%)
Rarely 39 (11.8%) 37 (14.0%) 4 (22.6%) 1 (4.8%)
Sometimes 26 (8.0%) 29 (11.0%) 2 (13.5%) 3 (13.9%)
Often 3 (0.8%) 9 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (16.1%)
Very often 4 (1.2%) 4 (1.6%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (1.5%)
Weighted Total 331 (100.0%) 268 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%)
Mean 1.35 1.52 1.83 1.87
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 314 (67.6%) 158 (89.6%)
Rarely 69 (14.8%) 13 (7.2%)
Sometimes 57 (12.2%) 5 (2.8%)
Often 15 (3.2%) 1 (0.4%)
Very often 10 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 465 (100.0%) 176 (100.0%)
Mean 1.57 1.14
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 337 (76.1%) 56 (60.9%)
Rarely 53 (11.8%) 18 (19.7%)
Sometimes 44 (9.9%) 7 (8.1%)
Often 6 (1.3%) 7 (7.9%)
Very often 4 (0.8%) 3 (3.5%)
Weighted Total 444 (100.0%) 91 (100.0%)
Mean 1.39 1.73
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 348 (75.3%) 45 (61.9%)
Rarely 60 (13.0%) 10 (14.3%)
Sometimes 40 (8.7%) 11 (15.3%)
Often 10 (2.2%) 3 (3.7%)
Very often 3 (0.7%) 3 (4.8%)
Weighted Total 463 (100.0%) 72 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 1.75

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have faculty or staff experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 

 

In the last 12 months, as far as you know, how often have post-doctoral scholars in your department from these categories experienced inappropriate, harmful, dismissive, or offensive behavior/comments based on that identity or intersection of identities?

Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Response Racial identity? Ethnic identity? Gender, gender identity, or gender expression? Sexual orientation? International identity? Religious identity? Disability or need for accommodation? Economic status? Level of education attained?
Never 258 (80.8%) 264 (81.8%) 260 (81.8%) 260 (85.7%) 255 (78.9%) 263 (87.5%) 262 (87.7%) 256 (84.8%) 254 (83.7%)
Rarely 25 (7.8%) 27 (8.4%) 30 (9.5%) 24 (7.9%) 30 (9.4%) 25 (8.3%) 21 (7.2%) 28 (9.4%) 30 (9.9%)
Sometimes 23 (7.2%) 20 (6.2%) 16 (5.1%) 12 (3.9%) 23 (7.2%) 11 (3.7%) 9 (3.1%) 14 (4.5%) 13 (4.2%)
Often 3 (1.0%) 8 (2.5%) 4 (1.4%) 4 (1.4%) 5 (1.6%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 2 (0.8%) 5 (1.7%)
Very often 10 (3.2%) 4 (1.1%) 7 (2.3%) 3 (1.1%) 10 (2.9%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (1.7%) 2 (0.5%) 2 (0.6%)
Weighted Total 320 (100.0%) 323 (100.0%) 318 (100.0%) 304 (100.0%) 324 (100.0%) 301 (100.0%) 299 (100.0%) 302 (100.0%) 303 (100.0%)
Mean 1.38 1.33 1.33 1.24 1.40 1.17 1.21 1.23 1.26

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing the frequency with which postdocs may have experienced offensive behavior based on demographic categories

 

Note: Graduate Staffs and postdocs have been removed from the statistical analysis in the following questions:

  • Graduate Staff: Sexual orientation, International identity
  • Postdocs: Disability or need for accommodation

This is due to Having a variance of 0 (everyone chose the same answer). If a demographic characteristic table they belong in is shown for any of the mentioned questions (i.e. a table showing the difference between Race/Ethnicity), this means there is a statistically significant mean difference between any of the remaining groups

 

Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 75 (86.1%) 5 (51.7%) 137 (79.1%) 7 (52.3%) 34 (95.5%)
Rarely 7 (8.5%) 0 (0.0%) 16 (9.1%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (3.5%)
Sometimes 3 (3.6%) 5 (48.3%) 14 (7.9%) 1 (6.6%) 0 (1.1%)
Often 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 1 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.5%) 5 (36.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 87 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 173 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 35 (100.0%)
Mean 1.22 1.97 1.39 2.63 1.06
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 156 (80.8%) 85 (79.2%) 9 (94.1%) 8 (83.0%)
Rarely 15 (7.8%) 9 (8.8%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Sometimes 12 (6.0%) 12 (10.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 2 (0.9%) 1 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (7.2%)
Very often 9 (4.5%) 1 (0.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.8%)
Weighted Total 193 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 9 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 1.35 1.06 1.61
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 78 (88.5%) 5 (51.7%) 140 (79.5%) 7 (52.3%) 34 (97.2%)
Rarely 4 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%) 17 (9.6%) 6 (41.1%) 1 (1.7%)
Sometimes 5 (5.1%) 4 (40.0%) 10 (5.7%) 1 (6.6%) 0 (1.1%)
Often 1 (0.8%) 1 (8.3%) 6 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 1 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 88 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 176 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 35 (100.0%)
Mean 1.21 2.05 1.38 1.54 1.04
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 162 (82.2%) 85 (79.8%) 9 (94.1%) 8 (83.0%)
Rarely 19 (9.7%) 7 (7.0%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Sometimes 9 (4.7%) 11 (10.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 5 (2.3%) 3 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (7.2%)
Very often 2 (1.0%) 1 (0.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.8%)
Weighted Total 197 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 9 (100.0%)
Mean 1.30 1.37 1.06 1.61
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 165 (85.7%) 83 (78.6%) 8 (81.4%) 4 (39.1%)
Rarely 19 (10.0%) 9 (8.2%) 2 (18.6%) 0 (3.6%)
Sometimes 4 (2.1%) 9 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (36.8%)
Often 1 (0.4%) 3 (2.4%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (11.3%)
Very often 4 (1.9%) 3 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.3%)
Weighted Total 193 (100.0%) 106 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%)
Mean 1.23 1.42 1.19 2.48
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 163 (78.5%) 97 (87.9%)
Rarely 24 (11.4%) 6 (5.8%)
Sometimes 11 (5.3%) 5 (4.8%)
Often 3 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%)
Very often 7 (3.2%) 1 (0.6%)
Weighted Total 208 (100.0%) 110 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 1.20
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 192 (85.9%) 24 (64.1%)
Rarely 22 (9.9%) 3 (6.9%)
Sometimes 5 (2.4%) 7 (18.9%)
Often 3 (1.2%) 1 (3.0%)
Very often 1 (0.6%) 3 (7.1%)
Weighted Total 224 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%)
Mean 1.21 1.82
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 76 (89.7%) 5 (100.0%) 132 (79.8%) 13 (93.4%) 34 (98.3%)
Rarely 5 (5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 19 (11.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.7%)
Sometimes 2 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (6.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 1 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.3%) 1 (6.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 85 (100.0%) 5 (100.0%) 165 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 35 (100.0%)
Mean 1.19 1.00 1.33 1.20 1.02
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 194 (88.8%) 20 (60.2%)
Rarely 16 (7.3%) 7 (19.9%)
Sometimes 6 (2.7%) 5 (15.5%)
Often 3 (1.3%) 2 (4.4%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 218 (100.0%) 34 (100.0%)
Mean 1.16 1.64
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 199 (86.7%) 15 (66.8%)
Rarely 21 (9.3%) 1 (5.1%)
Sometimes 5 (2.4%) 6 (26.0%)
Often 4 (1.7%) 0 (2.1%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 230 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%)
Mean 1.19 1.63
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 69 (79.1%) 5 (100.0%) 139 (77.4%) 7 (52.3%) 34 (92.3%)
Rarely 12 (13.7%) 0 (0.0%) 16 (8.6%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (7.7%)
Sometimes 5 (6.2%) 0 (0.0%) 17 (9.6%) 1 (5.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.3%) 1 (6.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 1 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.0%) 5 (36.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 87 (100.0%) 5 (100.0%) 180 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%)
Mean 1.30 1.00 1.43 2.74 1.08
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 114 (76.3%) 14 (53.2%) 32 (87.6%)
Rarely 22 (14.6%) 2 (8.9%) 2 (5.7%)
Sometimes 9 (6.0%) 9 (34.4%) 1 (1.9%)
Often 2 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (4.8%)
Very often 2 (1.4%) 1 (3.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 150 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%)
Mean 1.37 1.92 1.24
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 76 (87.8%) 5 (86.1%) 134 (84.5%) 13 (95.0%) 35 (97.3%)
Rarely 6 (7.3%) 0 (0.0%) 17 (10.7%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (2.7%)
Sometimes 3 (3.9%) 1 (13.9%) 7 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 86 (100.0%) 6 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 36 (100.0%)
Mean 1.18 1.28 1.21 1.05 1.03
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 162 (84.1%) 101 (93.5%)
Rarely 19 (10.0%) 6 (5.1%)
Sometimes 10 (5.4%) 1 (0.8%)
Often 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.6%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 193 (100.0%) 108 (100.0%)
Mean 1.22 1.09
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 193 (89.1%) 24 (73.0%)
Rarely 16 (7.6%) 3 (9.7%)
Sometimes 6 (3.0%) 1 (3.4%)
Often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 5 (13.9%)
Weighted Total 217 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%)
Mean 1.15 1.72
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 203 (89.0%) 14 (66.0%)
Rarely 18 (7.7%) 2 (9.1%)
Sometimes 6 (2.5%) 2 (8.2%)
Often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 2 (0.7%) 4 (16.7%)
Weighted Total 228 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%)
Mean 1.16 1.92
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 160 (82.0%) 96 (89.8%)
Rarely 21 (10.8%) 7 (6.7%)
Sometimes 11 (5.5%) 3 (2.9%)
Often 2 (0.9%) 1 (0.6%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 195 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%)
Mean 1.28 1.14
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 191 (81.8%) 18 (92.4%)
Rarely 27 (11.6%) 1 (7.6%)
Sometimes 12 (5.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 2 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 233 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%)
Mean 1.27 1.08

A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have postdocs experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 

 

In the last 12 months, as far as you know, how often have graduate students in your department from these categories experienced inappropriate, harmful, dismissive, or offensive behavior/comments based on that identity or intersection of identities?

Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Response Racial identity? Ethnic identity? Gender, gender identity, or gender expression? Sexual orientation? International identity? Religious identity? Disability or need for accommodation? Economic status? Level of education attained?
Never 375 (54.3%) 390 (58.3%) 360 (50.0%) 407 (64.0%) 395 (56.0%) 424 (69.2%) 411 (63.7%) 429 (69.2%) 427 (70.3%)
Rarely 113 (16.3%) 100 (14.9%) 99 (13.8%) 98 (15.4%) 123 (17.4%) 88 (14.4%) 74 (11.5%) 78 (12.6%) 84 (13.8%)
Sometimes 134 (19.4%) 115 (17.1%) 160 (22.2%) 89 (14.1%) 114 (16.2%) 67 (10.9%) 71 (11.1%) 58 (9.3%) 59 (9.7%)
Often 43 (6.2%) 43 (6.4%) 66 (9.2%) 29 (4.5%) 45 (6.4%) 21 (3.5%) 47 (7.3%) 37 (6.0%) 20 (3.4%)
Very often 26 (3.8%) 22 (3.3%) 35 (4.9%) 13 (2.0%) 28 (3.9%) 12 (1.9%) 41 (6.4%) 17 (2.8%) 17 (2.8%)
Weighted Total 691 (100.0%) 669 (100.0%) 720 (100.0%) 636 (100.0%) 704 (100.0%) 612 (100.0%) 644 (100.0%) 620 (100.0%) 607 (100.0%)
Mean 1.89 1.82 2.05 1.65 1.85 1.54 1.81 1.61 1.54

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing the frequency with which graduate students may have experienced offensive behavior based on demographic categories

 

Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 221 (62.0%) 136 (47.0%) 7 (57.5%) 11 (33.7%)
Rarely 61 (17.0%) 46 (15.8%) 0 (3.0%) 6 (18.2%)
Sometimes 54 (15.2%) 65 (22.4%) 5 (35.8%) 11 (32.7%)
Often 15 (4.1%) 26 (8.8%) 0 (3.8%) 2 (7.1%)
Very often 6 (1.7%) 17 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (8.4%)
Weighted Total 357 (100.0%) 289 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%)
Mean 1.67 2.11 1.86 2.38
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 233 (47.3%) 142 (71.9%)
Rarely 91 (18.4%) 22 (11.1%)
Sometimes 108 (21.8%) 26 (13.4%)
Often 41 (8.3%) 2 (1.1%)
Very often 21 (4.3%) 5 (2.6%)
Weighted Total 493 (100.0%) 198 (100.0%)
Mean 2.04 1.51
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 267 (62.2%) 51 (35.7%)
Rarely 79 (18.4%) 21 (14.7%)
Sometimes 62 (14.3%) 43 (30.1%)
Often 12 (2.9%) 19 (13.4%)
Very often 9 (2.2%) 9 (6.0%)
Weighted Total 429 (100.0%) 144 (100.0%)
Mean 1.65 2.39
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 279 (58.7%) 39 (39.9%)
Rarely 88 (18.5%) 12 (12.5%)
Sometimes 77 (16.2%) 28 (28.6%)
Often 21 (4.4%) 11 (10.9%)
Very often 10 (2.2%) 8 (8.1%)
Weighted Total 476 (100.0%) 97 (100.0%)
Mean 1.73 2.35
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 223 (65.0%) 144 (51.5%) 7 (57.5%) 15 (46.5%)
Rarely 50 (14.6%) 44 (15.8%) 0 (3.0%) 5 (14.8%)
Sometimes 48 (14.1%) 55 (19.4%) 4 (33.1%) 8 (23.2%)
Often 16 (4.6%) 24 (8.6%) 1 (6.5%) 2 (7.1%)
Very often 6 (1.8%) 13 (4.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (8.4%)
Weighted Total 343 (100.0%) 280 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%)
Mean 1.64 1.99 1.88 2.16
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 238 (50.6%) 151 (76.6%)
Rarely 81 (17.3%) 18 (9.2%)
Sometimes 98 (20.7%) 17 (8.6%)
Often 37 (7.8%) 6 (3.0%)
Very often 17 (3.6%) 5 (2.6%)
Weighted Total 471 (100.0%) 198 (100.0%)
Mean 1.97 1.46
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 276 (64.8%) 55 (41.0%)
Rarely 67 (15.7%) 22 (16.6%)
Sometimes 63 (14.8%) 32 (24.0%)
Often 13 (2.9%) 19 (14.0%)
Very often 7 (1.8%) 6 (4.4%)
Weighted Total 426 (100.0%) 134 (100.0%)
Mean 1.61 2.24
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 286 (61.7%) 45 (46.7%)
Rarely 80 (17.3%) 9 (9.4%)
Sometimes 71 (15.3%) 24 (24.9%)
Often 18 (3.9%) 13 (13.7%)
Very often 8 (1.8%) 5 (5.2%)
Weighted Total 463 (100.0%) 97 (100.0%)
Mean 1.67 2.21
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 75 (46.2%) 10 (31.1%) 229 (49.9%) 5 (78.0%) 41 (68.1%)
Rarely 35 (21.4%) 1 (3.2%) 57 (12.4%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (11.0%)
Sometimes 37 (22.9%) 10 (31.2%) 105 (22.9%) 1 (22.0%) 6 (9.8%)
Often 8 (4.8%) 10 (31.2%) 44 (9.5%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (7.5%)
Very often 8 (4.7%) 1 (3.2%) 24 (5.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.6%)
Weighted Total 161 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%) 460 (100.0%) 6 (100.0%) 61 (100.0%)
Mean 2.00 2.72 2.08 1.44 1.67
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 212 (59.4%) 130 (42.5%) 8 (39.4%) 10 (26.8%)
Rarely 49 (13.8%) 44 (14.5%) 2 (9.0%) 4 (11.4%)
Sometimes 56 (15.8%) 86 (28.1%) 7 (35.4%) 11 (28.7%)
Often 32 (8.8%) 26 (8.6%) 3 (16.2%) 5 (13.3%)
Very often 8 (2.2%) 19 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (19.7%)
Weighted Total 357 (100.0%) 305 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 38 (100.0%)
Mean 1.81 2.22 2.28 2.88
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 217 (41.4%) 143 (73.0%)
Rarely 82 (15.6%) 18 (9.1%)
Sometimes 142 (27.2%) 17 (8.9%)
Often 51 (9.8%) 15 (7.6%)
Very often 32 (6.1%) 3 (1.6%)
Weighted Total 525 (100.0%) 195 (100.0%)
Mean 2.24 1.56
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 262 (59.7%) 41 (25.2%)
Rarely 60 (13.8%) 27 (16.6%)
Sometimes 83 (19.0%) 47 (28.8%)
Often 21 (4.7%) 35 (21.1%)
Very often 13 (2.9%) 14 (8.2%)
Weighted Total 439 (100.0%) 164 (100.0%)
Mean 1.77 2.71
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 271 (54.4%) 33 (31.1%)
Rarely 75 (15.0%) 13 (12.2%)
Sometimes 92 (18.4%) 39 (36.7%)
Often 40 (8.1%) 15 (14.2%)
Very often 20 (4.0%) 6 (5.9%)
Weighted Total 497 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%)
Mean 1.92 2.52
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 232 (71.1%) 151 (57.5%) 9 (70.4%) 14 (43.5%)
Rarely 40 (12.3%) 51 (19.3%) 1 (8.9%) 6 (17.3%)
Sometimes 31 (9.5%) 47 (17.8%) 3 (20.7%) 9 (26.2%)
Often 20 (6.0%) 6 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (8.3%)
Very often 4 (1.1%) 8 (2.9%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (4.7%)
Weighted Total 326 (100.0%) 263 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 33 (100.0%)
Mean 1.54 1.74 1.50 2.13
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 255 (56.2%) 152 (83.6%)
Rarely 84 (18.6%) 14 (7.6%)
Sometimes 80 (17.7%) 9 (5.0%)
Often 22 (4.9%) 6 (3.5%)
Very often 12 (2.6%) 1 (0.4%)
Weighted Total 454 (100.0%) 182 (100.0%)
Mean 1.79 1.29
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 288 (71.3%) 59 (42.9%)
Rarely 62 (15.3%) 26 (19.2%)
Sometimes 44 (10.9%) 27 (19.9%)
Often 5 (1.2%) 21 (15.0%)
Very often 5 (1.3%) 4 (3.0%)
Weighted Total 404 (100.0%) 138 (100.0%)
Mean 1.46 2.16
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 302 (67.1%) 45 (49.0%)
Rarely 68 (15.2%) 20 (21.9%)
Sometimes 52 (11.6%) 20 (21.3%)
Often 21 (4.7%) 4 (4.9%)
Very often 7 (1.5%) 3 (2.9%)
Weighted Total 450 (100.0%) 92 (100.0%)
Mean 1.58 1.91
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 226 (61.8%) 144 (49.9%) 7 (43.3%) 18 (52.5%)
Rarely 63 (17.2%) 54 (18.6%) 2 (13.4%) 4 (10.6%)
Sometimes 49 (13.5%) 57 (19.8%) 4 (23.4%) 4 (12.1%)
Often 17 (4.7%) 21 (7.2%) 2 (15.2%) 4 (13.3%)
Very often 10 (2.7%) 13 (4.5%) 1 (4.8%) 4 (11.5%)
Weighted Total 365 (100.0%) 290 (100.0%) 16 (100.0%) 34 (100.0%)
Mean 1.69 1.98 2.25 2.21
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 240 (49.4%) 154 (70.9%)
Rarely 94 (19.4%) 28 (13.0%)
Sometimes 92 (18.8%) 23 (10.4%)
Often 38 (7.7%) 8 (3.5%)
Very often 23 (4.7%) 5 (2.2%)
Weighted Total 487 (100.0%) 217 (100.0%)
Mean 1.99 1.53
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 278 (63.0%) 61 (39.4%)
Rarely 74 (16.7%) 29 (18.8%)
Sometimes 62 (14.0%) 34 (22.2%)
Often 16 (3.6%) 20 (13.3%)
Very often 11 (2.6%) 10 (6.3%)
Weighted Total 441 (100.0%) 154 (100.0%)
Mean 1.66 2.28
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 291 (58.3%) 47 (49.7%)
Rarely 84 (16.9%) 18 (19.2%)
Sometimes 80 (16.0%) 16 (17.0%)
Often 30 (6.1%) 6 (6.5%)
Very often 14 (2.8%) 7 (7.6%)
Weighted Total 499 (100.0%) 95 (100.0%)
Mean 1.78 2.03
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 230 (72.7%) 167 (66.2%) 9 (85.3%) 17 (53.0%)
Rarely 49 (15.5%) 37 (14.6%) 1 (9.4%) 1 (3.5%)
Sometimes 25 (7.8%) 33 (13.0%) 1 (5.3%) 9 (27.5%)
Often 9 (2.8%) 9 (3.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (8.9%)
Very often 4 (1.1%) 6 (2.4%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (7.1%)
Weighted Total 317 (100.0%) 253 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%)
Mean 1.44 1.62 1.20 2.14
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 258 (60.9%) 166 (87.9%)
Rarely 75 (17.8%) 13 (6.9%)
Sometimes 65 (15.2%) 2 (1.2%)
Often 16 (3.7%) 6 (3.0%)
Very often 10 (2.4%) 2 (1.0%)
Weighted Total 424 (100.0%) 188 (100.0%)
Mean 1.69 1.22
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 294 (74.6%) 67 (51.3%)
Rarely 49 (12.5%) 28 (21.8%)
Sometimes 40 (10.0%) 20 (15.4%)
Often 7 (1.7%) 10 (7.8%)
Very often 5 (1.1%) 5 (3.7%)
Weighted Total 395 (100.0%) 130 (100.0%)
Mean 1.42 1.91
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 318 (72.5%) 43 (50.2%)
Rarely 68 (15.4%) 10 (12.0%)
Sometimes 43 (9.7%) 17 (20.0%)
Often 3 (0.7%) 14 (15.9%)
Very often 8 (1.8%) 2 (1.9%)
Weighted Total 439 (100.0%) 85 (100.0%)
Mean 1.44 2.07
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 92 (67.5%) 14 (57.6%) 260 (61.2%) 5 (78.0%) 40 (75.4%)
Rarely 20 (14.8%) 6 (23.4%) 43 (10.1%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (10.2%)
Sometimes 14 (10.4%) 4 (17.5%) 48 (11.4%) 1 (22.0%) 3 (6.3%)
Often 3 (2.4%) 0 (0.0%) 41 (9.6%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.3%)
Very often 7 (4.8%) 0 (1.5%) 33 (7.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.8%)
Weighted Total 137 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%) 425 (100.0%) 6 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 1.62 1.64 1.93 1.44 1.50
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 238 (72.4%) 153 (57.5%) 8 (51.5%) 12 (34.4%)
Rarely 35 (10.5%) 34 (13.0%) 1 (8.5%) 4 (10.3%)
Sometimes 34 (10.3%) 30 (11.3%) 4 (25.2%) 4 (10.9%)
Often 12 (3.5%) 24 (8.9%) 2 (14.8%) 9 (27.9%)
Very often 11 (3.3%) 25 (9.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (16.5%)
Weighted Total 330 (100.0%) 266 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 34 (100.0%)
Mean 1.55 2.00 2.03 2.82
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 251 (55.6%) 160 (82.7%)
Rarely 66 (14.6%) 8 (4.0%)
Sometimes 58 (12.8%) 14 (7.1%)
Often 40 (8.9%) 7 (3.6%)
Very often 36 (8.1%) 5 (2.6%)
Weighted Total 451 (100.0%) 193 (100.0%)
Mean 1.99 1.39
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 295 (72.5%) 56 (37.8%)
Rarely 44 (10.8%) 20 (13.5%)
Sometimes 38 (9.3%) 28 (18.7%)
Often 19 (4.7%) 20 (13.5%)
Very often 11 (2.8%) 24 (16.4%)
Weighted Total 407 (100.0%) 147 (100.0%)
Mean 1.55 2.57
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 317 (70.8%) 33 (31.6%)
Rarely 54 (12.1%) 9 (8.8%)
Sometimes 43 (9.5%) 23 (21.6%)
Often 16 (3.5%) 24 (22.2%)
Very often 19 (4.1%) 17 (15.8%)
Weighted Total 448 (100.0%) 106 (100.0%)
Mean 1.58 2.82
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 238 (73.6%) 161 (64.0%) 11 (71.7%) 20 (64.7%)
Rarely 51 (15.7%) 25 (9.9%) 1 (4.7%) 2 (5.2%)
Sometimes 17 (5.3%) 37 (14.9%) 1 (4.0%) 3 (8.8%)
Often 13 (4.0%) 18 (7.2%) 3 (17.4%) 4 (12.4%)
Very often 4 (1.4%) 10 (3.9%) 0 (2.3%) 3 (8.9%)
Weighted Total 323 (100.0%) 251 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%)
Mean 1.44 1.77 1.74 1.96
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 272 (62.7%) 157 (84.6%)
Rarely 63 (14.5%) 15 (8.2%)
Sometimes 49 (11.4%) 8 (4.5%)
Often 34 (7.8%) 3 (1.8%)
Very often 16 (3.6%) 2 (0.9%)
Weighted Total 434 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
Mean 1.75 1.26
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 300 (76.0%) 66 (50.3%)
Rarely 47 (12.0%) 19 (14.3%)
Sometimes 32 (8.1%) 16 (11.9%)
Often 11 (2.7%) 23 (17.6%)
Very often 5 (1.3%) 8 (5.9%)
Weighted Total 395 (100.0%) 131 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 2.14
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 320 (73.0%) 46 (52.4%)
Rarely 57 (13.0%) 9 (10.3%)
Sometimes 38 (8.7%) 9 (10.5%)
Often 14 (3.2%) 20 (22.4%)
Very often 9 (2.0%) 4 (4.5%)
Weighted Total 439 (100.0%) 88 (100.0%)
Mean 1.48 2.16
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 93 (69.1%) 14 (51.9%) 274 (71.2%) 4 (39.0%) 42 (82.5%)
Rarely 25 (18.3%) 5 (19.1%) 48 (12.6%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (11.1%)
Sometimes 11 (8.4%) 2 (9.2%) 39 (10.1%) 5 (55.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Often 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 17 (4.5%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (1.7%)
Very often 4 (2.8%) 5 (19.8%) 6 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.9%)
Weighted Total 134 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 385 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 51 (100.0%)
Mean 1.51 2.17 1.53 2.28 1.31
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 271 (65.1%) 156 (81.7%)
Rarely 73 (17.6%) 11 (5.6%)
Sometimes 38 (9.2%) 21 (10.8%)
Often 18 (4.5%) 2 (1.0%)
Very often 15 (3.6%) 2 (0.9%)
Weighted Total 415 (100.0%) 191 (100.0%)
Mean 1.64 1.34
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 302 (76.6%) 65 (57.6%)
Rarely 46 (11.7%) 22 (19.7%)
Sometimes 32 (8.1%) 11 (9.9%)
Often 9 (2.4%) 8 (7.0%)
Very often 5 (1.2%) 7 (5.8%)
Weighted Total 395 (100.0%) 114 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 1.84
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 318 (73.9%) 50 (63.9%)
Rarely 59 (13.8%) 9 (12.0%)
Sometimes 35 (8.1%) 8 (10.6%)
Often 8 (1.9%) 9 (11.7%)
Very often 10 (2.4%) 1 (1.7%)
Weighted Total 430 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
Mean 1.45 1.75

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you knowhow often have graduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 

 

In the last 12 months, as far as you know, how often have undergraduate students in your department from these categories experienced inappropriate, harmful, dismissive, or offensive behavior/comments based on that identity or intersection of identities?

Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Response Racial identity? Ethnic identity? Gender, gender identity, or gender expression? Sexual orientation? International identity? Religious identity? Disability or need for accommodation? Economic status? Level of education attained?
Never 241 (68.8%) 248 (72.0%) 241 (67.9%) 256 (75.6%) 244 (71.2%) 255 (79.4%) 256 (73.0%) 259 (77.5%) 264 (81.6%)
Rarely 38 (10.9%) 33 (9.5%) 40 (11.3%) 33 (9.9%) 43 (12.5%) 32 (10.0%) 31 (8.7%) 30 (9.0%) 28 (8.7%)
Sometimes 49 (13.8%) 40 (11.6%) 52 (14.6%) 34 (10.0%) 32 (9.5%) 29 (9.0%) 39 (11.1%) 24 (7.2%) 22 (6.8%)
Often 19 (5.4%) 17 (4.9%) 16 (4.5%) 12 (3.7%) 19 (5.7%) 5 (1.6%) 18 (5.2%) 17 (5.0%) 5 (1.5%)
Very often 4 (1.1%) 7 (1.9%) 6 (1.7%) 3 (0.8%) 4 (1.2%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (2.0%) 4 (1.2%) 5 (1.5%)
Weighted Total 351 (100.0%) 345 (100.0%) 355 (100.0%) 339 (100.0%) 343 (100.0%) 320 (100.0%) 351 (100.0%) 334 (100.0%) 323 (100.0%)
Mean 1.59 1.55 1.61 1.44 1.53 1.33 1.55 1.43 1.33

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing the frequency with which undergraduate students may have experienced offensive behavior based on demographic categories

 

Note: Undergraduate Staffs have been removed from the statistical analysis in the following questions:

  • Undergraduate Staffs: Disability or need for accommodation

This is due to Having a variance of 0 (everyone chose the same answer). If a demographic characteristic table they belong in is shown for any of the mentioned questions (i.e. a table showing the difference between Race/Ethnicity), this means there is a statistically significant mean difference between any of the remaining groups

Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 142 (74.1%) 86 (64.9%) 7 (59.7%) 6 (42.3%)
Rarely 25 (12.9%) 10 (7.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (21.2%)
Sometimes 16 (8.6%) 25 (19.2%) 4 (34.1%) 3 (18.7%)
Often 7 (3.7%) 10 (7.4%) 1 (6.2%) 1 (7.5%)
Very often 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (10.2%)
Weighted Total 192 (100.0%) 132 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%)
Mean 1.44 1.71 1.87 2.22
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 168 (62.3%) 73 (90.3%)
Rarely 37 (13.6%) 2 (1.9%)
Sometimes 46 (17.2%) 2 (2.8%)
Often 15 (5.7%) 3 (4.1%)
Very often 3 (1.2%) 1 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 269 (100.0%) 81 (100.0%)
Mean 1.70 1.23
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 169 (74.8%) 27 (44.6%)
Rarely 28 (12.4%) 8 (12.5%)
Sometimes 25 (10.9%) 13 (21.3%)
Often 2 (0.9%) 11 (18.4%)
Very often 2 (0.9%) 2 (3.2%)
Weighted Total 226 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 2.23
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Racial identity,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 176 (72.3%) 20 (47.1%)
Rarely 31 (12.8%) 4 (10.1%)
Sometimes 32 (13.1%) 6 (13.0%)
Often 4 (1.5%) 10 (22.3%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 3 (7.4%)
Weighted Total 243 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
Mean 1.45 2.33
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Racial identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 174 (66.0%) 74 (91.6%)
Rarely 32 (12.0%) 1 (1.4%)
Sometimes 36 (13.5%) 4 (5.4%)
Often 16 (6.2%) 1 (0.7%)
Very often 6 (2.3%) 1 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 264 (100.0%) 81 (100.0%)
Mean 1.67 1.18
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 173 (77.2%) 29 (52.5%)
Rarely 25 (11.2%) 4 (7.8%)
Sometimes 22 (9.8%) 10 (17.6%)
Often 2 (0.7%) 10 (18.6%)
Very often 3 (1.1%) 2 (3.4%)
Weighted Total 224 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 1.37 2.13
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Ethnic identity,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 180 (75.8%) 22 (52.2%)
Rarely 27 (11.5%) 2 (5.2%)
Sometimes 25 (10.3%) 7 (17.5%)
Often 5 (1.9%) 7 (17.5%)
Very often 1 (0.5%) 3 (7.6%)
Weighted Total 238 (100.0%) 42 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 2.23
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Ethnic identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 136 (70.6%) 90 (68.2%) 8 (68.3%) 6 (34.2%)
Rarely 27 (13.8%) 11 (8.2%) 1 (4.8%) 2 (12.3%)
Sometimes 21 (11.1%) 24 (18.2%) 3 (23.6%) 4 (20.8%)
Often 5 (2.7%) 6 (4.7%) 0 (3.2%) 4 (23.5%)
Very often 4 (1.9%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (9.1%)
Weighted Total 193 (100.0%) 133 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%)
Mean 1.51 1.62 1.62 2.61
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 167 (61.7%) 74 (87.7%)
Rarely 38 (14.2%) 2 (2.1%)
Sometimes 47 (17.5%) 5 (5.4%)
Often 12 (4.6%) 3 (4.0%)
Very often 6 (2.0%) 1 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 271 (100.0%) 84 (100.0%)
Mean 1.71 1.28
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 174 (74.9%) 22 (36.9%)
Rarely 29 (12.6%) 8 (13.0%)
Sometimes 24 (10.3%) 17 (28.5%)
Often 3 (1.4%) 10 (16.4%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 3 (5.3%)
Weighted Total 232 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 2.40
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 176 (71.7%) 20 (42.5%)
Rarely 32 (13.0%) 5 (10.9%)
Sometimes 30 (12.2%) 11 (23.7%)
Often 6 (2.3%) 7 (15.9%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 3 (6.9%)
Weighted Total 246 (100.0%) 46 (100.0%)
Mean 1.48 2.34
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 125 (66.8%) 19 (83.9%) 35 (76.0%)
Rarely 27 (14.5%) 3 (12.1%) 2 (5.0%)
Sometimes 26 (13.9%) 1 (4.0%) 7 (14.5%)
Often 7 (3.9%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.5%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (1.0%)
Weighted Total 188 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 47 (100.0%)
Mean 1.57 1.20 1.49
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 180 (70.0%) 76 (93.3%)
Rarely 32 (12.6%) 1 (1.4%)
Sometimes 34 (13.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 9 (3.5%) 3 (4.2%)
Very often 2 (0.8%) 1 (1.1%)
Weighted Total 257 (100.0%) 81 (100.0%)
Mean 1.52 1.18
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 179 (80.2%) 30 (54.0%)
Rarely 26 (11.6%) 6 (11.1%)
Sometimes 14 (6.4%) 11 (20.7%)
Often 3 (1.3%) 6 (11.4%)
Very often 1 (0.6%) 2 (2.8%)
Weighted Total 223 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
Mean 1.31 1.98
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Sexual orientation,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 187 (78.9%) 22 (52.8%)
Rarely 28 (11.6%) 4 (10.5%)
Sometimes 18 (7.8%) 7 (17.5%)
Often 3 (1.2%) 6 (15.5%)
Very often 1 (0.6%) 2 (3.8%)
Weighted Total 237 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%)
Mean 1.33 2.07
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Sexual orientation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 145 (76.1%) 85 (67.6%) 8 (62.1%) 6 (44.2%)
Rarely 23 (12.2%) 18 (14.4%) 1 (8.0%) 0 (2.5%)
Sometimes 15 (7.6%) 13 (10.7%) 3 (23.6%) 2 (11.7%)
Often 6 (3.4%) 8 (6.4%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (30.3%)
Very often 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.9%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (11.3%)
Weighted Total 191 (100.0%) 126 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Mean 1.40 1.59 1.74 2.62
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 122 (64.0%) 17 (68.4%) 34 (77.1%)
Rarely 28 (14.5%) 4 (16.2%) 6 (13.0%)
Sometimes 21 (11.2%) 4 (15.4%) 4 (8.9%)
Often 17 (8.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 3 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (1.1%)
Weighted Total 191 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%)
Mean 1.69 1.47 1.35
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 173 (66.6%) 71 (85.5%)
Rarely 38 (14.4%) 5 (6.4%)
Sometimes 29 (11.2%) 3 (4.0%)
Often 17 (6.4%) 3 (3.4%)
Very often 3 (1.3%) 1 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 260 (100.0%) 83 (100.0%)
Mean 1.61 1.28
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 172 (75.6%) 26 (47.4%)
Rarely 36 (15.8%) 5 (8.6%)
Sometimes 16 (7.0%) 10 (17.3%)
Often 1 (0.6%) 13 (23.8%)
Very often 2 (1.1%) 2 (2.8%)
Weighted Total 228 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 1.36 2.26
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
International identity,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 178 (74.3%) 20 (46.4%)
Rarely 37 (15.5%) 4 (8.6%)
Sometimes 20 (8.2%) 6 (13.3%)
Often 4 (1.8%) 10 (24.0%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 3 (7.7%)
Weighted Total 240 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
Mean 1.38 2.38
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: International identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 152 (82.4%) 89 (74.6%) 8 (73.0%) 6 (94.6%)
Rarely 19 (10.5%) 11 (9.5%) 1 (9.5%) 0 (5.4%)
Sometimes 9 (5.0%) 18 (14.8%) 2 (17.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 4 (2.1%) 1 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 184 (100.0%) 119 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 6 (100.0%)
Mean 1.27 1.42 1.44 1.05
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 179 (73.8%) 76 (97.0%)
Rarely 31 (12.8%) 1 (1.4%)
Sometimes 29 (11.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 4 (1.6%) 1 (1.6%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 242 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
Mean 1.41 1.06
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Religious identity,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 189 (81.6%) 19 (62.0%)
Rarely 24 (10.4%) 3 (8.2%)
Sometimes 17 (7.5%) 8 (25.6%)
Often 1 (0.5%) 1 (4.2%)
Very often 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 231 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%)
Mean 1.27 1.72
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Religious identity 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 154 (80.0%) 89 (69.3%) 7 (57.8%) 6 (35.3%)
Rarely 18 (9.2%) 9 (7.3%) 2 (15.4%) 2 (8.6%)
Sometimes 13 (7.0%) 23 (17.7%) 1 (11.8%) 1 (7.0%)
Often 3 (1.7%) 6 (4.5%) 2 (15.0%) 7 (40.5%)
Very often 4 (2.1%) 2 (1.2%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (8.6%)
Weighted Total 192 (100.0%) 129 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%)
Mean 1.37 1.61 1.84 2.78
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 124 (63.4%) 19 (79.4%) 36 (80.1%)
Rarely 23 (11.5%) 3 (13.3%) 2 (5.2%)
Sometimes 31 (16.0%) 2 (7.3%) 6 (13.0%)
Often 14 (7.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.8%)
Very often 3 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (1.0%)
Weighted Total 195 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 45 (100.0%)
Mean 1.72 1.28 1.37
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 179 (67.7%) 77 (89.1%)
Rarely 28 (10.6%) 2 (2.8%)
Sometimes 39 (14.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Often 15 (5.6%) 4 (4.1%)
Very often 4 (1.4%) 3 (4.0%)
Weighted Total 265 (100.0%) 86 (100.0%)
Mean 1.62 1.31
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 185 (80.8%) 26 (41.3%)
Rarely 22 (9.6%) 6 (9.3%)
Sometimes 17 (7.5%) 12 (18.9%)
Often 2 (0.9%) 15 (23.5%)
Very often 3 (1.2%) 4 (6.9%)
Weighted Total 229 (100.0%) 63 (100.0%)
Mean 1.32 2.46
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Disability or need for accommodation,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 191 (79.7%) 19 (37.5%)
Rarely 25 (10.2%) 3 (6.2%)
Sometimes 20 (8.2%) 9 (18.2%)
Often 3 (1.4%) 13 (26.2%)
Very often 1 (0.4%) 6 (11.9%)
Weighted Total 240 (100.0%) 51 (100.0%)
Mean 1.33 2.69
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 128 (69.0%) 21 (85.5%) 34 (78.4%)
Rarely 23 (12.5%) 2 (7.1%) 4 (9.1%)
Sometimes 16 (8.4%) 1 (3.6%) 5 (11.2%)
Often 15 (7.8%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (1.3%)
Very often 4 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 185 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%)
Mean 1.62 1.26 1.36
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 183 (72.2%) 76 (94.3%)
Rarely 29 (11.4%) 1 (1.4%)
Sometimes 21 (8.4%) 3 (3.5%)
Often 16 (6.3%) 1 (0.8%)
Very often 4 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 253 (100.0%) 80 (100.0%)
Mean 1.54 1.11
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 184 (83.8%) 28 (51.6%)
Rarely 23 (10.3%) 4 (7.7%)
Sometimes 8 (3.5%) 9 (17.5%)
Often 3 (1.4%) 10 (19.4%)
Very often 2 (0.9%) 2 (3.9%)
Weighted Total 220 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%)
Mean 1.25 2.16
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Economic status,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 192 (81.6%) 20 (52.2%)
Rarely 26 (11.0%) 1 (2.4%)
Sometimes 11 (4.5%) 7 (17.2%)
Often 6 (2.5%) 8 (19.6%)
Very often 1 (0.3%) 3 (8.6%)
Weighted Total 235 (100.0%) 39 (100.0%)
Mean 1.29 2.30
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Economic status 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 186 (83.4%) 30 (66.0%)
Rarely 22 (9.8%) 5 (10.1%)
Sometimes 13 (5.7%) 4 (8.3%)
Often 1 (0.5%) 4 (8.3%)
Very often 1 (0.6%) 3 (7.3%)
Weighted Total 223 (100.0%) 45 (100.0%)
Mean 1.25 1.81
A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 
Table: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on:
Level of education attained,
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 195 (82.5%) 21 (65.0%)
Rarely 24 (10.2%) 2 (6.9%)
Sometimes 15 (6.3%) 2 (4.9%)
Often 1 (0.3%) 4 (13.0%)
Very often 1 (0.6%) 3 (10.3%)
Weighted Total 236 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%)
Mean 1.26 1.97

A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: As far as you know, how often have undergraduate students experienced offensive behavior based on: Level of education attained 

 

Have you personally experienced any excluding, bullying, intimidating, dismissive, offensive, and/or hostile conduct in your department in the past 12 months?

Only percentages are shown for the demographic breakdown tables due to redaction measures

Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
No 915 79.3%
Yes 238 20.6%
Weighted Total 1153 100.0%

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Experienced offensive conduct

Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 295 (84.1%) 31 (76.9%) 439 (76.7%) 15 (67.4%) 122 (78.9%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 56 (15.9%) 9 (23.1%) 133 (23.3%) 7 (32.6%) 33 (21.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 351 (100.0%) 40 (100.0%) 572 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 155 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Experienced offensive conduct  
Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 469 (82.6%) 393 (77.4%) 22 (81.5%) 31 (61.0%)
Yes 99 (17.4%) 115 (22.6%) 5 (18.5%) 20 (39.0%)
Weighted Total 568 (100.0%) 508 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 51 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Experienced offensive conduct  
Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 528 (78.6%) 63 (84.1%) 96 (70.7%)
Yes 144 (21.4%) 12 (15.9%) 40 (29.3%)
Weighted Total 671 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) 136 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Experienced offensive conduct  
Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 687 (77.8%) 228 (84.3%)
Yes 196 (22.2%) 43 (15.7%)
Weighted Total 882 (100.0%) 271 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Experienced offensive conduct  
Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 621 (83.4%) 139 (66.8%)
Yes 124 (16.7%) 69 (33.2%)
Weighted Total 745 (100.0%) 208 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Experienced offensive conduct  
Table: Experienced offensive conduct,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 679 (84.3%) 81 (55.0%)
Yes 127 (15.7%) 66 (45.0%)
Weighted Total 806 (100.0%) 147 (100.0%)

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Experienced offensive conduct  

 

Have you personally experienced any acts of microaggression in your department in the past 12 months?

Only percentages are shown for the demographic breakdown tables due to redaction measures

Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
No 759 72.9%
Yes 282 27.1%
Weighted Total 1041 100.0%

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Experienced microaggressions

Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 244 (77.7%) 21 (56.4%) 358 (68.8%) 13 (71.4%) 109 (79.5%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 70 (22.3%) 17 (43.6%) 163 (31.2%) 5 (28.6%) 28 (20.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 313 (100.0%) 38 (100.0%) 521 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 137 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Experienced microaggressions  
Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 403 (81.2%) 325 (68.1%) 14 (64.6%) 17 (36.1%)
Yes 93 (18.8%) 152 (31.9%) 8 (35.4%) 30 (63.9%)
Weighted Total 496 (100.0%) 477 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 46 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Experienced microaggressions  
Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 451 (74.1%) 41 (70.3%) 77 (59.4%)
Yes 158 (25.9%) 17 (29.7%) 52 (40.6%)
Weighted Total 609 (100.0%) 58 (100.0%) 129 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Experienced microaggressions  
Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 569 (71.4%) 190 (77.6%)
Yes 227 (28.6%) 55 (22.4%)
Weighted Total 796 (100.0%) 245 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Experienced microaggressions  
Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 538 (81.0%) 89 (46.3%)
Yes 127 (19.1%) 104 (53.7%)
Weighted Total 665 (100.0%) 193 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Experienced microaggressions  
Table: Experienced microaggressions,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 566 (78.1%) 62 (46.1%)
Yes 158 (21.9%) 72 (53.9%)
Weighted Total 724 (100.0%) 134 (100.0%)

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Experienced microaggressions  

 

Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced?

Blank cells does not indicate zeros; blank cells indicate redacted responses due to low response rates (Checked < 5). 0s mean no respondent checked that choice

Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Overall Selection
Response Checked
Tenure-track or research faculty member 223 (68.0%)
Other faculty member 33 (10.0%)
Teaching assistant (TA) 12 (3.8%)
Graduate student 121 (36.8%)
Undergraduate student 23 (6.9%)
Postdoctoral fellow 15 (4.5%)
College or department staff member 52 (15.8%)
University police 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 33 (9.9%)
HR facilitator
Don’t know (unidentified individual)
Other

Other faculty members include: lecturers, teaching academic professionals, and other specialized faculty

 

A group of bar charts showing the respondents' identified sources of mistreatment

 

The grouped bar charts in the following section suppresses 0s, demographic groups that does not have sufficient responses to this question are also not shown this is merely an aesthetic choice. To see which questions and categories have 0s, please refer to the associated table

Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Rating by Employment Status
Response Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Tenure-track or research faculty member 67 (79.7%) 15 (73.2%) 121 (66.0%) 18 (47.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Other faculty member 12 (14.8%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (9.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Teaching assistant (TA) 0 (0.0%) 9 (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Graduate student 12 (14.2%) 10 (48.8%) 97 (52.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Undergraduate student 11 (13.5%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Postdoctoral fellow 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 14 (7.7%) 0 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
College or department staff member 9 (11.2%) 19 (10.5%) 0 (0.0%) 22 (59.1%) 0 (0.0%)
University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 8 (9.0%) 15 (8.1%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (15.8%) 0 (0.0%)
HR facilitator 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Don’t know (unidentified individual) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (1.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced, grouped by Employment Status
Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Rating by Gender Identity
Response Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Tenure-track or research faculty member 83 (68.0%) 112 (65.3%) 7 (81.7%) 21 (81.8%)
Other faculty member 5 (4.1%) 20 (11.5%) 7 (28.6%)
Teaching assistant (TA) 5 (2.7%)
Graduate student 48 (39.6%) 55 (31.9%) 14 (54.3%)
Undergraduate student 14 (8.2%)
Postdoctoral fellow 7 (5.8%) 0 (0.0%)
College or department staff member 12 (10.0%) 32 (18.4%) 5 (19.6%)
University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 13 (10.8%) 14 (8.3%)
HR facilitator 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (1.4%)
Don’t know (unidentified individual) 0 (0.0%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced, grouped by Gender Identity
Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Response White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Tenure-track or research faculty member 135 (70.3%) 12 (63.4%) 39 (61.3%)
Other faculty member 18 (9.3%) 12 (18.3%)
Teaching assistant (TA)
Graduate student 57 (29.5%) 11 (55.4%) 25 (40.5%)
Undergraduate student 7 (3.8%) 9 (14.4%)
Postdoctoral fellow 6 (3.1%) 5 (7.6%)
College or department staff member 34 (17.6%) 12 (19.7%)
University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 27 (14.0%) 0 (0.0%)
HR facilitator 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.5%)
Don’t know (unidentified individual) 0 (0.0%)
Other 0 (0.0%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced, grouped by Race/Ethnicity
Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Rating by International Status
Response Domestic (%) International (%)
Tenure-track or research faculty member 186 (67.8%) 37 (69.2%)
Other faculty member 33 (12.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Teaching assistant (TA) 10 (3.5%)
Graduate student 93 (33.8%) 28 (52.3%)
Undergraduate student 21 (7.5%)
Postdoctoral fellow 12 (4.3%)
College or department staff member 47 (17.3%)
University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 28 (10.4%)
HR facilitator 0 (0.0%)
Don’t know (unidentified individual) 0 (0.0%)
Other 0 (0.0%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced, grouped by International Status
Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Response Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Tenure-track or research faculty member 106 (64.5%) 78 (73.8%)
Other faculty member 10 (6.2%) 17 (16.1%)
Teaching assistant (TA) 8 (7.1%)
Graduate student 55 (33.7%) 49 (46.2%)
Undergraduate student 12 (7.4%) 5 (4.6%)
Postdoctoral fellow 6 (3.6%) 8 (7.4%)
College or department staff member 27 (16.7%) 19 (18.3%)
University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 14 (8.4%) 13 (12.0%)
HR facilitator 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.3%)
Don’t know (unidentified individual) 0 (0.3%)
Other 0 (0.0%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced, grouped by LGBTQ+
Table: Source of the mistreatment,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having a Disability
Response No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Tenure-track or research faculty member 116 (62.4%) 68 (81.0%)
Other faculty member 23 (12.2%) 5 (5.4%)
Teaching assistant (TA) 6 (3.1%) 5 (5.5%)
Graduate student 70 (37.4%) 34 (41.1%)
Undergraduate student 12 (6.6%) 5 (5.8%)
Postdoctoral fellow 8 (4.5%) 5 (6.5%)
College or department staff member 35 (18.6%) 12 (14.3%)
University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Supervisor 17 (8.9%) 10 (11.8%)
HR facilitator 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.4%)
Don’t know (unidentified individual)
Other 0 (0.0%)

A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Who was the source of the mistreatment you experienced, grouped by self-identified as having a disability

 

What were your reactions to the mistreatment you experienced the last time it happened?

Blank cells does not indicate zeros; blank cells indicate redacted responses due to low response rates (Checked < 5). 0s mean no respondent checked that choice

Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Overall Selection
Response Checked
I didn’t know what to do 89 (26.1%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 21 (6.2%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 41 (12.1%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 15 (4.3%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 78 (23.1%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 89 (26.3%)
I did nothing 150 (44.3%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 16 (4.8%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%)
Other 34 (9.9%)

A group of bar charts showing the respondents' reactions to mistreatment

 

The grouped bar charts in the following section suppresses 0s, demographic groups that does not have sufficient responses to this question are also not shown this is merely an aesthetic choice. To see which questions and categories have 0s, please refer to the associated table

Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Rating by Employment Status
Response Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
I didn’t know what to do 19 (23.0%) 62 (32.6%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (16.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 7 (8.1%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (4.2%) 5 (10.8%) 0 (0.0%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 13 (16.1%) 0 (1.7%) 20 (10.5%) 0 (14.3%) 7 (16.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 0 (0.0%) 9 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 15 (17.8%) 10 (52.1%) 50 (26.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 18 (22.3%) 6 (29.6%) 59 (30.7%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%)
I did nothing 31 (38.2%) 14 (70.6%) 85 (44.4%) 0 (14.3%) 20 (44.6%) 0 (0.0%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 0 (0.0%) 8 (4.3%) 5 (11.4%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 11 (13.1%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (9.4%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (11.0%) 0 (0.0%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Your reaction to the mistreatment, grouped by Employment Status
Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Rating by Gender Identity
Response Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
I didn’t know what to do 25 (20.6%) 51 (28.7%) 12 (40.9%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 11 (9.2%) 10 (5.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 8 (6.5%) 25 (14.2%) 6 (19.8%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 9 (5.2%) 0 (1.2%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 28 (22.9%) 37 (20.6%) 10 (34.2%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 32 (26.2%) 41 (23.2%) 12 (42.2%)
I did nothing 53 (43.1%) 86 (48.0%) 8 (29.6%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 10 (7.8%) 7 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 10 (8.1%) 18 (10.2%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (19.4%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Your reaction to the mistreatment, grouped by Gender Identity
Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Response White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
I didn’t know what to do 53 (25.7%) 20 (33.2%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 13 (6.2%) 5 (9.1%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 27 (13.4%) 9 (14.6%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 9 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 46 (22.3%) 14 (23.0%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 47 (22.8%) 14 (23.7%)
I did nothing 88 (42.8%) 30 (50.5%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 14 (6.9%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 18 (8.8%) 5 (26.9%) 8 (13.2%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Your reaction to the mistreatment, grouped by Race/Ethnicity
Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Rating by International Status
Response Domestic (%) International (%)
I didn’t know what to do 75 (26.6%) 14 (23.8%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 21 (7.5%) 0 (0.0%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 38 (13.5%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 13 (4.7%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 64 (22.5%) 15 (25.7%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 65 (22.9%) 25 (43.2%)
I did nothing 122 (43.3%) 28 (49.0%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 16 (5.8%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 31 (10.9%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Your reaction to the mistreatment, grouped by International Status
Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Response Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
I didn’t know what to do 43 (25.6%) 35 (31.1%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 16 (9.5%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 16 (9.6%) 16 (14.4%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 7 (4.3%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 35 (20.5%) 29 (25.6%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 35 (20.7%) 35 (31.0%)
I did nothing 75 (44.6%) 54 (48.0%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 12 (7.2%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 15 (8.8%) 14 (12.7%)
A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Your reaction to the mistreatment, grouped by LGBTQ+
Table: Your reaction to mistreatment,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having a Disability
Response No Disability (%) Disability (%)
I didn’t know what to do 52 (27.2%) 26 (29.0%)
I reported it, and the situation was taken seriously 13 (7.0%) 6 (7.0%)
I reported it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 22 (11.3%) 10 (11.8%)
I reported it and I perceived retaliation 5 (2.8%) 5 (5.7%)
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 40 (20.6%) 24 (26.9%)
I didn’t report it for fear of retaliation 36 (18.6%) 34 (38.4%)
I did nothing 98 (50.9%) 31 (35.2%)
I told someone in HR or a union representative 6 (3.1%) 7 (8.1%)
I contacted the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I contacted a local law enforcement official, NOT the University police 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other 18 (9.1%) 11 (13.0%)

A grouped bar chart comparing the checked percentages to the question: Your reaction to the mistreatment, grouped by self-identified as having a disability

 

Do you believe that your experience(s) with incivility, harassment or microaggressions in your department happened because you are a member of any of the following marginalized groups, identities, or intersection of identities?

Only percentages are shown for the demographic breakdown tables due to redaction measures

Table: Mistreatment because of
Percentages only
Response Racial identity Ethnic identity Gender or gender identity Sexual orientation International identity Religious identity Disability or need for accommodation Economic status Level of education attained
No 229 (77.4%) 234 (77.8%) 163 (53.2%) 245 (82.0%) 259 (85.0%) 262 (89.3%) 249 (84.0%) 259 (89.5%) 247 (86.9%)
Yes 67 (22.6%) 67 (22.2%) 144 (46.8%) 54 (18.0%) 46 (15.0%) 31 (10.7%) 47 (16.0%) 30 (10.5%) 37 (13.2%)
Weighted Total 296 (100.0%) 301 (100.0%) 307 (100.0%) 298 (100.0%) 304 (100.0%) 293 (100.0%) 296 (100.0%) 289 (100.0%) 284 (100.0%)
Mean 1.23 1.22 1.47 1.18 1.15 1.11 1.16 1.11 1.13

 

Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Racial identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 52 (76.2%) 16 (91.0%) 123 (73.8%) 36 (87.0%)
Yes 16 (23.8%) 2 (9.0%) 44 (26.2%) 5 (13.0%)
Weighted Total 69 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 166 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Racial identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Racial identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 76 (73.5%) 121 (77.9%) 8 (82.5%) 24 (87.6%)
Yes 27 (26.5%) 34 (22.1%) 2 (17.5%) 3 (12.4%)
Weighted Total 104 (100.0%) 155 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Racial identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Racial identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 177 (98.5%) 4 (24.5%) 22 (42.5%)
Yes 3 (1.5%) 11 (75.5%) 30 (57.5%)
Weighted Total 179 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Racial identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Racial identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 203 (82.1%) 26 (53.8%)
Yes 44 (17.9%) 23 (46.2%)
Weighted Total 247 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Racial identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Racial identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 120 (79.8%) 81 (80.2%)
Yes 30 (20.2%) 20 (19.8%)
Weighted Total 150 (100.0%) 101 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Racial identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Racial identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 143 (81.1%) 58 (77.2%)
Yes 33 (18.9%) 17 (22.8%)
Weighted Total 176 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Racial identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 55 (83.1%) 16 (92.9%) 120 (71.4%) 7 (100.0%) 36 (85.3%)
Yes 11 (16.9%) 1 (7.1%) 48 (28.6%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (14.7%)
Weighted Total 66 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 169 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 42 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Ethnic identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 79 (74.7%) 123 (77.2%) 9 (88.3%) 24 (90.1%)
Yes 27 (25.3%) 36 (22.8%) 1 (11.7%) 3 (9.9%)
Weighted Total 105 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Ethnic identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 171 (96.3%) 5 (45.5%) 28 (51.9%)
Yes 7 (3.7%) 6 (54.5%) 26 (48.0%)
Weighted Total 177 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Ethnic identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Ethnic identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 204 (83.9%) 30 (51.8%)
Yes 39 (16.1%) 28 (48.2%)
Weighted Total 243 (100.0%) 57 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Ethnic identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Ethnic identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 127 (79.3%) 78 (79.1%)
Yes 33 (20.7%) 21 (20.9%)
Weighted Total 160 (100.0%) 99 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Ethnic identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 146 (80.5%) 60 (76.3%)
Yes 35 (19.5%) 19 (23.7%)
Weighted Total 181 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Ethnic identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Gender or gender identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 35 (49.6%) 15 (78.2%) 85 (49.8%) 7 (100.0%) 21 (53.8%)
Yes 35 (50.4%) 4 (21.8%) 86 (50.2%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (46.2%)
Weighted Total 70 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 171 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 39 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Gender or gender identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Gender or gender identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 91 (82.5%) 65 (40.6%) 2 (20.3%) 5 (19.9%)
Yes 19 (17.5%) 95 (59.4%) 8 (79.7%) 21 (80.1%)
Weighted Total 110 (100.0%) 161 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Gender or gender identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Gender or gender identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 102 (56.4%) 7 (44.6%) 24 (41.2%)
Yes 79 (43.6%) 9 (55.4%) 34 (58.8%)
Weighted Total 180 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 57 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Gender or gender identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Gender or gender identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 133 (52.2%) 31 (58.1%)
Yes 121 (47.8%) 22 (41.9%)
Weighted Total 254 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Gender or gender identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Gender or gender identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 98 (63.1%) 43 (39.4%)
Yes 57 (36.9%) 66 (60.7%)
Weighted Total 155 (100.0%) 109 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Gender or gender identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Gender or gender identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 103 (57.0%) 38 (45.6%)
Yes 78 (43.0%) 46 (54.4%)
Weighted Total 180 (100.0%) 84 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Gender or gender identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 60 (91.9%) 11 (58.5%) 130 (78.4%) 7 (100.0%) 36 (88.1%)
Yes 5 (8.1%) 8 (41.5%) 36 (21.6%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (11.9%)
Weighted Total 66 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 166 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Sexual orientation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 81 (76.3%) 144 (91.3%) 7 (73.3%) 12 (50.6%)
Yes 25 (23.6%) 14 (8.7%) 3 (26.7%) 12 (49.4%)
Weighted Total 106 (100.0%) 157 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Sexual orientation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 148 (83.6%) 11 (69.5%) 50 (93.4%)
Yes 29 (16.4%) 5 (30.5%) 4 (6.6%)
Weighted Total 178 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Sexual orientation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Sexual orientation
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 209 (84.9%) 36 (68.5%)
Yes 37 (15.1%) 16 (31.4%)
Weighted Total 246 (100.0%) 52 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Sexual orientation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Sexual orientation
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 154 (98.6%) 54 (53.5%)
Yes 2 (1.4%) 47 (46.5%)
Weighted Total 156 (100.0%) 101 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Sexual orientation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 150 (83.9%) 58 (74.0%)
Yes 29 (16.1%) 20 (26.0%)
Weighted Total 179 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Sexual orientation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
International identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 59 (86.1%) 15 (81.7%) 141 (83.9%) 2 (32.5%) 41 (98.6%)
Yes 9 (13.9%) 3 (18.3%) 27 (16.1%) 5 (67.5%) 1 (1.4%)
Weighted Total 68 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 169 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 42 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: International identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
International identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 81 (76.7%) 146 (90.2%) 7 (70.7%) 26 (91.5%)
Yes 24 (23.3%) 16 (9.8%) 3 (29.3%) 2 (8.5%)
Weighted Total 105 (100.0%) 161 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: International identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
International identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 176 (96.2%) 11 (77.8%) 54 (99.4%)
Yes 7 (3.8%) 3 (22.2%) 0 (0.6%)
Weighted Total 183 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: International identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
International identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 241 (95.9%) 18 (34.0%)
Yes 10 (4.1%) 35 (66.0%)
Weighted Total 251 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: International identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
International identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 132 (82.6%) 91 (88.0%)
Yes 28 (17.4%) 12 (12.0%)
Weighted Total 159 (100.0%) 103 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: International identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
International identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 155 (83.7%) 67 (87.2%)
Yes 30 (16.3%) 10 (12.8%)
Weighted Total 186 (100.0%) 77 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: International identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Religious identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 65 (98.9%) 19 (100.0%) 132 (82.4%) 7 (100.0%) 38 (94.0%)
Yes 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 28 (17.6%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (5.9%)
Weighted Total 66 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Religious identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Religious identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 94 (91.9%) 136 (87.7%) 10 (100.0%) 22 (84.4%)
Yes 8 (8.1%) 19 (12.3%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (15.6%)
Weighted Total 102 (100.0%) 156 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Religious identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Religious identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 154 (87.6%) 13 (100.0%) 51 (91.9%)
Yes 22 (12.4%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (8.1%)
Weighted Total 176 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Religious identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Religious identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 218 (89.2%) 44 (89.7%)
Yes 26 (10.8%) 5 (10.3%)
Weighted Total 244 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Religious identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Religious identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 139 (90.3%) 85 (87.2%)
Yes 15 (9.7%) 12 (12.8%)
Weighted Total 154 (100.0%) 97 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Religious identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Religious identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 167 (92.5%) 57 (80.5%)
Yes 13 (7.5%) 14 (19.6%)
Weighted Total 180 (100.0%) 71 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Religious identity 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 62 (93.3%) 18 (96.4%) 126 (77.8%) 7 (100.0%) 35 (84.8%)
Yes 4 (6.7%) 1 (3.6%) 36 (22.2%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (15.2%)
Weighted Total 67 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 162 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 91 (87.0%) 133 (84.8%) 9 (91.3%) 16 (63.4%)
Yes 14 (13.0%) 24 (15.2%) 1 (8.7%) 9 (36.6%)
Weighted Total 104 (100.0%) 156 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 145 (82.5%) 11 (90.5%) 50 (92.8%)
Yes 31 (17.5%) 1 (9.5%) 4 (7.2%)
Weighted Total 176 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 207 (85.2%) 42 (78.6%)
Yes 36 (14.8%) 11 (21.4%)
Weighted Total 243 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 136 (87.7%) 73 (74.8%)
Yes 19 (12.3%) 25 (25.2%)
Weighted Total 155 (100.0%) 98 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 169 (96.1%) 41 (52.5%)
Yes 7 (3.9%) 37 (47.5%)
Weighted Total 175 (100.0%) 78 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Economic status
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 60 (89.8%) 13 (97.5%) 142 (87.8%) 7 (100.0%) 36 (90.8%)
Yes 7 (10.2%) 0 (2.5%) 20 (12.2%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (9.2%)
Weighted Total 67 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 161 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 39 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Economic status 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Economic status
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 92 (93.5%) 134 (88.2%) 9 (85.1%) 23 (83.5%)
Yes 6 (6.5%) 18 (11.8%) 1 (14.9%) 5 (16.5%)
Weighted Total 99 (100.0%) 152 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Economic status 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Economic status
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 151 (88.0%) 12 (88.1%) 50 (91.0%)
Yes 21 (12.0%) 2 (11.9%) 5 (9.0%)
Weighted Total 172 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Economic status 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Economic status
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 213 (88.7%) 46 (93.2%)
Yes 27 (11.3%) 3 (6.8%)
Weighted Total 240 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Economic status 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Economic status
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 147 (97.2%) 78 (77.6%)
Yes 4 (2.8%) 23 (22.4%)
Weighted Total 151 (100.0%) 101 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Economic status 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Economic status
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 164 (92.9%) 62 (81.1%)
Yes 12 (7.1%) 14 (18.9%)
Weighted Total 176 (100.0%) 76 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Economic status 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Level of education attained
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 62 (94.5%) 18 (98.1%) 131 (83.5%) 7 (100.0%) 29 (79.5%)
Yes 4 (5.5%) 0 (1.9%) 26 (16.5%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (20.5%)
Weighted Total 65 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 157 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 36 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Level of education attained 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Level of education attained
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 93 (90.6%) 125 (85.2%) 8 (78.3%) 22 (84.4%)
Yes 10 (9.4%) 22 (14.8%) 2 (21.7%) 4 (15.6%)
Weighted Total 102 (100.0%) 146 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Level of education attained 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Level of education attained
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 147 (87.5%) 11 (87.7%) 43 (79.5%)
Yes 21 (12.4%) 2 (12.3%) 11 (20.5%)
Weighted Total 168 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 54 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Level of education attained 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Level of education attained
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 201 (85.7%) 46 (92.3%)
Yes 34 (14.3%) 4 (7.7%)
Weighted Total 235 (100.0%) 49 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Level of education attained 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Level of education attained
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 130 (87.3%) 81 (85.8%)
Yes 19 (12.7%) 13 (14.2%)
Weighted Total 149 (100.0%) 94 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Level of education attained 
Table: Mistreatment because of belonging in:
Level of education attained
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 148 (86.6%) 62 (87.0%)
Yes 23 (13.4%) 9 (13.0%)
Weighted Total 171 (100.0%) 71 (100.0%)

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Mistreatment because of belonging in: Level of education attained 

 

 

Departmental Belongingness

 

How concerned about your welfare is your department ?

Table: Concerned about your welfare,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Extremely concerned 113 9.2%
Very concerned 221 18.1%
Moderately concerned 320 26.1%
Not very concerned 300 24.5%
Not at all concerned 271 22.1%
Weighted Total 1225 100.0%
Mean 2.68

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Concerned about your welfare

Table: Concerned about your welfare,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely concerned 81 (8.6%) 32 (11.3%)
Very concerned 170 (18.1%) 51 (18.1%)
Moderately concerned 231 (24.6%) 89 (31.3%)
Not very concerned 224 (23.8%) 76 (26.8%)
Not at all concerned 236 (25.0%) 35 (12.5%)
Weighted Total 941 (100.0%) 284 (100.0%)
Mean 2.61 2.89

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Concerned about your welfare,  

 

How much is your participation in unit activities valued by your department ?

Table: Your participation is valued,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Extremely valued 221 18.2%
Very valued 358 29.4%
Moderately valued 378 31.1%
Not very valued 192 15.8%
Not at all valued 68 5.6%
Weighted Total 1216 100.0%
Mean 3.39

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Your participation is valued

Table: Your participation is valued,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely valued 105 (28.2%) 2 (5.2%) 72 (12.0%) 3 (12.5%) 31 (18.5%) 9 (64.1%)
Very valued 120 (32.5%) 7 (15.2%) 163 (27.2%) 3 (14.1%) 62 (37.4%) 2 (17.9%)
Moderately valued 86 (23.2%) 13 (31.1%) 219 (36.5%) 9 (41.2%) 47 (28.5%) 2 (17.9%)
Not very valued 41 (11.0%) 19 (43.6%) 107 (17.7%) 7 (32.1%) 18 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Not at all valued 19 (5.0%) 2 (4.8%) 40 (6.6%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 370 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%) 601 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 165 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Mean 3.68 2.72 3.20 3.07 3.54 4.46
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Your participation is valued,  
Table: Your participation is valued,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely valued 118 (20.0%) 92 (16.9%) 5 (18.8%) 6 (9.8%)
Very valued 172 (29.1%) 165 (30.4%) 7 (25.1%) 14 (25.3%)
Moderately valued 185 (31.3%) 170 (31.4%) 8 (29.8%) 15 (26.1%)
Not very valued 92 (15.6%) 85 (15.7%) 5 (17.4%) 10 (17.8%)
Not at all valued 23 (3.9%) 30 (5.6%) 3 (8.9%) 12 (21.0%)
Weighted Total 590 (100.0%) 541 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.46 3.37 3.28 2.85
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Your participation is valued,  
Table: Your participation is valued,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely valued 153 (19.9%) 29 (12.9%)
Very valued 248 (32.3%) 47 (20.4%)
Moderately valued 248 (32.3%) 67 (29.4%)
Not very valued 93 (12.0%) 58 (25.5%)
Not at all valued 26 (3.4%) 27 (11.8%)
Weighted Total 767 (100.0%) 229 (100.0%)
Mean 3.53 2.97
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Your participation is valued,  
Table: Your participation is valued,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely valued 157 (18.7%) 25 (15.8%)
Very valued 260 (31.0%) 35 (22.0%)
Moderately valued 268 (32.0%) 48 (30.0%)
Not very valued 119 (14.2%) 32 (20.2%)
Not at all valued 34 (4.1%) 19 (12.0%)
Weighted Total 836 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%)
Mean 3.46 3.09

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Your participation is valued,  

 

How respected do you feel by your department ?

Table: How respected do you feel,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Extremely respected 228 18.8%
Very respected 396 32.5%
Moderately respected 371 30.4%
Not very respected 157 12.8%
Not at all respected 66 5.4%
Weighted Total 1218 100.0%
Mean 3.46

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: How respected do you feel

Table: How respected do you feel,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely respected 104 (28.0%) 7 (15.1%) 76 (12.6%) 4 (16.7%) 28 (16.8%) 11 (79.5%)
Very respected 118 (32.0%) 7 (15.0%) 200 (33.2%) 6 (28.7%) 62 (37.3%) 3 (20.5%)
Moderately respected 85 (22.9%) 19 (44.1%) 210 (34.8%) 4 (19.8%) 52 (31.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Not very respected 49 (13.2%) 3 (7.5%) 80 (13.3%) 8 (34.7%) 17 (10.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Not at all respected 14 (3.9%) 8 (18.3%) 37 (6.2%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (3.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 370 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%) 604 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 165 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Mean 3.67 3.01 3.33 3.27 3.53 4.79
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How respected do you feel,  
Table: How respected do you feel,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely respected 118 (20.1%) 101 (18.6%) 6 (20.9%) 3 (5.8%)
Very respected 195 (33.1%) 183 (33.5%) 8 (29.1%) 10 (18.4%)
Moderately respected 168 (28.5%) 171 (31.3%) 8 (27.1%) 25 (44.1%)
Not very respected 72 (12.2%) 69 (12.7%) 3 (11.8%) 12 (21.2%)
Not at all respected 36 (6.1%) 21 (3.9%) 3 (11.1%) 6 (10.6%)
Weighted Total 589 (100.0%) 545 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.49 3.50 3.37 2.88
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How respected do you feel,  
Table: How respected do you feel,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely respected 180 (19.3%) 48 (17.0%)
Very respected 271 (28.9%) 126 (44.4%)
Moderately respected 295 (31.6%) 76 (26.8%)
Not very respected 133 (14.2%) 23 (8.2%)
Not at all respected 56 (6.0%) 10 (3.6%)
Weighted Total 935 (100.0%) 283 (100.0%)
Mean 3.41 3.63
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: How respected do you feel,  
Table: How respected do you feel,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely respected 166 (21.5%) 24 (10.4%)
Very respected 294 (38.1%) 48 (20.7%)
Moderately respected 205 (26.6%) 92 (40.0%)
Not very respected 79 (10.2%) 42 (18.2%)
Not at all respected 27 (3.5%) 24 (10.6%)
Weighted Total 770 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.64 3.02
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How respected do you feel,  
Table: How respected do you feel,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely respected 172 (20.5%) 17 (10.9%)
Very respected 309 (36.7%) 33 (20.5%)
Moderately respected 233 (27.7%) 64 (40.0%)
Not very respected 91 (10.8%) 30 (18.8%)
Not at all respected 36 (4.2%) 16 (9.9%)
Weighted Total 840 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%)
Mean 3.58 3.04

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How respected do you feel,  

 

To what extent do you have access to professional mentoring through your department ?

Table: Access to mentoring,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
The greatest amount of access 160 13.4%
A large amount of access 309 25.8%
A moderate amount of access 373 31.1%
Not very much access 242 20.2%
No access at all 112 9.4%
Weighted Total 1196 100.0%
Mean 3.14

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Access to mentoring

Table: Access to mentoring,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
The greatest amount of access 58 (16.4%) 3 (6.2%) 80 (13.2%) 6 (28.9%) 14 (8.5%) 0 (0.0%)
A large amount of access 79 (22.2%) 15 (33.1%) 172 (28.5%) 1 (6.0%) 33 (21.0%) 9 (64.1%)
A moderate amount of access 83 (23.2%) 11 (24.6%) 220 (36.4%) 3 (15.3%) 51 (32.4%) 5 (35.9%)
Not very much access 77 (21.6%) 13 (28.5%) 104 (17.2%) 10 (48.2%) 39 (24.5%) 0 (0.0%)
No access at all 59 (16.5%) 3 (7.4%) 28 (4.7%) 0 (1.6%) 22 (13.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 355 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%) 604 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Mean 3.00 3.02 3.28 3.12 2.86 3.64
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Access to mentoring,  
Table: Access to mentoring,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
The greatest amount of access 88 (15.2%) 62 (11.6%) 4 (14.7%) 6 (11.6%)
A large amount of access 157 (27.2%) 135 (25.1%) 9 (32.9%) 8 (15.0%)
A moderate amount of access 171 (29.6%) 178 (33.2%) 8 (29.7%) 16 (28.0%)
Not very much access 110 (19.2%) 110 (20.5%) 3 (11.4%) 18 (33.0%)
No access at all 51 (8.8%) 51 (9.6%) 3 (11.3%) 7 (12.4%)
Weighted Total 576 (100.0%) 537 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
Mean 3.21 3.09 3.28 2.80
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Access to mentoring,  
Table: Access to mentoring,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
The greatest amount of access 112 (12.3%) 48 (17.0%)
A large amount of access 222 (24.2%) 87 (31.0%)
A moderate amount of access 285 (31.1%) 88 (31.1%)
Not very much access 202 (22.1%) 40 (14.1%)
No access at all 93 (10.2%) 19 (6.7%)
Weighted Total 915 (100.0%) 281 (100.0%)
Mean 3.06 3.37
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Access to mentoring,  
Table: Access to mentoring,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
The greatest amount of access 120 (15.8%) 21 (9.4%)
A large amount of access 217 (28.7%) 40 (17.5%)
A moderate amount of access 227 (30.0%) 76 (33.2%)
Not very much access 129 (17.0%) 69 (30.2%)
No access at all 64 (8.5%) 22 (9.7%)
Weighted Total 758 (100.0%) 228 (100.0%)
Mean 3.26 2.87
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Access to mentoring,  
Table: Access to mentoring,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
The greatest amount of access 121 (14.7%) 20 (12.4%)
A large amount of access 227 (27.5%) 30 (18.7%)
A moderate amount of access 263 (31.8%) 40 (25.4%)
Not very much access 159 (19.2%) 39 (24.8%)
No access at all 57 (6.9%) 30 (18.8%)
Weighted Total 827 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
Mean 3.24 2.81

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Access to mentoring,  

 

 

Departmental Practices, Policies, and Processes

 

Faculty – In the past 12 months, from your perspective how fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?

Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?
Response Handling of complaints Recruitment policies and practices Promotion/Tenure reviews Annual reviews Salary decisions Allocation of space/equipment/research resources Access to faculty mentoring Access to research or conference resources Allocation of graduate students/teaching assistants Allocation of unit service requirements Recognition of scholarly achievements Recognition of teaching Recognition of service
Extremely fair & equitable 67 (34.8%) 93 (34.8%) 105 (45.6%) 99 (39.6%) 77 (31.7%) 84 (32.7%) 88 (35.9%) 93 (37.1%) 89 (37.4%) 71 (28.0%) 98 (35.3%) 83 (29.7%) 77 (27.4%)
Very fair & equitable 62 (32.1%) 100 (37.2%) 78 (33.7%) 89 (35.8%) 67 (27.8%) 91 (35.6%) 67 (27.2%) 87 (34.5%) 95 (39.6%) 63 (24.9%) 81 (29.1%) 87 (31.2%) 75 (26.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 26 (13.4%) 47 (17.6%) 26 (11.4%) 38 (15.4%) 51 (21.2%) 58 (22.6%) 37 (15.0%) 42 (16.9%) 33 (13.7%) 61 (24.1%) 44 (15.6%) 65 (23.4%) 61 (21.8%)
Not very fair & equitable 17 (9.0%) 14 (5.3%) 12 (5.1%) 14 (5.6%) 27 (11.1%) 17 (6.7%) 34 (13.9%) 14 (5.6%) 16 (6.5%) 41 (16.0%) 33 (11.9%) 26 (9.3%) 36 (12.8%)
Not at all fair & equitable 21 (10.7%) 14 (5.2%) 10 (4.2%) 9 (3.7%) 20 (8.2%) 6 (2.4%) 20 (8.1%) 15 (5.9%) 7 (2.7%) 17 (6.9%) 23 (8.1%) 18 (6.4%) 31 (11.2%)
Weighted Total 193 (100.0%) 269 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%) 250 (100.0%) 242 (100.0%) 256 (100.0%) 246 (100.0%) 251 (100.0%) 239 (100.0%) 254 (100.0%) 279 (100.0%) 278 (100.0%) 280 (100.0%)
Mean 3.71 3.91 4.11 4.02 3.64 3.90 3.69 3.91 4.02 3.51 3.72 3.68 3.46

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

Faculty - How fair and equitable are the following practices – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing faculty responses on how fair and equitable various practices are within their department

 

Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Promotion/Tenure reviews,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 77 (48.6%) 4 (22.8%)
Very fair & equitable 54 (34.0%) 7 (38.0%)
Moderately fair & equitable 18 (11.3%) 4 (19.8%)
Not very fair & equitable 5 (3.4%) 1 (5.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 5 (2.8%) 3 (14.5%)
Weighted Total 158 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%)
Mean 4.22 3.50
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Promotion or Tenure reviews 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Salary decisions,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 53 (33.7%) 4 (14.8%)
Very fair & equitable 50 (31.7%) 8 (33.2%)
Moderately fair & equitable 31 (19.5%) 5 (19.8%)
Not very fair & equitable 15 (9.6%) 4 (15.2%)
Not at all fair & equitable 9 (5.5%) 4 (17.1%)
Weighted Total 158 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%)
Mean 3.78 3.14
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Salary decisions 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Allocation of space/equipment/research resources,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 55 (32.3%) 4 (16.9%)
Very fair & equitable 64 (37.3%) 9 (32.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 43 (24.8%) 8 (31.2%)
Not very fair & equitable 7 (4.2%) 4 (16.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 2 (1.4%) 1 (3.4%)
Weighted Total 172 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
Mean 3.95 3.43
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Allocation of space or equipment or research resources 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Access to faculty mentoring,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 60 (36.8%) 4 (16.9%)
Very fair & equitable 51 (31.1%) 7 (28.7%)
Moderately fair & equitable 24 (14.5%) 6 (21.9%)
Not very fair & equitable 16 (9.6%) 6 (23.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (8.0%) 2 (9.2%)
Weighted Total 163 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%)
Mean 3.79 3.21
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Access to faculty mentoring 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Access to research or conference resources,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 63 (37.6%) 6 (23.4%)
Very fair & equitable 64 (38.4%) 6 (23.8%)
Moderately fair & equitable 23 (13.7%) 6 (22.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 9 (5.1%) 4 (16.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 9 (5.1%) 4 (14.4%)
Weighted Total 166 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
Mean 3.98 3.26
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Access to research or conference resources 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Allocation of graduate students/teaching assistants,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 63 (39.7%) 2 (9.2%)
Very fair & equitable 70 (44.1%) 9 (40.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 19 (11.7%) 5 (21.5%)
Not very fair & equitable 5 (2.9%) 4 (19.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 3 (1.7%) 2 (10.2%)
Weighted Total 160 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%)
Mean 4.17 3.19
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Allocation of graduate students or teaching assistants 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Allocation of unit service requirements,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 48 (27.8%) 2 (9.4%)
Very fair & equitable 50 (28.6%) 5 (19.0%)
Moderately fair & equitable 44 (25.3%) 9 (37.5%)
Not very fair & equitable 24 (13.8%) 4 (18.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 8 (4.5%) 4 (15.7%)
Weighted Total 173 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%)
Mean 3.61 2.88
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Allocation of unit service requirements 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Allocation of unit service requirements,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 47 (27.5%) 3 (12.7%)
Very fair & equitable 50 (29.3%) 4 (16.0%)
Moderately fair & equitable 45 (26.7%) 7 (27.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 19 (11.4%) 9 (33.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 9 (5.1%) 3 (10.7%)
Weighted Total 170 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
Mean 3.63 2.87
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Allocation of unit service requirements 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of teaching,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 53 (28.0%) 5 (19.4%)
Very fair & equitable 70 (36.8%) 5 (19.7%)
Moderately fair & equitable 42 (22.0%) 13 (46.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 17 (8.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 9 (4.5%) 4 (14.6%)
Weighted Total 189 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%)
Mean 3.75 3.29
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of teaching 
Table: Faculty - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of service,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 51 (27.4%) 4 (13.7%)
Very fair & equitable 59 (31.4%) 6 (21.0%)
Moderately fair & equitable 41 (22.1%) 7 (26.2%)
Not very fair & equitable 20 (10.6%) 5 (18.7%)
Not at all fair & equitable 16 (8.5%) 5 (20.3%)
Weighted Total 187 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%)
Mean 3.59 2.89

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Faculty - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of service 

 

Staff – In the past 12 months, from your perspective how fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?

Table: Staff - How fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?
Response Handling of complaints Annual reviews or feedback Promotion decisions Salary decisions Allocation of space/equipment Access to staff mentoring Access to conference funding/training opportunities Recognition of scholarly achievements Recognition of teaching achievements Recognition of departmental service
Extremely fair & equitable 18 (17.0%) 35 (28.5%) 18 (16.2%) 17 (15.1%) 33 (23.8%) 27 (23.9%) 32 (23.6%) 24 (24.0%) 25 (29.6%) 32 (22.2%)
Very fair & equitable 26 (25.3%) 43 (34.5%) 24 (22.0%) 23 (19.7%) 45 (32.4%) 31 (27.9%) 44 (32.0%) 34 (33.9%) 31 (37.0%) 33 (23.4%)
Moderately fair & equitable 28 (26.6%) 25 (20.5%) 32 (28.8%) 31 (27.1%) 34 (24.5%) 21 (19.0%) 29 (21.3%) 33 (33.1%) 15 (18.4%) 45 (31.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 24 (22.7%) 13 (10.5%) 29 (26.7%) 25 (22.0%) 20 (14.1%) 23 (20.4%) 21 (15.6%) 8 (8.2%) 10 (11.6%) 20 (14.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 9 (8.5%) 8 (6.0%) 7 (6.4%) 19 (16.1%) 7 (5.2%) 10 (8.7%) 10 (7.5%) 1 (0.9%) 3 (3.4%) 13 (9.2%)
Weighted Total 104 (100.0%) 124 (100.0%) 110 (100.0%) 116 (100.0%) 139 (100.0%) 111 (100.0%) 136 (100.0%) 100 (100.0%) 84 (100.0%) 143 (100.0%)
Mean 3.20 3.69 3.15 2.96 3.55 3.38 3.49 3.72 3.78 3.35

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

Staff - How fair and equitable are the following practices – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing staff responses on how fair and equitable various practices are within their department

 

Table: Staff - How fair and equitable is:
Salary decisions,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 11 (13.7%) 1 (5.9%)
Very fair & equitable 19 (23.8%) 1 (5.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 27 (35.0%) 2 (9.8%)
Not very fair & equitable 12 (15.9%) 8 (41.6%)
Not at all fair & equitable 9 (11.7%) 7 (37.5%)
Weighted Total 78 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%)
Mean 3.12 2.00
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Staff - How fair and equitable is: Salary decisions 
Table: Staff - How fair and equitable is:
Access to staff mentoring,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 23 (21.4%) 4 (73.0%)
Very fair & equitable 30 (28.5%) 1 (15.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 21 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Not very fair & equitable 22 (20.9%) 1 (11.1%)
Not at all fair & equitable 10 (9.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 106 (100.0%) 5 (100.0%)
Mean 3.32 4.51
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Staff - How fair and equitable is: Access to staff mentoring 
Table: Staff - How fair and equitable is:
Access to conference funding/training opportunities,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 25 (28.8%) 3 (12.0%)
Very fair & equitable 31 (35.2%) 6 (25.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 23 (26.7%) 4 (19.5%)
Not very fair & equitable 5 (5.4%) 10 (43.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 3 (3.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 87 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%)
Mean 3.80 3.06
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Staff - How fair and equitable is: Access to conference funding or training opportunities 
Table: Staff - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of scholarly achievements,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 18 (30.6%) 1 (6.1%)
Very fair & equitable 23 (38.4%) 5 (30.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 15 (26.1%) 8 (50.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 2 (4.2%) 2 (10.1%)
Not at all fair & equitable 0 (0.8%) 0 (3.0%)
Weighted Total 59 (100.0%) 16 (100.0%)
Mean 3.94 3.27

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Staff - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of scholarly achievements 

 

Postdocs – In the past 12 months, from your perspective how fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?

Table: Postdocs - How fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?
Response Handling of complaints Annual reviews or feedback on research progress Allocation of space/equipment Access to faculty mentoring Access to research resources/conference funding Recognition of scholarly achievements Recognition of teaching achievements Recognition of departmental service
Extremely fair & equitable 0 (5.1%) 1 (15.7%) 8 (62.7%) 1 (12.1%) 2 (15.2%) 1 (10.9%)
Very fair & equitable 0 (5.1%) 2 (19.6%) 2 (18.7%) 1 (12.1%) 9 (64.6%) 9 (69.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 1 (15.4%) 6 (64.7%) 2 (16.0%) 2 (17.1%) 3 (20.2%) 2 (19.2%)
Not very fair & equitable 5 (74.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (2.7%) 6 (49.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 7 (100.0%) 9 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 13 (100.0%)
Mean 2.41 3.51 4.41 2.68 3.95 3.92

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

Postdocs - How fair and equitable are the following practices – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing postdocs' responses on how fair and equitable various practices are within their department

 

 

Graduate Students – In the past 12 months, from your perspective how fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?

Table: Graduate Students - How fair and equitable do you feel the following practices or processes have been in your department?
Response Handling of complaints Graduate student recruitment policies and practices Annual reviews or feedback on research progress Graduate student assignments and funding Allocation of space/equipment Access to faculty mentoring Access to research resources/conference funding Recognition of scholarly achievements Recognition of teaching achievements Recognition of departmental service
Extremely fair & equitable 50 (15.1%) 71 (19.5%) 88 (22.4%) 84 (17.9%) 93 (22.1%) 110 (23.4%) 88 (20.9%) 93 (22.3%) 82 (22.7%) 71 (18.9%)
Very fair & equitable 55 (16.5%) 124 (33.9%) 129 (32.9%) 140 (30.0%) 144 (34.2%) 129 (27.4%) 156 (36.7%) 122 (29.2%) 116 (32.2%) 95 (25.3%)
Moderately fair & equitable 69 (21.0%) 98 (26.7%) 96 (24.6%) 123 (26.2%) 110 (26.1%) 103 (21.8%) 105 (24.8%) 133 (31.8%) 94 (26.0%) 112 (29.9%)
Not very fair & equitable 81 (24.3%) 40 (10.9%) 48 (12.2%) 66 (14.0%) 47 (11.3%) 89 (18.9%) 45 (10.5%) 45 (10.7%) 45 (12.4%) 56 (15.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 76 (23.1%) 33 (9.0%) 31 (8.0%) 56 (11.9%) 26 (6.3%) 41 (8.6%) 30 (7.1%) 25 (6.1%) 24 (6.7%) 41 (10.8%)
Weighted Total 331 (100.0%) 367 (100.0%) 393 (100.0%) 469 (100.0%) 420 (100.0%) 471 (100.0%) 424 (100.0%) 419 (100.0%) 361 (100.0%) 375 (100.0%)
Mean 2.76 3.44 3.49 3.28 3.55 3.38 3.54 3.51 3.52 3.27

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

Graduate Students - How fair and equitable are the following practices – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts comparing graduate students' responses on how fair and equitable various practices are within their department

 

Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Handling of complaints,
in your department
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 32 (20.5%) 14 (9.9%) 2 (37.1%) 1 (4.4%)
Very fair & equitable 26 (16.4%) 28 (19.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 33 (21.0%) 33 (22.9%) 1 (11.4%) 3 (11.5%)
Not very fair & equitable 31 (19.6%) 40 (28.1%) 1 (21.6%) 8 (34.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 36 (22.5%) 28 (19.6%) 2 (29.9%) 11 (46.8%)
Weighted Total 159 (100.0%) 142 (100.0%) 6 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%)
Mean 2.93 2.72 2.93 1.84
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Handling of complaints 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Handling of complaints,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 22 (10.8%) 28 (21.5%)
Very fair & equitable 22 (10.9%) 33 (24.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 41 (20.8%) 28 (21.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 55 (27.5%) 26 (19.6%)
Not at all fair & equitable 60 (30.0%) 17 (12.7%)
Weighted Total 199 (100.0%) 132 (100.0%)
Mean 2.45 3.23
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Handling of complaints 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Handling of complaints,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 41 (20.4%) 6 (5.8%)
Very fair & equitable 44 (21.6%) 9 (8.3%)
Moderately fair & equitable 41 (20.3%) 21 (19.7%)
Not very fair & equitable 40 (19.5%) 37 (34.9%)
Not at all fair & equitable 37 (18.1%) 33 (31.2%)
Weighted Total 203 (100.0%) 105 (100.0%)
Mean 3.07 2.23
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Handling of complaints 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Handling of complaints,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 45 (17.6%) 2 (4.8%)
Very fair & equitable 51 (19.8%) 2 (3.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 57 (22.2%) 5 (9.7%)
Not very fair & equitable 62 (24.3%) 14 (27.4%)
Not at all fair & equitable 41 (16.2%) 28 (54.6%)
Weighted Total 256 (100.0%) 51 (100.0%)
Mean 2.98 1.76
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Handling of complaints 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Graduate student recruitment policies and practices,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 32 (14.1%) 40 (28.0%)
Very fair & equitable 71 (31.5%) 53 (37.8%)
Moderately fair & equitable 71 (31.7%) 27 (18.8%)
Not very fair & equitable 27 (11.9%) 13 (9.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 24 (10.8%) 9 (6.1%)
Weighted Total 225 (100.0%) 142 (100.0%)
Mean 3.26 3.72
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Graduate student recruitment policies and practices 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Graduate student recruitment policies and practices,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 54 (22.2%) 13 (15.2%)
Very fair & equitable 91 (37.4%) 22 (25.2%)
Moderately fair & equitable 65 (26.5%) 21 (24.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 21 (8.5%) 16 (17.9%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (5.4%) 16 (17.5%)
Weighted Total 245 (100.0%) 88 (100.0%)
Mean 3.62 3.03
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Graduate student recruitment policies and practices 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Graduate student recruitment policies and practices,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 61 (22.4%) 6 (10.7%)
Very fair & equitable 104 (38.2%) 10 (15.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 64 (23.5%) 22 (36.4%)
Not very fair & equitable 27 (9.9%) 10 (16.1%)
Not at all fair & equitable 16 (5.9%) 13 (20.8%)
Weighted Total 272 (100.0%) 61 (100.0%)
Mean 3.61 2.80
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Graduate student recruitment policies and practices 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Annual reviews or feedback on research progress,
in your department
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 52 (27.7%) 30 (17.5%) 3 (35.9%) 3 (12.3%)
Very fair & equitable 69 (36.6%) 55 (32.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (20.0%)
Moderately fair & equitable 36 (19.1%) 47 (27.7%) 3 (39.0%) 11 (38.5%)
Not very fair & equitable 15 (8.1%) 27 (15.9%) 2 (25.1%) 4 (12.9%)
Not at all fair & equitable 16 (8.4%) 11 (6.6%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (16.3%)
Weighted Total 188 (100.0%) 170 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%)
Mean 3.67 3.38 3.47 2.99
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Annual reviews or feedback on research progress 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Annual reviews or feedback on research progress,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 48 (20.1%) 39 (26.0%)
Very fair & equitable 70 (29.0%) 59 (39.2%)
Moderately fair & equitable 61 (25.3%) 35 (23.4%)
Not very fair & equitable 39 (16.2%) 9 (5.7%)
Not at all fair & equitable 23 (9.5%) 9 (5.6%)
Weighted Total 242 (100.0%) 151 (100.0%)
Mean 3.34 3.74
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Annual reviews or feedback on research progress 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Annual reviews or feedback on research progress,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 63 (25.7%) 17 (16.2%)
Very fair & equitable 93 (38.1%) 25 (23.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 55 (22.6%) 28 (26.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 20 (8.3%) 24 (22.1%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (5.4%) 13 (12.5%)
Weighted Total 245 (100.0%) 107 (100.0%)
Mean 3.70 3.08
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Annual reviews or feedback on research progress 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Annual reviews or feedback on research progress,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 73 (25.1%) 7 (11.7%)
Very fair & equitable 106 (36.2%) 13 (20.6%)
Moderately fair & equitable 71 (24.4%) 12 (20.0%)
Not very fair & equitable 26 (8.8%) 18 (30.2%)
Not at all fair & equitable 16 (5.5%) 11 (17.5%)
Weighted Total 292 (100.0%) 61 (100.0%)
Mean 3.67 2.79
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Annual reviews or feedback on research progress 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Graduate student assignments and funding,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 40 (14.2%) 44 (23.4%)
Very fair & equitable 86 (30.5%) 54 (29.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 78 (27.8%) 45 (23.9%)
Not very fair & equitable 41 (14.5%) 25 (13.2%)
Not at all fair & equitable 37 (13.1%) 19 (10.3%)
Weighted Total 283 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
Mean 3.18 3.42
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Graduate student assignments and funding 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Graduate student assignments and funding,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 62 (20.8%) 15 (12.1%)
Very fair & equitable 97 (32.6%) 24 (20.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 76 (25.4%) 37 (30.4%)
Not very fair & equitable 35 (11.8%) 24 (19.9%)
Not at all fair & equitable 28 (9.5%) 21 (17.4%)
Weighted Total 298 (100.0%) 121 (100.0%)
Mean 3.43 2.90
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Graduate student assignments and funding 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Graduate student assignments and funding,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 71 (20.3%) 6 (8.4%)
Very fair & equitable 105 (30.1%) 16 (23.0%)
Moderately fair & equitable 97 (27.8%) 15 (22.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 50 (14.3%) 9 (13.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 26 (7.5%) 23 (33.0%)
Weighted Total 349 (100.0%) 70 (100.0%)
Mean 3.41 2.61
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Graduate student assignments and funding 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Allocation of space/equipment,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 66 (25.1%) 16 (13.8%)
Very fair & equitable 91 (34.8%) 39 (34.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 70 (26.5%) 30 (26.3%)
Not very fair & equitable 23 (8.7%) 19 (16.4%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (4.8%) 10 (9.0%)
Weighted Total 262 (100.0%) 113 (100.0%)
Mean 3.67 3.28
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Allocation of space or equipment 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Allocation of space/equipment,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 73 (23.3%) 9 (13.9%)
Very fair & equitable 114 (36.5%) 17 (26.3%)
Moderately fair & equitable 79 (25.3%) 21 (31.9%)
Not very fair & equitable 30 (9.6%) 11 (17.6%)
Not at all fair & equitable 16 (5.2%) 7 (10.3%)
Weighted Total 311 (100.0%) 65 (100.0%)
Mean 3.63 3.16
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Allocation of space or equipment 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to faculty mentoring,
in your department
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 63 (27.5%) 36 (18.6%) 4 (38.0%) 7 (19.0%)
Very fair & equitable 69 (30.2%) 50 (25.3%) 2 (15.8%) 8 (23.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 46 (19.9%) 49 (25.0%) 2 (17.3%) 6 (17.7%)
Not very fair & equitable 35 (15.3%) 46 (23.3%) 3 (29.0%) 5 (14.7%)
Not at all fair & equitable 16 (7.1%) 15 (7.8%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (25.2%)
Weighted Total 230 (100.0%) 196 (100.0%) 10 (100.0%) 36 (100.0%)
Mean 3.56 3.24 3.63 2.97
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to faculty mentoring 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to faculty mentoring,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 59 (20.7%) 51 (27.5%)
Very fair & equitable 63 (22.1%) 66 (35.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 68 (23.7%) 35 (18.8%)
Not very fair & equitable 70 (24.2%) 19 (10.5%)
Not at all fair & equitable 26 (9.2%) 14 (7.7%)
Weighted Total 287 (100.0%) 185 (100.0%)
Mean 3.21 3.65
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to faculty mentoring 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to faculty mentoring,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 84 (28.6%) 21 (15.4%)
Very fair & equitable 89 (30.3%) 31 (22.7%)
Moderately fair & equitable 65 (22.1%) 24 (18.0%)
Not very fair & equitable 42 (14.1%) 34 (25.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 15 (4.9%) 25 (19.0%)
Weighted Total 295 (100.0%) 134 (100.0%)
Mean 3.64 2.90
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to faculty mentoring 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to faculty mentoring,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 94 (27.0%) 11 (13.3%)
Very fair & equitable 105 (30.2%) 15 (18.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 79 (22.7%) 10 (12.6%)
Not very fair & equitable 48 (13.9%) 27 (33.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 21 (6.1%) 19 (23.0%)
Weighted Total 349 (100.0%) 81 (100.0%)
Mean 3.58 2.66
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to faculty mentoring 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to research resources/conference funding,
in your department
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 50 (24.6%) 33 (17.6%) 2 (28.4%) 4 (13.6%)
Very fair & equitable 79 (39.1%) 69 (37.5%) 1 (8.7%) 7 (23.2%)
Moderately fair & equitable 45 (22.2%) 49 (26.4%) 3 (35.6%) 8 (29.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 15 (7.4%) 22 (12.1%) 2 (22.9%) 5 (18.5%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (6.7%) 12 (6.3%) 0 (4.4%) 5 (15.7%)
Weighted Total 201 (100.0%) 185 (100.0%) 8 (100.0%) 29 (100.0%)
Mean 3.68 3.48 3.34 3.00
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to research resources or conference funding 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to research resources/conference funding,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 67 (26.1%) 12 (10.8%)
Very fair & equitable 110 (42.6%) 32 (28.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 53 (20.4%) 36 (31.9%)
Not very fair & equitable 16 (6.0%) 19 (16.6%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (5.0%) 14 (12.7%)
Weighted Total 259 (100.0%) 113 (100.0%)
Mean 3.79 3.08
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to research resources or conference funding 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Access to research resources/conference funding,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 70 (23.2%) 9 (13.6%)
Very fair & equitable 123 (40.5%) 19 (27.7%)
Moderately fair & equitable 74 (24.3%) 15 (22.0%)
Not very fair & equitable 21 (7.1%) 13 (18.8%)
Not at all fair & equitable 15 (5.0%) 12 (17.9%)
Weighted Total 304 (100.0%) 68 (100.0%)
Mean 3.70 3.00
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Access to research resources or conference funding 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of scholarly achievements,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 48 (18.7%) 45 (28.3%)
Very fair & equitable 70 (27.2%) 52 (32.4%)
Moderately fair & equitable 84 (32.4%) 49 (30.6%)
Not very fair & equitable 37 (14.2%) 8 (5.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 19 (7.5%) 6 (3.7%)
Weighted Total 259 (100.0%) 160 (100.0%)
Mean 3.35 3.76
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of scholarly achievements 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of scholarly achievements,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 69 (26.4%) 17 (15.7%)
Very fair & equitable 87 (33.2%) 27 (24.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 78 (29.8%) 34 (30.7%)
Not very fair & equitable 14 (5.5%) 22 (19.5%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (5.1%) 11 (9.6%)
Weighted Total 261 (100.0%) 111 (100.0%)
Mean 3.70 3.17
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of scholarly achievements 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of scholarly achievements,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 79 (25.6%) 7 (11.0%)
Very fair & equitable 104 (33.7%) 9 (15.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 89 (28.8%) 23 (36.7%)
Not very fair & equitable 24 (7.7%) 12 (19.8%)
Not at all fair & equitable 13 (4.2%) 11 (17.5%)
Weighted Total 310 (100.0%) 62 (100.0%)
Mean 3.69 2.82
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of scholarly achievements 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of teaching achievements,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 58 (25.6%) 18 (17.3%)
Very fair & equitable 80 (35.2%) 20 (19.7%)
Moderately fair & equitable 54 (23.8%) 35 (34.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 24 (10.5%) 19 (18.3%)
Not at all fair & equitable 11 (4.9%) 11 (10.6%)
Weighted Total 227 (100.0%) 102 (100.0%)
Mean 3.66 3.15
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of teaching achievements 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of teaching achievements,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 70 (25.7%) 6 (10.0%)
Very fair & equitable 87 (31.6%) 13 (24.2%)
Moderately fair & equitable 71 (26.0%) 18 (32.0%)
Not very fair & equitable 32 (11.6%) 11 (19.5%)
Not at all fair & equitable 14 (5.1%) 8 (14.3%)
Weighted Total 274 (100.0%) 55 (100.0%)
Mean 3.61 2.96
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of teaching achievements 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of departmental service,
in your department
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 22 (14.7%) 8 (37.8%) 4 (7.9%)
Very fair & equitable 29 (19.2%) 5 (23.0%) 10 (20.5%)
Moderately fair & equitable 43 (28.1%) 6 (26.2%) 19 (40.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 34 (22.2%) 1 (4.8%) 8 (16.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 24 (15.8%) 2 (8.2%) 7 (15.4%)
Weighted Total 152 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 47 (100.0%)
Mean 2.95 3.78 2.89
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of departmental service 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of departmental service,
in your department
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 34 (15.5%) 37 (23.9%)
Very fair & equitable 44 (19.9%) 51 (33.1%)
Moderately fair & equitable 68 (30.5%) 45 (29.1%)
Not very fair & equitable 42 (19.2%) 14 (9.0%)
Not at all fair & equitable 33 (14.9%) 7 (4.9%)
Weighted Total 221 (100.0%) 154 (100.0%)
Mean 3.02 3.62
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of departmental service 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of departmental service,
in your department
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 52 (21.9%) 14 (13.9%)
Very fair & equitable 72 (30.3%) 11 (10.3%)
Moderately fair & equitable 71 (30.2%) 30 (29.0%)
Not very fair & equitable 24 (10.2%) 27 (26.7%)
Not at all fair & equitable 17 (7.3%) 21 (20.1%)
Weighted Total 236 (100.0%) 103 (100.0%)
Mean 3.49 2.71
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of departmental service 
Table: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is:
Recognition of departmental service,
in your department
Rating by Disability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely fair & equitable 61 (21.7%) 5 (8.7%)
Very fair & equitable 79 (28.1%) 3 (5.9%)
Moderately fair & equitable 82 (29.4%) 19 (32.2%)
Not very fair & equitable 36 (12.9%) 16 (26.4%)
Not at all fair & equitable 22 (7.9%) 16 (26.8%)
Weighted Total 280 (100.0%) 59 (100.0%)
Mean 3.43 2.43

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Graduate students - How fair and equitable is: Recognition of departmental service 

 

If you experience unequal or unfair treatment in your department, how confident are you that you can file a complaint or grievance without negative consequences for you?

Table: Confidence to file a complaint,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Extremely confident 230 19.4%
Very confident 271 22.9%
Moderately confident 297 25.1%
Not very confident 246 20.7%
Not confident at all 142 11.9%
Weighted Total 1187 100.0%
Mean 3.17

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Confidence to file a complaint

Table: Confidence to file a complaint,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Extremely confident 100 (27.8%) 8 (18.4%) 86 (14.7%) 4 (20.4%) 29 (17.7%) 3 (20.5%)
Very confident 91 (25.4%) 5 (11.2%) 121 (20.7%) 4 (17.7%) 45 (28.0%) 5 (35.9%)
Moderately confident 71 (19.8%) 9 (20.3%) 156 (26.5%) 3 (13.9%) 53 (32.6%) 6 (43.6%)
Not very confident 60 (16.7%) 12 (27.2%) 138 (23.5%) 9 (43.2%) 27 (16.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Not confident at all 37 (10.2%) 10 (22.8%) 86 (14.6%) 1 (4.8%) 8 (5.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 360 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%) 587 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 161 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Mean 3.44 2.75 2.97 3.06 3.37 3.77
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Confidence to file a complaint,  
Table: Confidence to file a complaint,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Extremely confident 139 (24.3%) 81 (15.3%) 6 (20.7%) 4 (6.6%)
Very confident 127 (22.2%) 129 (24.4%) 8 (27.5%) 7 (13.2%)
Moderately confident 151 (26.3%) 133 (25.0%) 5 (18.5%) 9 (16.0%)
Not very confident 106 (18.5%) 126 (23.7%) 3 (11.9%) 11 (18.9%)
Not confident at all 49 (8.6%) 61 (11.5%) 6 (21.5%) 26 (45.5%)
Weighted Total 572 (100.0%) 530 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.35 3.08 3.14 2.17
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Confidence to file a complaint,  
Table: Confidence to file a complaint,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Extremely confident 173 (22.5%) 26 (11.5%)
Very confident 199 (25.9%) 32 (13.8%)
Moderately confident 203 (26.5%) 51 (22.3%)
Not very confident 138 (17.9%) 64 (27.9%)
Not confident at all 56 (7.2%) 57 (24.6%)
Weighted Total 768 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.39 2.60
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Confidence to file a complaint,  
Table: Confidence to file a complaint,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Extremely confident 180 (21.4%) 19 (12.0%)
Very confident 205 (24.4%) 26 (16.4%)
Moderately confident 224 (26.7%) 31 (19.4%)
Not very confident 164 (19.5%) 38 (23.8%)
Not confident at all 67 (8.0%) 45 (28.5%)
Weighted Total 839 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
Mean 3.32 2.60

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Confidence to file a complaint,  

Have your experiences in your department made you feel more certain or less certain about your professional future?

Table: Certainty about future,
Overall Rating
Ratings N Percent
Made me much more certain about my professional future 323 27.1%
A bit more certain 319 26.7%
No effect 234 19.6%
A bit less certain 161 13.5%
Made me much less certain about my professional future 156 13.1%
Weighted Total 1193 100.0%
Mean 3.41

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of the answers to the question: Certainty about future

Table: Certainty about future,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Made me much more certain about my professional future 140 (39.0%) 15 (35.2%) 103 (17.4%) 8 (34.5%) 48 (29.5%) 9 (64.1%)
A bit more certain 61 (17.0%) 11 (24.3%) 200 (33.7%) 4 (17.8%) 41 (25.2%) 2 (17.9%)
No effect 78 (21.6%) 4 (10.0%) 103 (17.3%) 1 (4.7%) 46 (28.2%) 2 (17.9%)
A bit less certain 40 (11.1%) 5 (10.8%) 95 (16.0%) 5 (20.4%) 17 (10.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Made me much less certain about my professional future 40 (11.2%) 8 (19.6%) 92 (15.6%) 5 (22.7%) 10 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 360 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%) 592 (100.0%) 22 (100.0%) 163 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Mean 3.62 3.45 3.21 3.21 3.61 4.46
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Certainty about future,  
Table: Certainty about future,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Made me much more certain about my professional future 172 (29.9%) 137 (25.6%) 8 (27.3%) 7 (11.8%)
A bit more certain 146 (25.4%) 151 (28.2%) 11 (38.4%) 11 (19.8%)
No effect 113 (19.6%) 110 (20.6%) 3 (9.6%) 9 (15.6%)
A bit less certain 69 (12.0%) 78 (14.6%) 3 (8.9%) 12 (21.6%)
Made me much less certain about my professional future 75 (13.1%) 59 (11.0%) 4 (15.7%) 18 (31.3%)
Weighted Total 574 (100.0%) 535 (100.0%) 28 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%)
Mean 3.47 3.43 3.53 2.59
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Certainty about future,  
Table: Certainty about future,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Made me much more certain about my professional future 237 (30.8%) 33 (14.4%)
A bit more certain 223 (29.0%) 63 (27.5%)
No effect 149 (19.4%) 35 (15.4%)
A bit less certain 85 (11.1%) 47 (20.6%)
Made me much less certain about my professional future 74 (9.6%) 51 (22.1%)
Weighted Total 769 (100.0%) 230 (100.0%)
Mean 3.60 2.92
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Certainty about future,  
Table: Certainty about future,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Made me much more certain about my professional future 245 (29.1%) 25 (15.9%)
A bit more certain 247 (29.3%) 40 (25.3%)
No effect 162 (19.3%) 22 (14.1%)
A bit less certain 96 (11.5%) 36 (22.7%)
Made me much less certain about my professional future 90 (10.7%) 35 (22.0%)
Weighted Total 840 (100.0%) 159 (100.0%)
Mean 3.55 2.90

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Certainty about future,  

 

Do you believe that you have been denied the same opportunities in your department as someone else because you are a member of any of the following marginalized groups, identities, or intersections of identities?

Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in:
Response Racial identity Ethnic identity Gender, gender identity, or gender expression Sexual orientation International status Religious identity Disability or need for accommodation Economic status Level of education attained
No 932 (95.7%) 943 (96.5%) 907 (92.6%) 952 (97.4%) 935 (94.4%) 975 (99.0%) 944 (96.4%) 944 (96.2%) 940 (96.1%)
Yes 42 (4.3%) 34 (3.5%) 73 (7.4%) 26 (2.6%) 56 (5.6%) 9 (1.0%) 36 (3.6%) 37 (3.8%) 38 (3.9%)
Weighted Total 974 (100.0%) 977 (100.0%) 980 (100.0%) 978 (100.0%) 991 (100.0%) 984 (100.0%) 979 (100.0%) 981 (100.0%) 978 (100.0%)

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities – Bar Chart

A group of stack bar charts identifying whether the respondents feel they have been denied of opportunities because of their identities

 

Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Racial identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 289 (96.9%) 30 (88.2%) 449 (94.6%) 12 (100.0%) 138 (98.0%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 9 (3.1%) 4 (11.8%) 26 (5.4%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 298 (100.0%) 34 (100.0%) 475 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%) 141 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Racial identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Racial identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 468 (95.5%) 407 (96.7%) 16 (80.8%) 42 (94.8%)
Yes 22 (4.5%) 14 (3.3%) 4 (19.2%) 2 (5.2%)
Weighted Total 490 (100.0%) 421 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Racial identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Racial identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 578 (98.9%) 55 (91.3%) 107 (88.9%)
Yes 6 (1.1%) 5 (8.7%) 13 (11.1%)
Weighted Total 584 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 121 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Racial identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Racial identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 740 (96.7%) 192 (91.9%)
Yes 25 (3.3%) 17 (8.1%)
Weighted Total 765 (100.0%) 209 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Racial identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Racial identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 632 (97.3%) 177 (93.2%)
Yes 17 (2.7%) 13 (6.8%)
Weighted Total 649 (100.0%) 190 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Racial identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Racial identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 689 (97.2%) 120 (91.9%)
Yes 19 (2.8%) 11 (8.1%)
Weighted Total 709 (100.0%) 131 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Racial identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 287 (96.3%) 30 (96.1%) 456 (96.0%) 17 (100.0%) 139 (98.1%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 11 (3.7%) 1 (3.9%) 19 (4.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 298 (100.0%) 31 (100.0%) 475 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 142 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Ethnic identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 474 (96.0%) 411 (97.6%) 17 (93.0%) 41 (94.0%)
Yes 20 (4.0%) 10 (2.4%) 1 (7.0%) 3 (6.0%)
Weighted Total 494 (100.0%) 421 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Ethnic identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 580 (99.1%) 58 (95.3%) 106 (89.2%)
Yes 5 (0.9%) 3 (4.7%) 13 (10.8%)
Weighted Total 586 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 119 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Ethnic identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Ethnic identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 744 (97.3%) 199 (93.9%)
Yes 21 (2.7%) 13 (6.1%)
Weighted Total 765 (100.0%) 212 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Ethnic identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Ethnic identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 648 (98.3%) 176 (95.1%)
Yes 11 (1.7%) 9 (4.9%)
Weighted Total 659 (100.0%) 185 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Ethnic identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Ethnic identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 705 (98.1%) 120 (95.1%)
Yes 14 (1.9%) 6 (4.9%)
Weighted Total 718 (100.0%) 126 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Ethnic identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 268 (90.1%) 30 (90.5%) 450 (93.8%) 17 (100.0%) 128 (92.5%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 30 (9.9%) 3 (9.5%) 30 (6.2%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (7.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 297 (100.0%) 33 (100.0%) 480 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 139 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 475 (97.5%) 381 (89.3%) 18 (83.7%) 33 (74.3%)
Yes 12 (2.5%) 45 (10.7%) 4 (16.3%) 12 (25.7%)
Weighted Total 487 (100.0%) 426 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 45 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 537 (92.2%) 57 (93.7%) 108 (90.8%)
Yes 46 (7.8%) 4 (6.3%) 11 (9.2%)
Weighted Total 582 (100.0%) 61 (100.0%) 119 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 702 (92.1%) 205 (94.3%)
Yes 61 (7.9%) 12 (5.7%)
Weighted Total 763 (100.0%) 217 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 630 (94.8%) 161 (86.2%)
Yes 34 (5.1%) 26 (13.8%)
Weighted Total 664 (100.0%) 187 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 680 (94.3%) 110 (85.2%)
Yes 41 (5.7%) 19 (14.8%)
Weighted Total 721 (100.0%) 130 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Gender, gender identity, or gender expression 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 291 (98.3%) 28 (86.9%) 467 (97.2%) 16 (94.0%) 137 (98.6%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 5 (1.7%) 4 (13.1%) 14 (2.8%) 1 (6.0%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 296 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%) 481 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 139 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Sexual orientation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 483 (98.4%) 419 (98.8%) 17 (90.7%) 33 (75.1%)
Yes 8 (1.6%) 5 (1.2%) 2 (9.3%) 11 (24.9%)
Weighted Total 491 (100.0%) 424 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 44 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Sexual orientation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 567 (97.2%) 56 (100.0%) 119 (97.5%)
Yes 16 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.5%)
Weighted Total 583 (100.0%) 56 (100.0%) 122 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Sexual orientation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Sexual orientation
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 743 (97.5%) 210 (97.1%)
Yes 19 (2.5%) 6 (2.9%)
Weighted Total 762 (100.0%) 216 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Sexual orientation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Sexual orientation
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 666 (100.0%) 159 (87.0%)
Yes 0 (0.0%) 24 (13.0%)
Weighted Total 666 (100.0%) 182 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Sexual orientation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Sexual orientation
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 708 (98.3%) 116 (90.9%)
Yes 12 (1.7%) 12 (9.1%)
Weighted Total 720 (100.0%) 128 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Sexual orientation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
International status
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 288 (96.8%) 30 (92.5%) 451 (92.5%) 12 (67.5%) 142 (98.9%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 9 (3.2%) 2 (7.4%) 36 (7.5%) 6 (32.5%) 2 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 297 (100.0%) 33 (100.0%) 487 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 143 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: International status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
International status
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 463 (92.8%) 412 (96.1%) 18 (84.8%) 43 (100.0%)
Yes 36 (7.2%) 17 (3.9%) 3 (15.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 499 (100.0%) 428 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: International status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
International status
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 582 (98.9%) 58 (95.3%) 121 (99.2%)
Yes 7 (1.1%) 3 (4.7%) 1 (0.8%)
Weighted Total 588 (100.0%) 61 (100.0%) 122 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: International status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
International status
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 761 (98.6%) 174 (79.5%)
Yes 11 (1.4%) 45 (20.4%)
Weighted Total 772 (100.0%) 219 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: International status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
International status
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 633 (94.1%) 178 (94.7%)
Yes 40 (5.9%) 10 (5.3%)
Weighted Total 672 (100.0%) 188 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: International status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
International status
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 685 (94.0%) 125 (95.3%)
Yes 44 (6.0%) 6 (4.7%)
Weighted Total 729 (100.0%) 131 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: International status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Religious identity
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 296 (99.0%) 32 (100.0%) 474 (98.7%) 17 (100.0%) 142 (99.8%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 3 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (1.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 299 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%) 480 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 142 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Religious identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Religious identity
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 487 (99.0%) 425 (99.0%) 20 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
Yes 5 (1.0%) 4 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 492 (100.0%) 430 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Religious identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Religious identity
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 582 (99.3%) 60 (100.0%) 122 (98.5%)
Yes 4 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%)
Weighted Total 586 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 123 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Religious identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Religious identity
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 764 (99.2%) 211 (98.4%)
Yes 6 (0.8%) 4 (1.6%)
Weighted Total 770 (100.0%) 215 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Religious identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Religious identity
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 666 (99.5%) 182 (97.6%)
Yes 3 (0.5%) 4 (2.4%)
Weighted Total 669 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Religious identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Religious identity
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 726 (99.7%) 122 (96.0%)
Yes 2 (0.3%) 5 (4.0%)
Weighted Total 728 (100.0%) 127 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Religious identity 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 291 (99.0%) 28 (92.6%) 457 (94.7%) 17 (100.0%) 137 (96.6%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 3 (1.1%) 2 (7.4%) 25 (5.3%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 294 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 483 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 142 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 485 (97.9%) 408 (96.6%) 18 (95.3%) 33 (77.1%)
Yes 10 (2.1%) 14 (3.4%) 1 (4.7%) 10 (22.9%)
Weighted Total 495 (100.0%) 423 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 563 (96.1%) 59 (100.0%) 119 (96.3%)
Yes 23 (3.9%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.7%)
Weighted Total 586 (100.0%) 59 (100.0%) 124 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 742 (96.4%) 202 (96.2%)
Yes 28 (3.6%) 8 (3.8%)
Weighted Total 769 (100.0%) 210 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 654 (98.9%) 165 (88.5%)
Yes 8 (1.1%) 21 (11.5%)
Weighted Total 662 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Disability or need for accommodation
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 718 (99.7%) 101 (79.0%)
Yes 2 (0.3%) 27 (21.0%)
Weighted Total 720 (100.0%) 128 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Disability or need for accommodation 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Economic status
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 295 (98.5%) 24 (75.6%) 459 (95.6%) 16 (94.0%) 136 (98.3%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 4 (1.5%) 8 (24.3%) 21 (4.4%) 1 (6.0%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 299 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%) 480 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 139 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Economic status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Economic status
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 479 (96.9%) 405 (95.7%) 18 (92.4%) 41 (95.8%)
Yes 16 (3.1%) 18 (4.3%) 1 (7.6%) 2 (4.2%)
Weighted Total 495 (100.0%) 423 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 43 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Economic status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Economic status
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 559 (95.9%) 58 (97.2%) 119 (97.1%)
Yes 24 (4.1%) 2 (2.8%) 4 (2.9%)
Weighted Total 583 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 122 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Economic status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Economic status
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 736 (96.2%) 208 (96.5%)
Yes 29 (3.8%) 8 (3.5%)
Weighted Total 765 (100.0%) 216 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Economic status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Economic status
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 657 (98.9%) 164 (87.9%)
Yes 7 (1.1%) 22 (12.1%)
Weighted Total 665 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Economic status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Economic status
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 705 (97.4%) 117 (91.5%)
Yes 19 (2.6%) 11 (8.6%)
Weighted Total 723 (100.0%) 127 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Economic status 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Level of education attained
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
No 290 (97.9%) 30 (92.4%) 466 (96.6%) 17 (100.0%) 123 (90.4%) 14 (100.0%)
Yes 6 (2.1%) 2 (7.6%) 17 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (9.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 296 (100.0%) 32 (100.0%) 482 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 136 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Level of education attained 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Level of education attained
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
No 480 (97.2%) 400 (95.4%) 18 (89.5%) 41 (92.5%)
Yes 14 (2.8%) 19 (4.6%) 2 (10.5%) 3 (7.5%)
Weighted Total 494 (100.0%) 419 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 45 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Level of education attained 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Level of education attained
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
No 555 (95.7%) 58 (98.1%) 119 (97.2%)
Yes 25 (4.3%) 1 (1.9%) 3 (2.8%)
Weighted Total 580 (100.0%) 59 (100.0%) 123 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Level of education attained 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Level of education attained
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
No 732 (96.1%) 207 (95.9%)
Yes 29 (3.9%) 9 (4.1%)
Weighted Total 762 (100.0%) 216 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Level of education attained 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Level of education attained
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
No 638 (96.7%) 172 (92.4%)
Yes 22 (3.3%) 14 (7.6%)
Weighted Total 659 (100.0%) 186 (100.0%)
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Level of education attained 
Table: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities:
Level of education attained
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
No 690 (95.9%) 120 (95.0%)
Yes 30 (4.1%) 6 (5.0%)
Weighted Total 720 (100.0%) 126 (100.0%)

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: Denied opportunities because of belonging in the following identities: Level of education attained 

 

 

How are you doing these days?

 

In the last 12 months, how often have you felt the following?

Table: In the last 12 months, how often have you felt the following
Response Loss of interest in daily activities Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research Lack of energy Restlessness Feeling of being subdued or slowed down Less confidence Negative or guilty feelings Trouble sleeping Reduced OR increased appetite
Never 252 (22.7%) 193 (17.3%) 124 (11.1%) 212 (19.1%) 229 (20.6%) 176 (15.9%) 221 (19.9%) 201 (18.0%) 355 (32.0%)
Rarely 283 (25.4%) 276 (24.8%) 194 (17.5%) 268 (24.2%) 242 (21.8%) 231 (20.9%) 222 (20.0%) 261 (23.4%) 271 (24.4%)
Sometimes 277 (24.9%) 283 (25.4%) 314 (28.3%) 302 (27.3%) 276 (24.9%) 341 (30.8%) 269 (24.2%) 306 (27.4%) 249 (22.5%)
Often 152 (13.6%) 181 (16.3%) 245 (22.0%) 179 (16.1%) 177 (15.9%) 155 (14.0%) 181 (16.2%) 166 (14.8%) 125 (11.2%)
Very often 149 (13.4%) 180 (16.2%) 235 (21.1%) 148 (13.3%) 185 (16.7%) 204 (18.4%) 219 (19.7%) 183 (16.4%) 109 (9.8%)
Weighted Total 1113 (100.0%) 1112 (100.0%) 1112 (100.0%) 1108 (100.0%) 1109 (100.0%) 1106 (100.0%) 1111 (100.0%) 1116 (100.0%) 1109 (100.0%)
Mean 2.70 2.89 3.24 2.80 2.86 2.98 2.96 2.88 2.42

To see additional questions, please scroll sideways

 

How often have you felt the following in the last 12 month – Bar chart

A group of stacked bar charts identifying how often respondents experienced various depression factors

 

Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in daily activities,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 97 (30.6%) 11 (28.9%) 97 (16.8%) 1 (7.3%) 40 (26.4%) 6 (51.4%)
Rarely 93 (29.4%) 6 (16.8%) 129 (22.3%) 5 (24.9%) 46 (30.7%) 3 (28.6%)
Sometimes 80 (25.0%) 7 (20.0%) 139 (24.1%) 5 (26.1%) 44 (29.0%) 2 (20.0%)
Often 25 (8.0%) 5 (14.3%) 101 (17.6%) 5 (28.3%) 14 (9.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 22 (7.0%) 7 (20.0%) 110 (19.2%) 3 (13.4%) 7 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 318 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 576 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 151 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.31 2.80 3.00 3.16 2.35 1.69
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in daily activities 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in daily activities,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 122 (22.5%) 120 (24.4%) 4 (15.1%) 7 (12.6%)
Rarely 131 (24.1%) 133 (27.0%) 9 (36.9%) 9 (17.7%)
Sometimes 134 (24.6%) 131 (26.5%) 6 (23.7%) 7 (13.4%)
Often 69 (12.8%) 65 (13.2%) 3 (13.2%) 14 (26.3%)
Very often 87 (16.0%) 44 (8.9%) 3 (11.1%) 16 (30.1%)
Weighted Total 542 (100.0%) 493 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.76 2.55 2.68 3.44
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in daily activities 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in daily activities,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 181 (24.2%) 39 (17.6%)
Rarely 210 (28.1%) 36 (16.4%)
Sometimes 184 (24.6%) 57 (25.8%)
Often 87 (11.7%) 42 (18.8%)
Very often 84 (11.3%) 47 (21.3%)
Weighted Total 746 (100.0%) 222 (100.0%)
Mean 2.58 3.10
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in daily activities 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in daily activities,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 201 (24.8%) 18 (11.9%)
Rarely 219 (27.0%) 27 (17.5%)
Sometimes 199 (24.4%) 42 (27.4%)
Often 94 (11.5%) 35 (22.8%)
Very often 100 (12.3%) 31 (20.3%)
Weighted Total 813 (100.0%) 154 (100.0%)
Mean 2.60 3.22
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in daily activities 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 76 (24.0%) 5 (12.6%) 72 (12.5%) 5 (26.1%) 31 (20.7%) 4 (31.4%)
Rarely 92 (28.8%) 8 (22.8%) 123 (21.3%) 4 (21.3%) 43 (28.8%) 6 (48.6%)
Sometimes 81 (25.4%) 7 (18.6%) 143 (24.7%) 3 (15.8%) 47 (31.9%) 2 (20.0%)
Often 35 (11.0%) 12 (33.0%) 110 (19.1%) 5 (26.5%) 19 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 34 (10.8%) 5 (13.0%) 130 (22.5%) 2 (10.3%) 9 (6.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 318 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 578 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 149 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.56 3.11 3.18 2.74 2.54 1.89
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 93 (17.2%) 91 (18.4%) 5 (20.9%) 3 (6.0%)
Rarely 139 (25.8%) 122 (24.7%) 5 (22.0%) 9 (16.5%)
Sometimes 137 (25.4%) 128 (25.9%) 4 (17.7%) 13 (25.3%)
Often 82 (15.2%) 84 (17.0%) 5 (19.6%) 10 (19.2%)
Very often 89 (16.4%) 69 (13.9%) 5 (19.7%) 17 (33.1%)
Weighted Total 540 (100.0%) 495 (100.0%) 24 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.88 2.83 2.95 3.57
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 110 (16.9%) 13 (18.0%) 15 (12.0%)
Rarely 159 (24.5%) 26 (34.7%) 24 (19.2%)
Sometimes 169 (26.1%) 15 (19.6%) 35 (28.1%)
Often 113 (17.5%) 11 (14.4%) 29 (23.1%)
Very often 97 (15.0%) 10 (13.3%) 22 (17.6%)
Weighted Total 648 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) 125 (100.0%)
Mean 2.89 2.70 3.15
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 149 (20.1%) 10 (4.7%)
Rarely 208 (27.9%) 42 (18.8%)
Sometimes 187 (25.2%) 59 (26.5%)
Often 106 (14.2%) 53 (23.9%)
Very often 93 (12.5%) 58 (26.2%)
Weighted Total 743 (100.0%) 223 (100.0%)
Mean 2.71 3.48
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research 
Table: How often have you felt:
Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 149 (18.4%) 10 (6.7%)
Rarely 221 (27.2%) 29 (18.6%)
Sometimes 208 (25.7%) 38 (24.5%)
Often 120 (14.8%) 39 (25.1%)
Very often 113 (13.9%) 39 (25.1%)
Weighted Total 811 (100.0%) 154 (100.0%)
Mean 2.79 3.43
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research 
Table: How often have you felt:
Lack of energy,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 57 (18.2%) 7 (17.7%) 40 (6.9%) 1 (3.6%) 18 (11.9%) 1 (8.6%)
Rarely 75 (23.9%) 4 (11.6%) 73 (12.7%) 3 (14.0%) 32 (21.2%) 7 (57.1%)
Sometimes 89 (28.1%) 7 (18.6%) 157 (27.3%) 5 (28.6%) 53 (35.2%) 3 (22.9%)
Often 52 (16.6%) 5 (13.4%) 146 (25.2%) 9 (45.3%) 31 (20.8%) 1 (11.4%)
Very often 42 (13.2%) 14 (38.6%) 161 (27.9%) 2 (8.5%) 17 (11.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 316 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 577 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 151 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.83 3.44 3.54 3.41 2.98 2.37
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Lack of energy 
Table: How often have you felt:
Lack of energy,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 62 (11.5%) 55 (11.2%) 4 (14.8%) 3 (5.1%)
Rarely 113 (21.0%) 77 (15.6%) 4 (16.0%) 0 (0.7%)
Sometimes 154 (28.7%) 141 (28.5%) 8 (32.7%) 11 (19.8%)
Often 105 (19.6%) 124 (24.9%) 2 (8.5%) 13 (24.8%)
Very often 103 (19.2%) 98 (19.8%) 7 (28.1%) 26 (49.6%)
Weighted Total 537 (100.0%) 496 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 3.14 3.27 3.19 4.13
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Lack of energy 
Table: How often have you felt:
Lack of energy,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 94 (12.7%) 10 (4.5%)
Rarely 144 (19.3%) 19 (8.7%)
Sometimes 227 (30.5%) 52 (23.5%)
Often 156 (21.0%) 53 (24.3%)
Very often 123 (16.6%) 86 (39.1%)
Weighted Total 744 (100.0%) 220 (100.0%)
Mean 3.09 3.85
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Lack of energy 
Table: How often have you felt:
Lack of energy,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 96 (11.8%) 8 (5.3%)
Rarely 150 (18.5%) 13 (8.4%)
Sometimes 239 (29.5%) 40 (25.6%)
Often 172 (21.3%) 37 (24.0%)
Very often 153 (18.9%) 57 (36.7%)
Weighted Total 810 (100.0%) 154 (100.0%)
Mean 3.17 3.78
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Lack of energy 
Table: How often have you felt:
Restlessness,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 88 (27.7%) 11 (28.9%) 79 (13.9%) 2 (9.7%) 31 (20.4%) 1 (8.6%)
Rarely 83 (26.2%) 5 (14.4%) 131 (22.9%) 2 (12.2%) 41 (27.5%) 5 (42.9%)
Sometimes 79 (24.9%) 11 (30.3%) 154 (26.9%) 11 (57.5%) 44 (29.6%) 2 (20.0%)
Often 43 (13.6%) 6 (17.1%) 100 (17.4%) 2 (12.8%) 23 (15.6%) 3 (28.6%)
Very often 24 (7.6%) 3 (9.3%) 108 (18.9%) 2 (7.9%) 10 (6.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 318 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 572 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 150 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.47 2.64 3.05 2.97 2.61 2.69
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Restlessness 
Table: How often have you felt:
Restlessness,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 107 (19.9%) 94 (19.1%) 4 (17.4%) 7 (12.4%)
Rarely 129 (24.1%) 123 (25.1%) 8 (29.6%) 8 (14.5%)
Sometimes 134 (24.8%) 147 (29.9%) 8 (29.6%) 14 (26.0%)
Often 96 (17.9%) 71 (14.4%) 1 (4.0%) 11 (20.4%)
Very often 72 (13.4%) 57 (11.6%) 5 (19.3%) 14 (26.6%)
Weighted Total 538 (100.0%) 492 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.81 2.74 2.78 3.34
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Restlessness 
Table: How often have you felt:
Restlessness,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 159 (21.4%) 28 (12.5%)
Rarely 191 (25.7%) 38 (17.0%)
Sometimes 184 (24.7%) 80 (35.9%)
Often 121 (16.3%) 41 (18.3%)
Very often 88 (11.8%) 36 (16.3%)
Weighted Total 743 (100.0%) 222 (100.0%)
Mean 2.72 3.09
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Restlessness 
Table: How often have you felt:
Restlessness,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 164 (20.2%) 23 (14.8%)
Rarely 208 (25.6%) 21 (13.7%)
Sometimes 215 (26.5%) 48 (31.3%)
Often 127 (15.6%) 35 (23.0%)
Very often 98 (12.1%) 26 (17.1%)
Weighted Total 812 (100.0%) 153 (100.0%)
Mean 2.74 3.14
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Restlessness 
Table: How often have you felt:
Feeling of being subdued or slowed down,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 85 (26.7%) 8 (22.8%) 87 (15.2%) 3 (16.4%) 39 (26.1%) 6 (48.6%)
Rarely 66 (20.9%) 6 (17.2%) 125 (21.8%) 5 (23.7%) 36 (24.2%) 4 (31.4%)
Sometimes 86 (27.1%) 11 (30.2%) 125 (21.9%) 4 (23.1%) 47 (31.1%) 2 (20.0%)
Often 49 (15.4%) 6 (15.8%) 104 (18.2%) 1 (7.3%) 16 (10.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 31 (9.9%) 5 (14.0%) 131 (22.9%) 6 (29.5%) 12 (7.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 317 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 573 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 150 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.61 2.81 3.12 3.10 2.50 1.71
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Feeling of being subdued or slowed down 
Table: How often have you felt:
Feeling of being subdued or slowed down,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 116 (21.4%) 103 (21.0%) 4 (17.7%) 6 (10.6%)
Rarely 134 (24.7%) 96 (19.6%) 6 (23.0%) 6 (12.0%)
Sometimes 131 (24.2%) 128 (26.2%) 7 (28.8%) 10 (18.3%)
Often 82 (15.2%) 83 (16.9%) 2 (6.2%) 10 (19.5%)
Very often 78 (14.5%) 80 (16.3%) 6 (24.3%) 21 (39.6%)
Weighted Total 541 (100.0%) 490 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.77 2.88 2.96 3.66
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Feeling of being subdued or slowed down 
Table: How often have you felt:
Feeling of being subdued or slowed down,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 173 (23.3%) 26 (11.7%)
Rarely 177 (23.8%) 38 (17.1%)
Sometimes 190 (25.6%) 48 (21.7%)
Often 108 (14.5%) 42 (19.1%)
Very often 95 (12.8%) 67 (30.3%)
Weighted Total 744 (100.0%) 220 (100.0%)
Mean 2.70 3.39
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Feeling of being subdued or slowed down 
Table: How often have you felt:
Feeling of being subdued or slowed down,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 181 (22.4%) 18 (11.8%)
Rarely 195 (24.1%) 19 (12.3%)
Sometimes 198 (24.4%) 40 (26.3%)
Often 119 (14.7%) 31 (20.1%)
Very often 117 (14.4%) 45 (29.6%)
Weighted Total 810 (100.0%) 153 (100.0%)
Mean 2.75 3.43
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Feeling of being subdued or slowed down 
Table: How often have you felt:
Less confidence,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 70 (22.1%) 8 (21.9%) 62 (10.9%) 0 (1.8%) 34 (22.7%) 1 (8.6%)
Rarely 88 (27.8%) 8 (21.4%) 84 (14.8%) 7 (35.2%) 35 (23.4%) 8 (68.6%)
Sometimes 102 (32.4%) 8 (20.5%) 171 (29.9%) 8 (43.5%) 49 (32.3%) 3 (22.9%)
Often 30 (9.7%) 2 (5.0%) 97 (17.0%) 3 (14.6%) 23 (15.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 25 (8.0%) 12 (31.2%) 156 (27.4%) 1 (4.9%) 10 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 316 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 570 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 152 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.54 3.02 3.35 2.85 2.59 2.14
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Less confidence 
Table: How often have you felt:
Less confidence,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 100 (18.5%) 73 (14.8%) 3 (11.0%) 1 (1.4%)
Rarely 111 (20.6%) 105 (21.6%) 6 (22.8%) 8 (15.8%)
Sometimes 165 (30.5%) 156 (31.8%) 8 (32.0%) 12 (23.1%)
Often 80 (14.9%) 63 (12.9%) 3 (13.8%) 8 (15.8%)
Very often 83 (15.4%) 92 (18.9%) 5 (20.3%) 23 (43.8%)
Weighted Total 539 (100.0%) 489 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.88 2.99 3.10 3.85
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Less confidence 
Table: How often have you felt:
Less confidence,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 137 (18.5%) 15 (6.6%)
Rarely 171 (23.1%) 34 (15.5%)
Sometimes 237 (32.0%) 59 (26.5%)
Often 92 (12.4%) 47 (21.2%)
Very often 104 (14.0%) 67 (30.1%)
Weighted Total 741 (100.0%) 221 (100.0%)
Mean 2.80 3.53
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Less confidence 
Table: How often have you felt:
Less confidence,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 140 (17.3%) 12 (7.7%)
Rarely 185 (22.9%) 21 (13.4%)
Sometimes 249 (30.8%) 47 (30.8%)
Often 112 (13.9%) 26 (17.1%)
Very often 123 (15.2%) 48 (31.0%)
Weighted Total 808 (100.0%) 153 (100.0%)
Mean 2.87 3.50
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Less confidence 
Table: How often have you felt:
Negative or guilty feelings,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 78 (24.6%) 14 (36.3%) 87 (15.1%) 4 (20.1%) 34 (22.9%) 5 (37.1%)
Rarely 79 (25.1%) 2 (5.6%) 97 (16.9%) 3 (15.2%) 40 (26.5%) 0 (2.9%)
Sometimes 88 (28.0%) 7 (19.1%) 119 (20.6%) 7 (35.6%) 43 (28.7%) 5 (40.0%)
Often 42 (13.3%) 3 (7.8%) 110 (19.0%) 4 (18.8%) 20 (13.1%) 2 (20.0%)
Very often 29 (9.1%) 12 (31.2%) 163 (28.3%) 2 (10.3%) 13 (8.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 316 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 576 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 151 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.57 2.92 3.29 2.84 2.59 2.43
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Negative or guilty feelings 
Table: How often have you felt:
Negative or guilty feelings,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 126 (23.3%) 85 (17.3%) 7 (25.3%) 3 (6.2%)
Rarely 115 (21.2%) 102 (20.6%) 2 (7.9%) 4 (6.8%)
Sometimes 116 (21.5%) 126 (25.7%) 6 (23.8%) 20 (38.6%)
Often 80 (14.9%) 87 (17.8%) 4 (17.3%) 8 (15.7%)
Very often 103 (19.1%) 91 (18.6%) 7 (25.7%) 17 (32.6%)
Weighted Total 541 (100.0%) 492 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.85 3.00 3.10 3.62
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Negative or guilty feelings 
Table: How often have you felt:
Negative or guilty feelings,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 168 (22.6%) 23 (10.5%)
Rarely 175 (23.5%) 22 (9.9%)
Sometimes 172 (23.1%) 59 (26.6%)
Often 109 (14.7%) 43 (19.4%)
Very often 120 (16.1%) 74 (33.5%)
Weighted Total 745 (100.0%) 221 (100.0%)
Mean 2.78 3.55
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Negative or guilty feelings 
Table: How often have you felt:
Negative or guilty feelings,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 181 (22.2%) 11 (7.2%)
Rarely 178 (22.0%) 19 (12.1%)
Sometimes 184 (22.7%) 47 (30.3%)
Often 127 (15.6%) 25 (16.5%)
Very often 142 (17.4%) 52 (33.8%)
Weighted Total 812 (100.0%) 154 (100.0%)
Mean 2.84 3.58
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Negative or guilty feelings 
Table: How often have you felt:
Trouble sleeping,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 114 (21.0%) 79 (16.0%) 4 (14.8%) 4 (7.5%)
Rarely 135 (24.9%) 108 (21.7%) 7 (26.5%) 11 (20.7%)
Sometimes 149 (27.5%) 142 (28.7%) 7 (26.7%) 8 (14.9%)
Often 67 (12.3%) 85 (17.2%) 2 (6.5%) 12 (23.5%)
Very often 77 (14.3%) 81 (16.4%) 7 (25.5%) 18 (33.4%)
Weighted Total 542 (100.0%) 496 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.74 2.96 3.02 3.54
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Trouble sleeping 
Table: How often have you felt:
Trouble sleeping,
Rating by Race/Ethnicity
Ratings White (%) Asian (%) URM (%)
Never 113 (17.3%) 13 (16.8%) 16 (12.5%)
Rarely 142 (21.8%) 27 (35.9%) 30 (23.7%)
Sometimes 172 (26.4%) 21 (27.8%) 40 (31.7%)
Often 111 (17.1%) 8 (10.9%) 16 (13.0%)
Very often 113 (17.4%) 6 (8.6%) 24 (19.1%)
Weighted Total 650 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) 125 (100.0%)
Mean 2.95 2.59 3.03
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Race/Ethnicity to the question: How often have you felt: Trouble sleeping 
Table: How often have you felt:
Trouble sleeping,
Rating by International Status
Ratings Domestic (%) International (%)
Never 141 (16.6%) 60 (22.5%)
Rarely 198 (23.3%) 62 (23.4%)
Sometimes 232 (27.3%) 74 (27.8%)
Often 135 (15.9%) 30 (11.4%)
Very often 143 (16.9%) 40 (14.9%)
Weighted Total 849 (100.0%) 267 (100.0%)
Mean 2.93 2.73
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different International Status to the question: How often have you felt: Trouble sleeping 
Table: How often have you felt:
Trouble sleeping,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 151 (20.3%) 27 (12.3%)
Rarely 187 (25.0%) 41 (18.4%)
Sometimes 208 (27.9%) 58 (26.1%)
Often 99 (13.3%) 40 (18.2%)
Very often 101 (13.5%) 55 (25.1%)
Weighted Total 747 (100.0%) 221 (100.0%)
Mean 2.75 3.25
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Trouble sleeping 
Table: How often have you felt:
Trouble sleeping,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 167 (20.5%) 12 (7.7%)
Rarely 201 (24.7%) 26 (17.1%)
Sometimes 230 (28.3%) 36 (23.3%)
Often 111 (13.6%) 29 (18.5%)
Very often 104 (12.8%) 52 (33.5%)
Weighted Total 813 (100.0%) 155 (100.0%)
Mean 2.74 3.53
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Trouble sleeping 
Table: How often have you felt:
Reduced OR increased appetite,
Rating by Employment Status
Ratings Faculty (%) Graduate Staff (%) Graduate Student (%) Postdoc (%) Staff (%) Undergrad Staff (%)
Never 128 (40.2%) 16 (44.1%) 154 (26.9%) 5 (24.9%) 46 (30.5%) 6 (48.6%)
Rarely 85 (26.6%) 0 (0.0%) 138 (24.3%) 5 (24.9%) 43 (28.3%) 0 (2.9%)
Sometimes 70 (22.1%) 1 (3.7%) 129 (22.7%) 7 (38.6%) 35 (23.1%) 6 (48.6%)
Often 21 (6.7%) 7 (17.7%) 78 (13.6%) 2 (8.5%) 18 (11.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Very often 14 (4.4%) 13 (34.4%) 72 (12.5%) 1 (3.0%) 10 (6.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Weighted Total 319 (100.0%) 37 (100.0%) 571 (100.0%) 19 (100.0%) 151 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
Mean 2.08 2.98 2.61 2.40 2.35 2.00
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Employment Status to the question: How often have you felt: Reduced OR increased appetite 
Table: How often have you felt:
Reduced OR increased appetite,
Rating by Gender Identity
Ratings Man (%) Woman (%) Transgender (%) Non-binary/Self-described (%)
Never 189 (35.1%) 148 (30.2%) 8 (29.5%) 10 (18.8%)
Rarely 147 (27.3%) 113 (23.1%) 1 (4.5%) 9 (17.7%)
Sometimes 102 (19.0%) 127 (25.9%) 7 (26.8%) 13 (24.3%)
Often 52 (9.7%) 59 (11.9%) 5 (18.6%) 9 (17.4%)
Very often 48 (9.0%) 44 (8.9%) 5 (20.6%) 12 (21.8%)
Weighted Total 539 (100.0%) 492 (100.0%) 26 (100.0%) 53 (100.0%)
Mean 2.30 2.46 2.96 3.06
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Gender Identity to the question: How often have you felt: Reduced OR increased appetite 
Table: How often have you felt:
Reduced OR increased appetite,
Rating by LGBTQ+
Ratings Non-LGBTQ+ (%) LGBTQ+ (%)
Never 266 (35.6%) 49 (22.3%)
Rarely 198 (26.5%) 37 (16.9%)
Sometimes 160 (21.4%) 52 (24.0%)
Often 74 (9.9%) 38 (17.4%)
Very often 49 (6.5%) 42 (19.5%)
Weighted Total 746 (100.0%) 218 (100.0%)
Mean 2.25 2.95
  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different LGBTQ+ to the question: How often have you felt: Reduced OR increased appetite 
Table: How often have you felt:
Reduced OR increased appetite,
Rating by Self-Identified as Having aDisability
Ratings No Disability (%) Disability (%)
Never 281 (34.7%) 33 (21.6%)
Rarely 197 (24.3%) 38 (24.6%)
Sometimes 179 (22.1%) 33 (21.4%)
Often 95 (11.7%) 17 (10.9%)
Very often 58 (7.2%) 33 (21.5%)
Weighted Total 810 (100.0%) 153 (100.0%)
Mean 2.32 2.86

  A group of stacked bar charts comparing the answers of different Disability to the question: How often have you felt: Reduced OR increased appetite 

 

 

Respondent Demographics

Table: Number of Respondents
Total Invitations Sent Total Number of Respondents Response Rate
4963 1503 30.3%
Table: Number of Respondents by
Employment Status (Unweighted)
Employment Status Invitations Sent Number of Respondents Response Rate
Faculty 1343 502 37.4%
Graduate Staff 317 48 15.1%
Graduate Student 2349 619 26.4%
Postdoc 135 25 18.5%
Staff 677 297 43.9%
Undergrad Staff 142 12 8.5%
Total 4963 1503 30.3%
Table: Number of Respondents by
Sex (Unweighted)
Sex Invitations Sent Number of Respondents Response Rate
Female 2448 835 34.1%
Male 2515 628 25%
Total 4963 1463 29.5%
Table: Number of Respondents by
Administrative Race (Unweighted)
Administrative Race Invitations Sent Number of Respondents Response Rate
AIAN 9 5 55.6%
Asian 438 85 19.4%
Black/African American 199 57 28.6%
Hispanic 364 110 30.2%
Multi-Race 115 58 50.4%
NHPI 2 1 50%
White 2469 845 34.2%
Total 3596 1161 32.3%
Table: Number of Respondents by
International Status (Unweighted)
International Status Invitations Sent Number of Respondents Response Rate
Domestic 3596 1201 33.4%
International 1367 302 22.1%
Total 4963 1503 30.3%

Metadata

Definitions

Name
Definition
Table: Definitions
Diversity Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs.
Microaggression A microaggression is a comment or action that expresses a prejudiced attitude based on race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, religion.
Bullying Bullying is an ongoing and deliberate misuse of power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical, and/or social behavior that intends to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm. It can involve an individual or a group misusing their power, or perceived power, over one or more persons who feel unable to stop it from happening.
Belonging Belonging is the feeling of security and support when there is a sense of acceptance, inclusion, and identity for a certain group member.
Gender Expression The external display of one’s gender through a combination of dress, demeanor, social behavior, and other factors, generally made sense on scales of masculinity and femininity. Also referred to as “gender presentation.
Gender Identity The internal perception of one’s gender and how they label themselves, based on how much they align or don’t align with what they understand their options for gender to be. Common identity labels include man, woman, genderqueer, trans*, and more. Often confused with biological sex or sex assigned at birth.

 

Demographic Descriptions

Name
Description
Table: Demographic Descriptions
Graduate staff University graduate students who are not enrolled in LAS but are employed by LAS or a department within LAS
Undergrad staff University undergraduate students who are not enrolled in LAS but are employed by LAS or a department within LAS
Gender Identity Gender identity is constructed using self-reported gender identity from the Climate Survey as the primary source, and supplemented with Banner administrative data if no self-reported data is available
Non-binary/other The “Non-binary/other” group is constructed by combining all individuals that checked either “Gender non-conforming/non-binary” or “Something else” in the gender self-report question
Race Race is constructed using self-reported race as the primary source, and supplemented with Banner administrative data if no self-reported data is available. Additionally, minority groups will be placed under the URM umbrella group (see below). The race of respondents with International Status (see below) is not reported
URM Underrepresented Minority Groups (URM) includes the following minority groups: Black/African American, Hispanic, AIAN, NHPI and multi-race (Anyone that selects two or more racial groups). The term URM is reflective of the language used at the time of the survey roll-out. It is recognized that other terms are being used at this time when reports are being generated.
White White includes both White and Middle Eastern/North African (MENA)
International Status International status is extracted from Banner administrative data only
LGBTQ+ Status LGBTQ+ Status comes from self-reported survey data only
Disability Status Disability Status comes from self-reported survey data only

 

Index Questions

Choices for all survey questions are presented in order from 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale.

 

Index: Departmental DEI

Questions
Choices
Table: Departmental DEI,
Questions and Choices
Overall, how would you rate the climate of your department over the last 12 months?
  • Very poor
  • Poor
  • Fair
  • Good
  • Very good
Overall, to what extent do you believe that people in your department include you in opportunities that will help your career or future career as much as they include others in your position?
  • They do not include me at all
  • They include me to a small extent
  • They include me to a moderate extent
  • They include me to a large extent
  • They include me to the greatest extent
Over the last twelve months, how socially isolated (separated from others, alone) have you felt in your department?
  • Not at all isolated
  • Not very isolated
  • Moderately isolated
  • Very isolated
  • Extremely isolated
How likely are you to recommend your department as a good place to work or study?
  • I definitely would not recommend
  • I probably would not recommend
  • I might or might not
  • I probably would recommend
  • I definitely would recommend
How satisfied are you with the overall diversity of faculty, staff and students in your department?
  • Not at all satisfied
  • Not very satisfied
  • Moderately satisfied
  • Very satisfied
  • Extremely satisfied
How weak or strong is your sense of belonging in your department?
  • I feel I don’t belong at all
  • I have a weak sense of belonging
  • I have a moderate sense of belonging
  • I have a strong sense of belonging
  • I have an extraordinary sense of belonging
How supported and included do you feel by: Unit leaders, department head, school directors?
  • Not supported at all
  • Not very supported
  • Moderately supported
  • Very supported
  • Extremely supported
How supported and included do you feel by: Department staff?
  • Not supported at all
  • Not very supported
  • Moderately supported
  • Very supported
  • Extremely supported
How supported and included do you feel by: Others in the unit (faculty, students, coworkers)?
  • Not supported at all
  • Not very supported
  • Moderately supported
  • Very supported
  • Extremely supported
How comfortable do you feel expressing your personal identity/identities in your department?
  • Not at all comfortable
  • Not very comfortable
  • Moderately comfortable
  • Very comfortable
  • Extremely comfortable
How much is your participation in unit activities valued by your department?
  • Not at all valued
  • Not very valued
  • Moderately valued
  • Very valued
  • Extremely valued
How respected do you feel by your department?
  • Not at all respected
  • Not very respected
  • Moderately respected
  • Very respected
  • Extremely respected
To what extent do you have access to professional mentoring through your department?
  • No access at all
  • Not very much access
  • A moderate amount of access
  • A large amount of access
  • The greatest amount of access
If you experience unequal or unfair treatment in your department, how confident are you that you can file a complaint or grievance without negative consequences for you?
  • Not confident at all
  • Not very confident
  • Moderately confident
  • Very confident
  • Extremely confident
Have your experiences in your department made you feel more certain or less certain about your professional future?
  • Made me much less certain about my professional future
  • A bit less certain
  • No effect
  • A bit more certain
  • Made me much more certain about my professional future

 

Index: Departmental Incivility or Harassment

Table: Departmental Incivility or Harassment,
Questions and Choices
Questions In the last 12 months, as far as you know, how often have
  1. faculty or staff
  2. postdocs
  3. graduate students
  4. undergraduate students
in your department experienced inappropriate, harmful, dismissive, offensive behavior/comments based on the following identity or intersection of identities:
  • Racial identity?
  • Ethnic identity?
  • Gender, gender identity, or gender expression?
  • Sexual orientation?
  • International identity?
  • Religious identity?
  • Disability or need for accommodation?
  • Economic status?
  • Level of education attained?
Choices
  • Never
  • Rarely
  • Sometimes
  • Often
  • Very often

 

Index: Faculty Perspective on Fair and Equitable Departmental Practices

Table: Faculty Perspective on Fair and Equitable Departmental Practices,
Questions and Choices
Questions Faculty - How fair and equitable were the following practices in last 12 months:
  • Handling of complaints
  • Recruitment policies and practices
  • Promotion/Tenure reviews
  • Annual reviews
  • Salary decisions
  • Allocation of space/equipment/research resources
  • Access to faculty mentoring
  • Access to research or conference resources
  • Allocation of graduate students/teaching assistants
  • Allocation of unit service requirements
  • Recognition of scholarly achievements
  • Recognition of teaching
  • Recognition of service
Choices
  • Not at all fair & equitable
  • Not very fair & equitable
  • Moderately fair & equitable
  • Very fair & equitable
  • Extremely fair & equitable

 

Index: Staff on Fair and Equitable Practices

Table: Staff on Fair and Equitable Practices,
Questions and Choices
Questions Staff - How fair and equitable were the following practices in last 12 months:
  • Handling of complaints
  • Annual reviews or feedback
  • Promotion decisions
  • Salary decisions
  • Allocation of space/equipment
  • Access to staff mentoring
  • Access to conference funding/training opportunities
  • Recognition of scholarly achievements
  • Recognition of teaching achievements
  • Recognition of departmental service
Choices
  • Not at all fair & equitable
  • Not very fair & equitable
  • Moderately fair & equitable
  • Very fair & equitable
  • Extremely fair & equitable

 

Index: Fair and Equitable Practices in Graduate Education

Table: Fair and Equitable Practices in Graduate Education,
Questions and Choices
Questions Graduate students - How fair and equitable were the following practices in last 12 months:
  • Handling of complaints
  • Graduate student recruitment policies and practices
  • Annual reviews or feedback on research progress
  • Graduate student assignments and funding
  • Allocation of space/equipment
  • Access to faculty mentoring
  • Access to research resources/conference funding
  • Recognition of scholarly achievements
  • Recognition of teaching achievements
  • Recognition of departmental service
Choices
  • Not at all fair & equitable
  • Not very fair & equitable
  • Moderately fair & equitable
  • Very fair & equitable
  • Extremely fair & equitable

 

Index: Depression

Table: Depression,
Questions and Choices
Questions In last 12 months, how often have you felt the following:
  • Loss of interest in daily activities
  • Loss of interest in coursework, work, teaching, or research
  • Lack of energy
  • Restlessness
  • Feeling of being subdued or slowed down
  • Less confidence
  • Negative or guilty feelings
  • Trouble sleeping
  • Reduced OR increased appetite
Choices
  • Never
  • Rarely
  • Sometimes
  • Often
  • Very often

 

Report Metadata

Table: Report Metadata
Report Title: LAS Climate Survey Report
Project Sponsor(s): Venetria K. Patton
Survey Administrator(s): Dawn Owens
Report Author(s): Yuchen Wang
Software Used: SPSS v.29, Alchemer, R v.3.6.3
Contact: If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Maryalice Wu