Climatereport PDF

Ithaca College
Campus Climate
Research Study
April 2017
Rankin & Associates Consulting
Campus Climate Assessment Project
Ithaca College Report April 2017
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... I
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ I
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... I
PROJECT DESIGN AND CAMPUS INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................... II
ITHACA COLLEGE PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................................................III
KEY FINDINGS – AREAS OF STRENGTH .......................................................................................................... V
KEY FINDINGS – OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT ..................................................................................... VI
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESIGN AND CAMPUS INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................... 1
CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK AND SUMMARY OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................. 2
INSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE WITHIN CAMPUS STRUCTURES ................................................................................... 3
CAMPUS CLIMATE AND STUDENT, FACULTY, AND STAFF SUCCESS ...................................................................... 4
ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSIVITY .................................................................................................................. 6
CAMPUS CLIMATE AND STUDENT ACTIVISM .................................................................................................. 7
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 9
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................... 9
RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................................... 9
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 16
DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................ 16
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................................ 21
CAMPUS CLIMATE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ............................................................................ 51
COMFORT WITH THE CLIMATE AT ITHACA COLLEGE ....................................................................................... 51
BARRIERS AT ITHACA COLLEGE FOR RESPONDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ............................................................... 76
BARRIERS AT ITHACA COLLEGE FOR TRANSSPECTRUM RESPONDENTS ................................................................ 82
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF EXCLUSIONARY, INTIMIDATING, OFFENSIVE, AND/OR HOSTILE CONDUCT ...................... 85
OBSERVATIONS OF EXCLUSIONARY, INTIMIDATING, OFFENSIVE, AND/OR HOSTILE CONDUCT ............................... 107
UNWANTED SEXUAL EXPERIENCES........................................................................................................... 122
Relationship Violence .................................................................................................................. 123
Stalking ....................................................................................................................................... 129
Unwanted Sexual Interaction ...................................................................................................... 135
Unwanted Sexual Contact ........................................................................................................... 143
FACULTY AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE.......................................................................................... 153
Perceptions of Employment Practices .......................................................................................... 153
Staff Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance...................................... 162
Faculty Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance .................................. 185
Faculty and Staff Respondents Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving Ithaca College ............... 206
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE ............................................................................................ 216
Students’ Perceived Academic Success......................................................................................... 216
Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate .................................................................................... 223
Students Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving Ithaca College ................................................. 236
INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS .......................................................................................................... 244
NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................................... 272
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 279
APPENDIX A – CROSS TABULATIONS BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................. 280
APPENDIX B – DATA TABLES .......................................................................................................... 282
APPENDIX C – COMMENTS ANALYSES (QUESTIONS #106, #107, AND #108) .................................. 393
APPENDIX D – SURVEY: Ithaca College Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working . 413
Executive Summary
Introduction
History of the Project
Ithaca College affirms that diversity and inclusion are crucial to the intellectual vitality of the
campus community, and that they engender academic engagement where teaching, working,
learning, and living take place in pluralistic communities of mutual respect. Free exchange of
different ideas and viewpoints in supportive environments encourage students, faculty, and staff
to develop the critical thinking and citizenship skills that will benefit them throughout their lives.
Ithaca College also is committed to fostering a caring community that provides leadership for
constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. As noted in Ithaca College's guiding
principles, “We embrace diversity as an integral part of the educational experience and of the
community we create.”1 To better understand the campus climate, the senior administration at
Ithaca College recognized the need for a comprehensive tool that would provide campus climate
metrics for the experiences and perceptions of its students, faculty, and staff. During the fall
2016 semester, Ithaca College conducted a comprehensive survey of all students, faculty, and
staff to develop a better understanding of the learning, living, and working environment on
campus.
In December 2015, members of Ithaca College formed the Climate Study Working Group
(CSWG). The CSWG was composed of faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Ultimately,
Ithaca College contracted with Rankin & Associates Consulting (R&A) to conduct a campus-
wide study entitled, “Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working.” Data gathered
via reviews of relevant Ithaca College literature, campus focus groups, and a campus-wide
survey addressing the experiences and perceptions of various constituent groups will be
presented at community forums, which will develop and complete two or three action items by
fall 2017.
1
http://www.ithaca.edu/about/mission/
i
Project Design and Campus Involvement

The conceptual model used as the foundation for Ithaca College’s assessment of campus climate
was developed by Smith et al. (1997) and modified by Rankin (2003). A power and privilege
perspective informs the model, one grounded in critical theory, which establishes that power
differentials, both earned and unearned, are central to all human interactions (Brookfield, 2005).
Unearned power and privilege are associated with membership in dominant social groups
(Johnson, 2005) and influence systems of differentiation that reproduce unequal outcomes.
Ithaca College’s assessment was the result of a comprehensive process to identify the strengths
and challenges of campus climate, with a specific focus on the distribution of power and
privilege among differing social groups. This report provides an overview of the results of the
campus-wide survey.
The CSWG collaborated with R&A to develop the survey instrument. Together, they
implemented participatory and community-based processes to review tested survey questions
from the R&A question bank and develop a survey instrument for Ithaca College that would
reveal the various dimensions of power and privilege that shape the campus experience. In the
first phase, R&A conducted 19 focus groups, which were composed of 139 participants (54
students, 71 faculty and staff, and 14 who did not disclose their position at Ithaca College). In the
second phase, the CSWG and R&A used data from the focus groups to co-construct questions for
the campus-wide survey. The final Ithaca College survey queried various campus constituent
groups about their experiences and perceptions regarding the academic environment for students,
the workplace environment for faculty and staff, employee benefits, sexual harassment and
sexual violence, racial and ethnic identity, gender identity and gender expression, sexual identity,
accessibility and disability services, and other topics.
In total, 3,823 people completed the survey. In the end, the College’s assessment was the result
of a comprehensive process to identify the strengths and challenges of campus climate, with a
specific focus on the distribution of power and privilege among differing social groups at Ithaca
College.
ii
Ithaca College Participants

The 3,823 surveys that were returned resulted in a 46% overall response rate. Only surveys that
were at least 50% completed were included in the final data set for analyses. 2 Of all respondents,
70% (n = 2,672) were Undergraduate Students, 4% (n = 157) were Graduate Students, 12% (n =
466) were Faculty respondents, and 14% (n = 528) were Staff respondents. Table 1 provides a
summary of selected demographic characteristics of survey respondents. The percentages in
Table 1 are based on the numbers of respondents in the sample (n) for each demographic
characteristic. 3
2
Thirty-two respondents out of the 3,936 total (0.8%) completed less than half of the survey. Of those 32, five were
faculty (15.6%), three were staff (9.4%), three were graduate students (9.4%), and 21 were undergraduate students
(65.6%). Any additional responses were removed because they were judged to have been problematic (i.e., the
respondent did not complete the survey in good faith).
3
The total n for each demographic characteristic may differ as a result of missing data.
iii
Table 1. Ithaca College Respondent Demographics

% of
Characteristic Subgroup n Sample
Position status Undergraduate Student 2,672 69.9
Graduate Student 157 4.1
Faculty 466 12.2
Staff 528 13.8
Gender identity Man 2,446 64.0
Woman 1,257 32.9
Transspectrum 96 2.5
Racial/ethnic identity Asian/Asian American 172 4.5
Black/African American 160 4.2
Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 144 3.8
Additional People of Color 38 1.0
White 2,883 75.4
Multiracial 314 8.2
Sexual identity LGBQ 652 17.1
Heterosexual 3,038 79.5
Asexual 33 0.9
Citizenship status U.S. Citizen 3,532 92.4
Non-U.S./Naturalized Citizen 263 6.9
Disability status Single Disability 390 10.2
No Disability 3,190 83.4
Multiple Disabilities 210 5.5
Religious/spiritual identity Christian Affiliation 1,500 39.2
Additional Faith Based Affiliation 399 10.4
No Affiliation 1,629 42.6
Multiple Affiliation 212 5.5

Note: The total n for each demographic characteristic may differ as a result of missing data .
iv
Key Findings – Areas of Strength
1. High levels of comfort with the climate at Ithaca College

Climate is defined as the “current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and
students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and
group needs, abilities, and potential.” 4 The level of comfort experienced by faculty, staff,
and students is one indicator of campus climate.
• 70% (n = 2,659) of the survey respondents were “very comfortable” or
“comfortable” with the climate at Ithaca College.
• 83% (n = 2,733) of Student respondents and Faculty respondents were “very
comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes.
2. Faculty Respondents – Positive attitudes about faculty work
• Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (86%, n = 238) “strongly agreed”
or “agreed” that teaching was valued by Ithaca College.
• 78% (n = 358) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt
valued by faculty in their department/program.
• 79% (n = 357) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt
valued by their department/program chairs.
3. Staff Respondents – Positive attitudes about staff work
• 70% (n = 367) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca
College provided them with resources to pursue training/professional
development opportunities.
• 81% (n = 424) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt
valued by coworkers in their department.
4. Student Respondents – Positive attitudes about academic experiences

The way students perceive and experience their campus climate influences their
performance and success in college.5 Research also supports the pedagogical value of a
4
Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264
5
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005
v
diverse student body and faculty for improving learning outcomes. 6 Attitudes toward
academic pursuits are one indicator of campus climate.
• 81% (n = 2,289) of Student respondents felt valued by Ithaca College faculty and
73% (n = 2,048) felt valued by Ithaca College staff
Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the scale Perceived Academic Success, derived
from Question 11 on the survey. Analyses using these scales revealed:
• A significant difference existed in the overall test for means for Students by racial
identity, sexual identity, disability status, income status, and citizenship status on
Perceived Academic Success.
• Subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic Success for Undergraduate Student
respondents was significant for two comparisons—People of Color vs. White People
and Multiracial vs. White People. These findings suggest that White People
Undergraduate Student respondents have greater Perceived Academic Success than
People of Color and Multiracial Undergraduate Student respondents.
Key Findings – Opportunities for Improvement

1. Members of several constituent groups indicated that they experienced
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.
Several empirical studies reinforce the importance of the perception of non-
discriminatory environments for positive learning and developmental outcomes. 7
Research also underscores the relationship between workplace discrimination and
subsequent productivity. 8 The survey requested information about experiences of
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.
• 20% (n = 753) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced
exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile
6
Hale, 2004; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004
7
Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella,
Terenzini, & Nora, 2001
8
Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008; Waldo, 1999
vi
(bullied, harassed) conduct that had interfered with their ability to work, learn, or
live at Ithaca College within the past year.9
• Of the respondents who experienced such conduct, 27% (n = 204) indicated that
the conduct was based on their gender/gender identity, 21% (n = 157) noted that
the conduct was based on their ethnicity, and 18% (n = 135) felt that it was based
on their position at Ithaca College (e.g., staff, faculty, student).
• Differences emerged based on gender identity, racial identity, and position status:
o By gender identity, a significantly greater percentage of Transspectrum
respondents (44%, n = 42) than Women respondents (21%, n = 507), and
Women respondents than Men respondents (15%, n = 193) indicated that
they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile
conduct within the past year
o In terms of ethnic/racial identity, a significantly lower proportion of White
respondents (16%, n = 467) believed that they had experienced this
conduct than Asian/Asian American (27%, n = 46), Black/African
American (33%, n = 52), Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ respondents (33%, n
= 47), Multiracial respondents (29%, n = 90), and Additional People of
Color respondents (40%, n = 15).
▪ Of those respondents who noted that they believed that they had
experienced this conduct, larger percentages of Asian/Asian
American (67%, n = 31), Black/African American (54%, n = 28),
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ respondents (51%, n = 24), Multiracial
respondents (41%, n = 37), and Additional People of Color
respondents (33%, n = 5) than White respondents (5%, n = 25)
thought that the conduct was based on their ethnicity/race.
o 29% (n = 136) of Faculty respondents, 28% (n = 147) of Staff
respondents, 17% (n = 456) of Undergraduate Student respondents, and
9% (n = 14) of Graduate Student respondents believed that they had
experienced this conduct.
9
The literature on microaggressions is clear that this type of conduct has a negative influence on people who
experience the conduct, even if they feel at the time that it had no impact (Sue, 2010; Yosso et al., 2009).
vii
▪ Of those respondents who noted that they had experienced this
conduct, 43% (n = 63) of Staff respondents, 27% (n = 36) of
Faculty respondents, and 8% (n = 35) of Undergraduate Student
respondents thought that the conduct was based on their position
status.
Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences of exclusionary,

intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct at Ithaca College. A total of 289 students, faculty,
and staff respondents contributed comments regarding these personal experiences. Three themes
emerged from their narratives: Student respondents discussed experiences of harassment and
bullying from various groups on campus and described experiencing exclusionary conduct based
on race and gender. Student respondents described incidents of exclusionary conduct either in the
classroom or involving interactions with professors or advisors. Employee respondents also
described experiences with bullying and harassment, including incidents of racism and
exclusionary conduct perpetrated by colleagues and supervisors.
2. Several constituent groups indicated that they were less comfortable with the overall
campus climate, workplace climate, and classroom climate.
Prior research on campus climate has focused on the experiences of faculty, staff, and
students associated with historically underserved social/community/affinity groups (e.g.,
women, People of Color, people with disabilities, first-generation students).10 Several
groups at Ithaca College indicated that they were less comfortable than their majority
counterparts with the climates of the campus, workplace, and classroom.
• Staff respondents who are exempt/senior administrator without faculty rank (34%,
n = 107) were significantly more likely to have felt “very comfortable” with the
climate in their department/program or work unit at Ithaca College than were
Staff respondents who are non-exempt (25%, n = 52).
• By gender identity, Men respondents (23%, n = 290) were significantly more
likely to have felt “very comfortable” with the overall climate at Ithaca College
10
Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Norris, 1992; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2005;
Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, & Hart, 2008
viii
than Women respondents (18%, n = 438) or Transspectrum respondents (13%, n
= 12).
• Significant differences occurred in respondents’ level of comfort with the overall
climate based on sexual identity. LGBQ respondents (15%, n = 100) were less
likely to feel “very comfortable” with the overall climate than were Heterosexual
respondents (21%, n = 622).
• Christian respondents (23%, n = 347) were more likely to feel “very comfortable”
with the overall climate than were respondents with No Affiliation (17%, n = 282)
or Multiple Affiliations (15%, n = 31).
• Respondents with a Single Disability (13%, n = 52) and respondents with
Multiple Disabilities (13%, n = 28) were significantly less likely to be “very
comfortable” with the overall climate than were respondents with No Disability
(21%, n = 659).
• Low-Income Student respondents (15%, n = 42) were significantly less likely to
feel “very comfortable” with the overall climate than were Not-Low-Income
Student respondents (23%, n = 569).
3. Faculty and Staff Respondents – Challenges with work-life issues

• 49% (n = 230) of Faculty respondents and 57% (n = 303) of Staff respondents had
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College in the past year.
o 51% (n = 270) of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously
considered leaving did so for financial reasons (e.g., salary, pay rate).
o 46% (n = 244) of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously
considered leaving indicated that they did so because of limited
opportunities for advancement.
• By faculty status: 54% (n = 157) of Tenure-Track Faculty, 37% (n = 38) of Non-
Tenure Track Faculty, and 50% (n = 34) of Adjunct/Part-Time Faculty seriously
considered leaving Ithaca College.
• By racial identity: 35% (n = 8) of Asian/Asian American Employee respondents,
64% (n = 16) of Black/African American Employee respondents, 71% (n = 20) of
ix
Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic Employee respondents, 57% (n = 25) of Multiracial
Employee respondents, 88% (n = 7) Employee respondents who are Additional
People of Color, and 53% (n = 432) of White Employee respondents seriously
considered leaving Ithaca College.
• By disability status: 53% (n = 39) of employee respondents with a Single
Disability, 79% (n = 30) of employee respondents with Multiple Disabilities, and
52% (n = 455) of Employee respondents with No Disabilities seriously considered
leaving Ithaca College.
4. Faculty Respondents – Challenges with faculty work

• A slight majority of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly
agreed” or “agreed” that the criteria for tenure were clear (53%, n = 147) and less
than half felt that tenure standards/promotion standards were applied equally to
faculty in their schools/division (44%, n = 122). There were no differences across
groups.
• 22% (n = 60) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly
agreed” or “agreed” that they felt pressured to change their research/scholarship
agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. There were no differences across groups.
• Only 6% (n = 45) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly
agreed” or “agreed” that faculty opinions were taken seriously by senior
administrators, and 18% (n = 50) thought that faculty opinions were sought out by
senior administrators.
151 Staff respondents (including Senior Administrators without Faculty Rank) elaborated
on the workplace climate at Ithaca. The two themes that emerged were increased
workload and poor supervision. Regarding work-life balance, Staff respondents discussed
difficulties with feeling valued, adequate benefits, lack of opportunity for advancement,
poor pay, and lack of job security.
98 Faculty Tenure-Track respondents elaborated on their workplace climate. Three

themes emerged: distrust of administration, issues with tenure/promotion, and increased
x
committee work. Regarding work-life balance, Faculty respondents discussed difficulties
with low salary and lack of childcare benefits.
5. A small but meaningful percentage of respondents experienced unwanted sexual

conduct.
In 2014, Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students
from Sexual Assault indicated that sexual assault is a significant issue for colleges and
universities nationwide, affecting the physical health, mental health, and academic
success of students. The report highlights that one in five women is sexually assaulted
while in college. One section of the Ithaca College survey requested information regarding
sexual assault.
• 15% (n = 555) of respondents indicated on the survey that they had experienced
unwanted sexual conduct.
o 2% (n = 57) experienced relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling,
hitting).
o 2% (n = 88) experienced stalking (e.g., following me, on social media, texting,
phone calls).
o 8% (n = 285) experienced sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual
advances, sexual harassment).
o 3% (n = 125) experienced unwanted sexual contact (e.g. fondling, rape, sexual
assault, penetration without consent, or gang rape) while a member of the
Ithaca College community.
• Student respondents, Transspectrum and Women respondents, LGBQ
respondents, and respondents with a Disability more often experienced
relationship violence or reported unwanted sexual experiences than their majority
counterparts.
• Ithaca College students, strangers, and acquaintances/friends were identified as
sources of unwanted sexual experiences.
• The majority of respondents did not report the unwanted sexual experience.
xi
Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on why they did not report unwanted
sexual experiences. Three themes emerged among Ithaca College’s respondents who explained
why they did not report unwanted sexual contact. The primary rationale cited for not reporting
these incidents was a belief that the incident was not serious. The second most common rationale
provided for not reporting unwanted sexual contact was that respondents were unsure of how to
address catcalling and the third most common rationale was having an excuse to not report.
Conclusion
Ithaca College climate findings11 were consistent with those found in higher education
institutions across the country, based on the work of R&A Consulting. 12 For example, 70% to
80% of respondents in similar reports found the campus climate to be “comfortable” or “very
comfortable.” A similar percentage (70%) of Ithaca College respondents reported that they were
“very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at Ithaca College. Likewise, 20% to 25%
of respondents in similar reports indicated that they personally had experienced exclusionary,
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. At Ithaca College, a similar percentage of
respondents (20%) indicated that they personally had experienced exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct. The results also paralleled the findings of other climate studies
of specific constituent groups offered in the literature.13
Ithaca College's climate assessment report provides baseline data on diversity and inclusion, and
addresses Ithaca College's mission and goals. While the findings may guide decision-making
regarding policies and practices at Ithaca College, it is important to note that the cultural fabric
of any institution and unique aspects of each campus’s environment must be taken into
consideration when deliberating additional action items based on these findings. The climate
assessment findings provide the Ithaca College community with an opportunity to build upon its
strengths and to develop a deeper awareness of the challenges ahead. Ithaca College, with
support from senior administrators and collaborative leadership, is in a prime position to
11
Additional findings disaggregated by position status and other selected demographic characteristics are provided in
the full report.
12
Rankin & Associates Consulting, 2015
13
Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Hurtado & Ponjuan,
2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sears, 2002; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006; Silverschanz et al., 2008;
Yosso et al., 2009
xii
actualize its commitment to promote an inclusive campus and to institute organizational
structures that respond to the needs of its dynamic campus community.
xiii
Introduction
History of the Project

Ithaca College affirms that diversity and inclusion are crucial to the intellectual vitality of the
campus community, and that they engender academic engagement where teaching, working,
learning, and living take place in pluralistic communities of mutual respect. Free exchange of
different ideas and viewpoints in supportive environments encourage students, faculty, and staff
to develop the critical thinking and citizenship skills that will benefit them throughout their lives.
Ithaca College also is committed to fostering a caring community that provides leadership for
constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. As noted in Ithaca College's guiding
principles, “We embrace diversity as an integral part of the educational experience and of the
community we create.”14 To better understand the campus climate, the senior administration at
Ithaca College recognized the need for a comprehensive tool that would provide campus climate
metrics for the experiences and perceptions of its students, faculty, and staff. During the fall
2016 semester, Ithaca College conducted a comprehensive survey of all students, faculty, and
staff to develop a better understanding of the learning, living, and working environment on
campus.
In December 2015, members of Ithaca College formed the Climate Study Working Group
(CSWG). The CSWG was composed of faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Ultimately,
Ithaca College contracted with Rankin & Associates Consulting (R&A) to conduct a campus-
wide study entitled, “Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working.” Data gathered
via reviews of relevant Ithaca College literature, campus focus groups, and a campus-wide
survey addressing the experiences and perceptions of various constituent groups will be
presented at community forums, which will develop and complete two or three action items by
fall 2017.
Project Design and Campus Involvement

The conceptual model used as the foundation for Ithaca College’s assessment of campus climate
was developed by Smith et al. (1997) and modified by Rankin (2003). A power and privilege
14
http://www.ithaca.edu/about/mission/
1
perspective informs the model, one grounded in critical theory, which establishes that power
differentials, both earned and unearned, are central to all human interactions (Brookfield, 2005).
Unearned power and privilege are associated with membership in dominant social groups
(Johnson, 2005) and influence systems of differentiation that reproduce unequal outcomes.
Ithaca College’s assessment was the result of a comprehensive process to identify the strengths
and challenges of campus climate, with a specific focus on the distribution of power and
privilege among differing social groups. This report provides an overview of the results of the
campus-wide survey.
The CSWG collaborated with R&A to develop the survey instrument. Together, they
implemented participatory and community-based processes to review tested survey questions
from the R&A question bank and develop a survey instrument for Ithaca College that would
reveal the various dimensions of power and privilege that shape the campus experience. In the
first phase, R&A conducted 19 focus groups, which were composed of 139 participants (54
students, 71 faculty and staff, and 14 who did not disclose their position at Ithaca College). In the
second phase, the CSWG and R&A used data from the focus groups to co-construct questions for
the campus-wide survey. The final Ithaca College survey queried various campus constituent
groups about their experiences and perceptions regarding the academic environment for students,
the workplace environment for faculty and staff, employee benefits, sexual harassment and
sexual violence, racial and ethnic identity, gender identity and gender expression, sexual identity,
accessibility and disability services, and other topics.
In total, 3,823 people completed the survey. In the end, the College’s assessment was the result
of a comprehensive process to identify the strengths and challenges of campus climate, with a
specific focus on the distribution of power and privilege among differing social groups at Ithaca
College.
Contextual Framework and Summary of Related Literature

More than two decades ago, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the
American Council on Education (ACE) suggested that, in order to build a vital community of
learning, a college or university must provide a climate where:
Intellectual life is central and where faculty and students work together to strengthen
teaching and learning, where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and
2
where civility is powerfully affirmed, where the dignity of all individuals is affirmed and
where equality of opportunity is vigorously pursued, and where the well-being of each
member is sensitively supported (Boyer, 1990).
Not long afterward, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) (1995)
challenged higher education institutions “to affirm and enact a commitment to equality, fairness,
and inclusion” (p. xvi). AAC&U proposed that colleges and universities commit to “the task of
creating…inclusive educational environments in which all participants are equally welcome,
equally valued, and equally heard” (p. xxi). The report suggested that, to provide a foundation
for a vital community of learning, a primary duty of the academy is to create a climate grounded
in the principles of diversity, equity, and an ethic of justice for all individuals.
Hurtado (1992) and Harper & Hurtado (2007) focused on the history, compositional diversity,
organizational structure, psychological climate, and behavioral dimensions of campus
communities when considering climate. Building upon Harper’s and Hurtado’s work, Rankin
and Reason (2008) defined climate as:
The current attitudes, behaviors, standards, and practices of employees and students of an
institution. Because in our work we are particularly concerned about the climate for
individuals from traditionally underrepresented, marginalized, and underserved groups
we focus particularly on those attitudes, behaviors, and standards/practices that concern
the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities,
and potential. Note that this definition includes the needs, abilities, and potential of all
groups, not just those who have been traditionally excluded or underserved by our
institutions (p. 264).
Institutional Climate within Campus Structures

While many colleges and universities express that they are diverse, welcoming, and inclusive
places for all people, the literature on the experiences of individuals from marginalized
communities in the academy proposes that not all communities have felt welcomed and included
on campus. For example, racial climate scholars suggest that the academy is deeply rooted in
white supremacy and that higher education’s history informs current practices (Patton, 2016).
Patton (2016) challenged higher education institutions to consider the ways in which their legacy
3
of oppression, beyond race, matters now and currently affects people from marginalized groups.
Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2005) proposed that, “Diversity must be carried out in intentional
ways in order to accrue the educational benefits for students and the institution. Diversity is a
process towards better learning rather than an outcome” (p. iv). Milem et al. further suggested
that for “diversity initiatives to be successful they must engage the entire campus community”
(p. v). In an exhaustive review of the literature on diversity in higher education, Smith (2009)
offered that diversity, like technology, was central to institutional effectiveness, excellence, and
viability. Smith also maintained that building a deep capacity for diversity requires the
commitment of senior leadership and support of all members of the academic community. Ingle
(2005) recommended that “good intentions be matched with thoughtful planning and deliberate
follow-through” for diversity initiatives to be successful (p. 13).
Campus Climate and Student, Faculty, and Staff Success

Campus climate influences students’ academic success and employees’ professional success, in
addition to the social well-being of both groups. The literature also suggested that various
identity groups may perceive the campus climate differently and that their perceptions may
adversely affect working and learning outcomes (Chang, 2003; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993;
Navarro, Worthington, Hart, & Khairallah, 2009; Nelson-Laird & Niskodé-Dossett, 2010;
Rankin & Reason, 2005; Tynes, Rose, & Markoe, 2013; Worthington, Navarro, Lowey & Hart,
2008).
Several scholars found that when students of color perceive their campus environment as hostile,
outcomes such as persistence and academic performance are negatively affected (Guiffrida,
Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Johnson, Soldner, Leonard, Alvarez,
Inkelas, Rowan, & Longerbeam, 2007; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Strayhorn, 2013; Yosso,
Smith, Ceja & Solórzano, 2009). Several other empirical studies reinforced the importance of the
perception of non-discriminatory environments to positive student learning and developmental
outcomes (Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, &
Gurin, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt et al., 2001). Finally, research has supported
the value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing student learning outcomes and
4
interpersonal and psychosocial gains (Chang, Denson, Sáenz, & Misa, 2006; Hale, 2004; Harper
& Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Pike & Kuh, 2006; Sáenz,
Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007).
The personal and professional development of faculty, administrators, and staff also are
influenced by the complex nature of the campus climate. Owing to racial discrimination within
the campus environment, faculty of color often report moderate to low job satisfaction (Turner,
Myers, & Creswell, 1999), high levels of stress related to their job (Smith & Witt, 1993),
feelings of isolation (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Turner et al., 1999), and negative bias in the
promotion and tenure process (Patton & Catching, 2009; Villalpando & Delgado Bernal, 2002).
For women faculty, experiences with gender discrimination in the college environment influence
their decisions to leave their institutions (Gardner, 2013; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart,
2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) faculty felt that their institutional climate
forced them to hide their marginalized identities if they wanted to avoid alienation and scrutiny
from colleagues (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2009). Therefore, it may come as no surprise that LGBTQ
faculty members who judged their campus climate more positively felt greater personal and
professional support (Sears, 2002). The literature that underscores the relationships between
workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health and well-being (i.e., anxiety, depression,
and lower levels of life satisfaction and physical health) and greater occupation dysfunction (i.e.,
organizational withdrawal; lower satisfaction with work, coworkers, and supervisors), further
substantiates the influence of campus climate on employee satisfaction and subsequent
productivity (Silverschanz et al., 2008).
In assessing campus climate and its influence on specific populations, it is important to

understand the complexities of identity and to avoid treating identities in isolation. Limited views
of identity may prevent institutions from acknowledging the complexity of their faculty, staff,
administration, and students. Maramba & Museus (2011) agreed that an “overemphasis on a
singular dimension of students’ [and other campus constituents’] identities can also limit the
understandings generated by climate and sense of belonging studies” (p. 95). Using an
intersectional approach to research on campus climate allows individuals and institutions to
explore how multiple systems of privilege and oppression operate within the environment to
5
influence the perceptions and experiences of groups and individuals with intersecting identities
(see Griffin, Bennett, & Harris, 2011; Maramba & Museus, 2011; Nelson-Laird & Niskodé-
Dossett, 2010; Patton, 2011; Pittman, 2010; Turner, 2002).
Discussing the campus climate in higher education for faculty, staff, administration, and students
requires the naming of specific identities (e.g., position within the institution, age,
socioeconomic status, disability, gender identity, racial identity, spiritual affiliation, citizenship,
political affiliation, sexual identity) that may often times be avoided in the academy. In some
cases, colleges and universities encourage scholars and practitioners to operate within
“acceptable” definitions of social identities; such restriction, however, may maintain barriers
against the possibilities of true inclusion. To move beyond defining diversity only in terms of
race and gender, and to support real inclusion, each institution ought to define concepts, such as
diversity, and the metrics by which they will recognize when progress is made and goals are met.
Accessibility and Inclusivity

Currently, institutions of higher education meet the requirements from the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), yet many still provide the minimum support for community members of
various abilities (Peña, 2014). Institutions of higher education repeatedly overlook students and
employees with disabilities when addressing diversity challenges. Stodden (2015) asserts, “Often
students with disabilities are not a high priority for receiving support in accessing higher
education. Another indication of the anomalous position of students with disabilities among
diverse subpopulations is that they are often not included in the diversity initiatives provided by
many institutions of higher education to foster greater understanding of and connections between
diverse student subpopulations” (p. 3). When campuses move beyond the language of
accommodations and are accessible to all individuals, institutions then will become more
inclusive of people of various abilities.
Frequently, the term accessibility is used only in the context of “disability.” Understanding
accessibility in terms of disability alone limits the potential for institutions of higher education
and their constituents. Weiner (2016) shares the need to be cognizant and critical of scholarly
work in higher education, regardless of one’s position and subject matter expertise, to create the
most welcoming campus climates. The possibility of positively affecting multiple constituents
6
with one policy change or new initiative goes far beyond the disability community. When higher
education understands how shifting policies – for example, by providing open housing options –
influences community members’ sense of comfort and belonging; mental, physical, and
emotional health; and social opportunities, then a single experience of a marginalized individual
(e.g., someone with a disability, someone who is genderqueer, someone with anxiety) does not
have to be used as “the reason” to resolve systemic inequity. Institutions of higher education can
proactively create policies and physical spaces for the diverse array of campus constituents to
feel as safe as possible and to persist at school and at work (Wessel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall,
2009).
Campus Climate and Student Activism

Student activism in higher education is not new; rather, student activism is foundational in the
history of many institutions and a “culmination of years of activism around inequality”
(Kingkade, Workneh, & Grenoble, 2015). Indeed, student activism built many advocacy and
identity centers and created ethnic studies programs (e.g., multicultural centers, LGBTQ centers,
African American Studies, Women & Gender Studies, Latinx Studies, Queer Studies, Disability
Studies).
Current national activist movements, such as #BlackLivesMatter and #NoDAPL, are deeply
connected to current day activism in education. “Links between the broader social context of
what is happening off-campus and students’ on-campus activism have long been a means for
students to personalize, contextualize and make sense of what it means to pursue social change”
(Barnhardt & Reyes, p. 1, 2016). Very recently, the website thedemands.org shared The Black
Liberation Collective vision of “black students who are dedicated to transforming institutions of
higher education through unity, coalition building, direct action and political education”
(thedemands.org, 2016).
“Student activism is an opportunity to scrutinize the campus contexts, conditions and social
realities that speak to underlying claims or grievances [of students, faculty members, and staff
members]” (Barnhardt & Reyes, p. 3, 2016). Naming inequities allows institutions to identify
challenges and opportunities to shift the institutional actions, policies, and climate so that all
community members feel honored, respected, and included. Additionally, naming social
7
injustices and identifying institutions’ oppressive behaviors, policies, and exclusive practices (as
well as identifying supportive behaviors, policies, and inclusive practices) exposes campuses’
responsibilities for shifting the climate towards equity and inclusion. The call to action to be
resilient and authentic when working towards justice from scholars (Ahmed, 2009) is one that
encourages higher education institutions to support a commitment to ensuring an evolving,
intentional, and inclusive campus climate that engages, honors, and respects multiple identities
of faculty, staff, administration, and student communities.
8
Methodology
Conceptual Framework
R&A defines diversity as the “variety created in any society (and within any individual) by the
presence of different points of view and ways of making meaning, which generally flow from the
influence of different cultural, ethnic, and religious heritages, from the differences in how we
socialize women and men, and from the differences that emerge from class, age, sexual identity,
gender identity, ability, and other socially constructed characteristics.” 15 The conceptual model
used as the foundation for this assessment of campus climate was developed by Smith et al.
(1997) and modified by Rankin (2003).
Research Design
Focus Groups. As noted earlier, the first phase of the climate assessment process was to conduct
a series of focus groups at Ithaca College to gather information from students, staff, faculty, and
administrators about their perceptions of the campus climate. On April 7, 2016, Ithaca College
students, staff, faculty, and administrators participated in 19 focus groups conducted by R&A
facilitators. The groups were identified by the CSWG and invited to participate via a letter from
President Thomas R. Rochon. The interview protocol included four questions addressing
participants’ perceptions of the campus living, learning, and working environment;
initiatives/programs implemented by Ithaca College that have directly influenced participants’
success; the greatest challenges for various groups at Ithaca College; and suggestions to improve
the campus climate.
R&A conducted 19 focus groups comprised of 139 participants (54 students; 71 faculty, staff, or
administrators; and 14 who did not disclose their position) at Ithaca College. Participants in each
group were given the opportunity to follow up with R&A about any additional concerns. The
CSWG and R&A used the results to inform questions for the campus-wide survey.
Survey Instrument. The survey questions were constructed based on the results of the focus
groups, the work of Rankin (2003), and with the assistance of the CSWG. The CSWG reviewed
15
Rankin & Associates Consulting (2015) adapted from AAC&U (1995).
9
several drafts of the initial survey proposed by R&A and vetted the questions to be contextually
more appropriate for the Ithaca College population. The final Ithaca College campus-wide
survey contained 108 questions,16 including open-ended questions for respondents to provide
commentary. The survey was designed so respondents could provide information about their
personal campus experiences, their perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of
Ithaca College's institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives
regarding diversity issues and concerns. The survey was available in both online and pencil-and-
paper formats. All survey responses were input into a secure-site database, stripped of their IP
addresses (for online responses), and then tabulated for appropriate analysis.
Sampling Procedure. Ithaca College's Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the project
proposal, including the survey instrument. The IRB considered the activity to be designed to
assess campus climate within the University and to inform Ithaca College's strategic quality
improvement initiatives. The IRB director acknowledged that the data collected from this quality
improvement activity also could be used for research. The IRB approved the project on July 13,
2016.
Prospective participants received an invitation from Linda Petrosino and Roger (Doc)
Richardson that contained the URL link to the survey. Respondents were instructed that they
were not required to answer all questions and that they could withdraw from the survey at any
time before submitting their responses. The survey included information describing the purpose
of the study, explaining the survey instrument, and assuring the respondents of anonymity. Only
surveys that were at least 50% completed were included in the final data set.
Completed online surveys were submitted directly to a secure server, where any computer
identification that might identify participants was deleted. Any comments provided by
participants also were separated from identifying information at submission so comments were
not attributed to any individual demographic characteristics.
16
To ensure reliability, evaluators must ensure that instruments are properly structured (questions and response
choices must be worded in such a way that they elicit consistent responses) and administered in a consistent manner.
The instrument was revised numerous times, defined critical terms, underwent expert evaluation of items, and
checked for internal consistency.
10
Limitations. Two limitations existed to the generalizability of the data. The first limitation was
that respondents “self-selected” to participate in the study. Self-selection bias, therefore, was
possible. This type of bias can occur because an individual’s decision to participate may be
correlated with traits that affect the study, which could make the sample non-representative. For
example, people with strong opinions or substantial knowledge regarding climate issues on
campus may have been more apt to participate in the study. The second limitation was response
rates that were less than 30% for some groups. For groups with response rates less than 30%,
caution is recommended when generalizing the results to the entire constituent group.
Data Analysis. Survey data were analyzed to compare the responses (in raw numbers and
percentages) of various groups via SPSS (version 23.0). Missing data analyses (e.g., missing data
patterns, survey fatigue) were conducted and those analyses were provided to Ithaca College in a
separate document. Descriptive statistics were calculated by salient group memberships (e.g.,
gender identity, racial identity, position status) to provide additional information regarding
participant responses. Throughout much of this report, including the narrative and data tables
within the narrative, information is presented using valid percentages.17 Actual percentages18
with missing or “no response” information may be found in the survey data tables in
Appendix B. The purpose for this discrepancy in reporting is to note the missing or “no
response” data in the appendices for institutional information while removing such data within
the report for subsequent cross tabulations and significance testing using the chi-square test for
independence.
Chi-square tests provide only omnibus results; as such, they identify that significant differences
exist in the data table, but do not specify if differences exist between specific groups. Therefore,
these analyses included post-hoc investigations of statistically significant findings by conducting
z-tests between column proportions for each row in the chi-square contingency table, with a
Bonferroni adjustment for larger contingency tables. This approach is useful because it compares
individual cells to each other to determine if they are statistically different (Sharpe, 2015). Thus,
17
Valid percentages were derived using the total number of respondents to a particular item (i.e., missing data were
excluded).
18
Actual percentages were derived using the total number of survey respondents.
11
the data may be interpreted more precisely by showing the source of the greatest discrepancies.
The statistically significant distinctions between groups are noted whenever possible throughout
the report.
Factor Analysis Methodology. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on one scale
embedded in Question 11 of the survey. The scale, termed “Perceived Academic Success” for the
purposes of this project, was developed using Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) Academic and
Intellectual Development Scale. This scale has been used in a variety of studies examining
student persistence. The first seven sub-questions of Question 11 of the survey reflect the
questions on this scale.
The questions on the scale were answered on a Likert metric from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree” (scored 1 for “strongly agree” and 5 for “strongly disagree”). For the purposes of
analysis, Student respondents who did not answer all scale sub-questions were not included in
the analysis. Three and a half percent (3.5%) of all potential Student respondents were removed
from the analysis due to one or more missing responses.
A factor analysis was conducted on the Perceived Academic Success scale utilizing principal axis
factoring. The factor loading of each item was examined to test whether the intended questions
combined to represent the underlying construct of the scale. 19 One question from the scale
(Q11_2) did not hold with the construct and was removed; the scale used for analyses had six
questions rather than seven. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale
was 0.842 (after removing the question noted above), which is high, meaning that the scale
produces consistent results. With Q11_2 included, Cronbach’s alpha was only 0.763.
19
Factor analysis is a particularly useful technique for scale construction. It is used to determine how well a set of
survey questions combine to measure a latent construct by measuring how similarly respondents answer those
questions.
12
Table 2. Survey Items Included in the Perceived Academic Success Factor Analyses
Scale Academic experience
I am performing up to my full academic potential.
I am satisfied with my academic experience at Ithaca College.
Perceived I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at

Academic Success Ithaca College.
I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would.
My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth
and interest in ideas.
My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to Ithaca
College.
Factor Scores
The factor score for Perceived Academic Success was created by taking the average of the scores
for the six sub-questions in the factor. Each respondent who answered all of the questions
included in the given factor was given a score on a five-point scale. A lower score on Perceived
Academic Success factor suggests a student or constituent group is more academically
successful.
Means Testing Methodology
After creating the factor scores for respondents based on the factor analysis, means were
calculated and the means for Student respondents were analyzed using a t-test for difference of
means.
Additionally, where n’s were of sufficient size, separate analyses were conducted to determine
whether the means for the Perceived Academic Success factor were different for first level
categories in the following demographic areas: (Due to lower numbers, graduate students had a
reduced number of categories for several demographic areas, where noted.)
o Gender identity (undergraduate - Woman, Man, Transspectrum; graduate –

Woman, Man)
o Racial identity (People of Color, Multiracial Respondents, White People)
o Sexual identity (LGBQ, Heterosexual)
o Disability status (Single Disability, No Disability, Multiple Disabilities)
o Income status (Low-Income, Not-Low-Income)
13
When there were only two categories for the specified demographic variable (e.g., sexual
identity) a t-test for difference of means was used. If the difference in means was significant,
effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d. Any moderate-to-large effects were noted. When the
specific variable of interest had more than two categories (e.g., disability status), ANOVAs were
run to determine whether there were any differences. If the ANOVA was significant, post-hoc
tests were run to determine which differences between pairs of means were significant.
Additionally, if the difference in means was significant, effect size was calculated using Eta 2 and
any moderate-to-large effects were noted.
14
Qualitative Comments
Several survey questions provided respondents the opportunity to describe their experiences at
Ithaca College, elaborate upon their survey responses, and append additional thoughts.
Comments were solicited to give voice to the data and to highlight areas of concern that might
have been missed in the quantitative items of the survey. These open-ended comments were
reviewed20 using standard methods of thematic analysis. R&A reviewers read all comments, and
a list of common themes was generated based on their analysis. Most themes reflected the issues
addressed in the survey questions and revealed in the quantitative data. This methodology does
not reflect a comprehensive qualitative study. Comments were not used to develop grounded
hypotheses independent of the quantitative data.
20
Any comments provided in languages other than English were translated and incorporated into the qualitative
analysis.
15
Results
This section of the report provides a description of respondent demographics, measures of

internal reliability, and a discussion of validity. This section also presents the results per the
project design, which called for examining respondents’ personal campus experiences, their
perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of Ithaca College's institutional actions,
including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding climate.
Several analyses were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed in the
responses between participants from various demographic categories. Where significant
differences occurred, endnotes (denoted by lowercase Roman numeral superscripts) at the end of
each section of this report provide the results of the significance testing. The narrative also
provides results from descriptive analyses that were not statistically significant, yet were
determined to be meaningful to the climate at Ithaca College.
Description of Respondents21
Three thousand, eight hundred twenty-three (3,823) surveys were returned for a 46% overall
response rate. The sample and population figures, chi-square analyses, 22 and response rates are
presented in Table 3. All analyzed demographic categories showed statistically significant
differences between the sample data and the population data, as provided by Ithaca College.
• Women were significantly overrepresented in the sample; men were

underrepresented. Transspectrum was provided as an option for the sample, but not
for the population. There were no missing/unknown in the population.
• American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@, Multiracial, and
International individuals were significantly overrepresented in the sample. Middle
Eastern/Southwest Asian was an option for the sample but not for the population and
there were no Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders in the population or the sample.
21
All frequency tables are provided in Appendix B.
22
Chi-square tests were conducted only on those categories that were response options in the survey and included in
demographics provided by Ithaca College.
16
Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, and White/European American
individuals were significantly underrepresented in the sample.
• Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, and Part-Time/Adjunct Faculty were
underrepresented in the sample. Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track Faculty, Senior
Administrators, and Staff were significantly overrepresented in the sample. Pre-
doctoral/Post-doctoral individuals were present in equal proportions.
• The test for the sample by citizenship status was not significant, suggesting that
respondents were present in the sample in equal proportions to the population.
17
Table 3. Demographics of Population and Sample
Population Sample
Response
Characteristic Subgroup N % n % rate
Gender identitya Woman 4,797 57.4 2,446 64.0 51.0
Man 3,562 42.6 1,257 32.9 35.3
Transspectrum ND ND 45 1.2 N/A
Other/Missing/Multiple/Not Reported ND ND 75 2.0 N/A
Racial/ethnic
identityb American Indian/Alaska Native 15 0.2 12 0.3 80.0
Asian/Asian American 293 3.5 131 3.4 44.7
Black/African American 426 5.1 145 3.8 34.0
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ 250 3.0 131 3.4 52.4
Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian ND ND 15 0.4 N/A
Multiracial 537 6.4 309 8.1 57.5
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 N/A
White/European American 6,268 75.0 2,848 74.5 45.4
Nonresident Alien/Permanent Resident 166 2.0 126 3.3 75.9
Missing/Unknown/Other 404 4.8 106 2.8 26.2
c
Position status Undergraduate Student 6,210 74.3 2,672 69.9 43.0
Graduate Student 454 5.4 157 4.1 34.6
Pre-doctoral/Post-doctoral 7 0.1 5 0.1 71.4
Tenure Track Faculty 434 5.2 279 7.3 64.3
Non-Tenure Track Faculty 155 1.9 103 2.7 66.5
Part-Time/Adjunct Faculty 230 2.8 68 1.8 29.6
Senior Administrator 30 0.4 33 0.9 >100.0
Staff 839 10.0 506 13.2 60.3
Citizenship
statusd US Citizen 8,066 96.5 3,669 96.0 45.5
Permanent Resident 124 1.5 45 1.2 36.3
Nonresident Alien 169 2.0 81 2.1 47.9
Missing/Unknown ND ND 28 0.7 N/A
* ND: No Data Available
a 2 (1, N = 3,703) = 113.07, p < .001
b 2 (7, N = 3,808) = 99.87, p < .001
c 2 (7, N = 3,823) = 142.02, p < .001
d 2 (2, N = 3,795) = 2.85, p = .241
18
Validity. Validity is the extent to which a measure truly reflects the phenomenon or concept
under study. The validation process for the survey instrument included both the development of
the survey items and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey items were constructed
based on the work of Hurtado et al. (1998) and Smith et al. (1997) and were further informed by
instruments used in other institutional and organizational studies by the consultant. Several
researchers working in the area of campus climate and diversity, experts in higher education
survey research methodology, and members of Ithaca College’s CSWG reviewed the bank of
items available for the survey.
Content validity was ensured, given that the items and response choices arose from literature
reviews, previous surveys, and input from CSWG members. Construct validity - the extent to
which scores on an instrument permit inferences about underlying traits, attitudes, and behaviors-
should be evaluated by examining the correlations of measures being evaluated with variables
known to be related to the construct. For this investigation, correlations ideally ought to exist
between item responses and known instances of exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or
hostile conduct, for example. However, no reliable data to that effect were available. As such,
attention was given to the manner in which questions were asked and response choices given.
Items were constructed to be non-biased, non-leading, and non-judgmental, and to preclude
individuals from providing “socially acceptable” responses.
Reliability - Internal Consistency of Responses.23 Correlations between the responses to

questions about overall campus climate for various groups (survey Question 91) and to questions
that rated overall campus climate on various scales (survey Question 92) were moderate to strong
and statistically significant, indicating a positive relationship between answers regarding the
acceptance of various populations and the climate for those populations. The consistency of these
results suggests that the survey data were internally reliable. Pertinent correlation coefficients 24
are provided in Table 4.
23
Internal reliability is a measure of reliability used to evaluate the degree to which different test items that probe the
same construct produce similar results (Trochim, 2000). The correlation coefficient indicates the degree of linear
relationship between two variables (Bartz, 1988).
24
Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the degree to which two variables are related. A value of 1 signifies
perfect correlation; 0 signifies no correlation.
19
All correlations in the table were significantly different from zero at the .01 level. In other words,
a relationship existed between all selected pairs of responses.
A strong relationship (between .58 and .72) existed for all five pairs of variables: between
Positive for Other People of Color and Not Racist, between Positive for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Queer, or Transgender People and Not Homophobic, between Positive for Women and Not
Sexist, between Positive for People of Low-Income status and Not Classist (income status), and
between Positive for People with Disabilities and Disability-Friendly (not ableist).
Table 4. Pearson Correlations Between Ratings of Acceptance and Campus Climate for Selected Groups
Climate Characteristics
Not Not Not Not Classist Disability-

Racist Homophobic Sexist (SES) Friendly
Positive for People
.579*
of Color
Positive for
Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, or Queer
.688*
People
Positive for
.618*
Women
Positive for People

of Low-Income
.646*
Status
Positive for People

.715*
with Disabilities
*
p < 0.01
Note: A correlation of .5 or higher is considered strong in behavioral research (Cohen, 1988).
20
Respondent Characteristics25
For the purposes of several analyses, demographic responses were collapsed into categories
established by the CSWG to make comparisons between groups and to ensure respondents’
confidentiality. Analyses do not reveal in the narrative, figures, or tables where the number of
respondents in a particular category totaled less than five (n < 5).
Primary status data for respondents were collapsed into Undergraduate Student respondents,
Graduate Student respondents, Faculty respondents, and Staff respondents.26 Of all respondents,
70% (n = 2,672) were Undergraduate Students, 4% (n = 157) were Graduate Students, 12% (n =
466) were Faculty respondents, and 14% (n = 528) were Staff respondents (Figure 1). Ninety-
seven percent (n = 3,711) of respondents were full-time in their primary positions. Subsequent
analyses indicated that 99% (n = 2,647) of Undergraduate Student respondents, 95% (n = 149) of
Graduate Student respondents, 86% (n = 399) of Faculty respondents, and 98% (n = 516) of Staff
respondents were full-time in their primary positions.
25
All percentages presented in the “Respondent Characteristics” section of the report are actual percentages.
26
Collapsed position status variables were determined by the CSWG.
21
Figure 1. Respondents’ Collapsed Position Status
With regard to respondents’ work unit affiliations, Table 5 indicates that Staff respondents
represented various work units across campus. Of Staff respondents, 26% (n = 137) were
affiliated with Provost and Educational Affairs (e.g., Student Affairs, Public Safety), 20% (n =
103) were affiliated with Finance and Administration (e.g., Facilities, DIIS), 13% (n = 71) were
affiliated with Institutional Advancement and Communication, and 11% (n = 56) were affiliated
with Enrollment Management.
Table 5. Staff Respondents’ Academic Division/Work Unit Affiliations
Academic division/work unit n %
Enrollment Management 56 10.6
Finance and Administration (e.g., Facilities, DIIS) 103 19.5
22
Table 5. Staff Respondents’ Academic Division/Work Unit Affiliations
Human and Legal Resources 17 3.2
Institutional Advancement and Communication 71 13.4
Office of the President <5 ---
Provost and Educational Affairs (e.g., Student Affairs, Public Safety) 137 25.9
School of Business 7 1.3
School of Communications 13 2.5
School of Health Sciences and Human Performance 26 4.9
School of Humanities and Sciences 25 4.7
School of Music 9 1.7
Missing 63 11.9
Note: Table reports only Staff responses (n = 528).
Of Faculty respondents, 47% (n = 217) were affiliated with the School of Humanities and
Sciences, 21% (n = 98) with the School of Health Sciences and Human Performance, 13% (n =
61) with the School of Music, and 9% (n = 42) with the School of Communications (Table 6).
Table 6. Faculty Respondents’ Primary Academic Division/College Affiliations
Academic division/college n %
School of Health Sciences and Human Performance 98 21.0
Missing 16 3.4
Note: Table reports only Faculty responses (n = 466).
23
Nearly two-thirds of the sample (65%, n = 2,468) were Women; 33% (n = 1,267) were Men. 27
One percent (n = 45) of respondents identified as Non-binary, 1% (n = 43) of respondents
identified as Genderqueer, and <1% (n = 12) identified as Transgender.28 One percent (n = 18)
respondents marked “a gender not listed here” and offered identities such as “fluid,” “queer,”
“FtM, but stealth,” “gender fluid,” “questioning,” “trans-masculine, agender,” and “two-spirit.”
The CSWG decided to collapse Transgender, Genderqueer, Non-binary, and “a gender not listed
here” into the “Transspectrum” category (3%, n = 118).
27
The majority of respondents identified their birth sex as female (66%, n = 2,515), while 34% (n = 1,287) of
respondents identified as male and less than five identified as intersex. Additionally, 63% (n = 2,397) identified their
gender expression as feminine, 33% (n = 1,248) as masculine, 3% (n = 94) as androgynous, and 1% (n = 45) as “a
gender expression not listed here.”
28
Self-identification as transgender/trans* does not preclude identification as male or female, nor do all those who
might fit the definition self-identify as transgender. Here, those who chose to self-identify as transgender have been
reported separately in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus identity that might otherwise have
been overlooked. Because transgender respondents numbered less than five, no analyses were conducted or included
in the report in order to maintain the respondents’ confidentiality.
24
Figure 2 illustrates that more Women Undergraduate Student respondents (66%, n = 1,759) than
Men Undergraduate Student respondents (31%, n = 832) and Transspectrum Undergraduate
Student respondents (3%, n = 76) completed the survey. Similarly, more Women Graduate
Student respondents (76%, n = 119) than Men Graduate Student respondents (22%, n = 35)
completed the survey. A greater percentage of Faculty respondents were Women (51%, n = 232)
than were Men (47%, n = 213) or Transspectrum (2%, n = 11). A greater percentage of Staff
respondents were Women (65%, n = 336) than were Men (34%, n = 177) or Transspectrum (1%,
n = 6).
Transspectrum 1
Staff
Men 34
Women 65
Faculty
Transspectrum 2
Men 47
Women 51
Undergraduate Graduate
Students
Men 22
Women 76
Students
Transspectrum 3
Men 31
Women 66
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 2. Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)
25
The majority of respondents identified as Heterosexual29 (80%, n = 3,038), 17% (n = 652)
identified as LGBQ (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, or questioning), 3% (n = 100)
as an other sexual identity, and 1% (n = 33) identified as asexual (Figure 3).
2,092
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty
Staff
502
444
367
135
71 61 32 46
18 27 23
LGBQ Asexual Other Heterosexual
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 3. Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)
Respondents who answered “other” in response to the question about their sexual identity and wrote “straight” or
29
“heterosexual” in the adjoining text box were recoded as Heterosexual. Additionally, this report uses the terms
“LGBQ” and “sexual minorities” to denote individuals who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual,
queer, and questioning, as well as those who wrote in “other” terms such as “demisexual,” “asexual,” “biromantic,”
“grey-asexual,” and “homoromantic asexual.”
26
Of Faculty respondents, 11% (n = 44) were between 25 and 34 years old, 27% (n = 111) were
between 35 and 44 years old, 29% (n = 117) were between 45 and 54 years old, 22% (n = 90)
were between 55 and 64 years old, 10% (n = 40) were between 65 and 74 years old, and less than
five respondents were 75 and older (Figure 4).
Of Staff respondents, 2% (n = 11) were between 22 and 24 years old, 20% (n = 92) were
between 25 and 34 years old, 20% (n = 91) were between 35 and 44 years old, 33% (n = 153)
were between 45 and 54 years old, 22% (n = 101) were between 55 and 64 years old, and 3% (n
= 13) were between 65 and 74 years old (Figure 4).
Staff Faculty
153
111 117
101
92 91 90
44 40
11 13
0 0 0
18-19 20-21 22-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
Figure 4. Employee30 Respondents by Age and Position Status (n)
30
Throughout the report, the term “Employee respondents” refers to all respondents who indicated that they were
staff or faculty members.
27
Of responding Undergraduate Students, 53% (n = 1,329) were 19 or younger, 43% (n = 1,079)
were between 20 and 21 years old, 4% (n = 103) were between 22 and 24 years old, and <1% (n
= 8) were between 25 and 34 years old (Figure 5).
Of responding Graduate Students, 8% (n = 12) were between 20 and 21 years old, 80% (n = 117)
were between 22 and 24 years old, and 10% (n = 15) were between 25 and 34 years old (Figure
5).
1,329
Undergraduate Students
1,079 Graduate Students
103117
0 12 8 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18-19 20-21 22-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-75 75 and

older
Figure 5. Student Respondents by Age31 (n)
31
Potential survey respondents were asked to confirm that they were at least 18 years of age.
28
With regard to racial identity, 82% (n = 3,150) of the respondents identified as White/European
American (Figure 6). Seven percent (n = 268) were Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@, 7% (n = 248) of
respondents identified as Black/African American, 6% (n = 230) were Asian/Asian American,
2% (n = 76) were American Indian/Native, 2% (n = 61) were Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian,
<1% (n = 11) were Native Hawaiian, and less than five each were Alaska Native or Native
Hawaiian. Some individuals marked the response category “a racial/ethnic identity not listed
here” and wrote “Caribbean,” “Jewish,” “mixed,” or identified with a specific country.
White/European American 82
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ 7
Black/African American 7
Asian/Asian American 6
American Indian/Native 2
Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian 2
A racial/ethnic identity not listed 1
Pacific Islander 0
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 6. Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity,

Inclusive of Multiracial and/or Multiethnic (%)
29
Respondents were given the opportunity to mark multiple boxes regarding their racial identity, 32
allowing them to identify as biracial or multiracial. For the purposes of some analyses, the
CSWG created six racial identity categories. Given the opportunity to mark multiple responses,
many respondents chose only White (75%, n = 2,883) as their identity (Figure 7). Other
respondents identified as Multiracial33 (8%, n = 314), Asian/Asian American (5%, n = 172),
Black/African American (4%, n = 160), Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (4%, n = 144), and
Additional People of Color34 (1%, n = 38). A substantial percentage of respondents did not
indicate their racial identity and were recoded to Other/Missing/Unknown (3%, n = 112).
Figure 7. Respondents by Collapsed Categories of Racial Identity (%)
32
While recognizing the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g., Chicano(a) versus
African-American or Latino(a) versus Asian-American), and those experiences within these identity categories
(e.g., Hmong versus Chinese), Rankin and Associates found it necessary to collapse some of these categories to
conduct the analyses as a result of the small numbers of respondents in the individual categories.
33
Per the CSWG, respondents who identified as more than one racial identity were recoded as Multiracial.
34
Per the CSWG, the Additional People of Color category included respondents who identified as Alaskan Native,
American Indian/Native, Middle Eastern, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander.
30
The survey question that queried respondents about their religious or spiritual identities provided
a multitude of responses. For the purposes of this report, the responses were collapsed into four
categories. Forty-three percent (n = 1,629) of respondents reported No Affiliation (Figure 8).
Thirty-nine percent (n = 1,500) of respondents identified as having a Christian Affiliation. Ten
percent (n = 399) identified with an Additional Faith-Based Affiliation, and 6% (n = 212) with
Multiple Affiliation.
No Affiliation 43
Christian Affiliation 39
Additional Faith-Based Affiliation 10
Multiple Affiliation 6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 8. Respondents by Religious/Spiritual Identity (%)
31
Ninety-eight percent (n = 3,326) of Student respondents had no parenting or caregiving
responsibilities. Ninety-nine percent (n = 2,648) of Undergraduate Student respondents had no
dependent care responsibilities and 98% (n = 153) of Graduate Student respondents had no
dependent care responsibilities (Figure 9).
99 98 Undergraduate
Students
Graduate Students
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 9. Student Respondents’ Dependent Care Responsibilities by Student Position Status (%)
32
Fifty-one percent (n = 233) of Faculty respondents and 56% (n = 292) of Staff respondents had
no substantial parenting or caregiving responsibilities (Figure 10). Fourteen percent (n = 64) of
Faculty respondents and 11% (n = 57) of Staff respondents were caring for children under the
age of five years. Twenty-nine percent (n = 134) of Faculty respondents and 21% (n = 111) of
Staff respondents were caring for children ages 6 to 18. Eight percent (n = 39) of Faculty
respondents and 10% (n = 52) of Staff respondents were caring for children over the age of 18
years but still legally dependent. Five percent (n = 24) of Faculty respondents and 6% (n = 31) of
Staff respondents had independent children over the age of 18. Two percent (n = 7) of Faculty
respondents and 2% (n = 11) of Staff respondents were caring for sick or disabled partners. Nine
percent (n = 44) of Faculty respondents and 14% (n = 73) of Staff respondents were caring for
senior or other family members.
Figure 10. Employee Respondents’ Caregiving Responsibilities by Position Status (%)
33
Sixteen percent (n = 623) of respondents had conditions that substantially influenced learning,
working, or living activities. Of those who identified as having a condition that substantially
influenced learning, work, or living activities, 52% (n = 323) of respondents had a mental
health/psychological condition, 31% (n = 194) had ADD/ADHD, and 21% (n = 129) had a
chronic health diagnosis or medical condition (Table 7). Subsequent analyses indicated that 10%
(n = 390) of respondents had a single condition that substantially influenced learning, working,
or living activities and 6% (n = 210) had multiple conditions that substantially influenced
learning, working, or living activities.
Table 7. Respondents’ Conditions That Affect Learning, Working, Living Activities
Conditions n %
Mental Health/Psychological Condition
(e.g., anxiety, depression) 323 51.8
ADD/ADHD 194 31.1

Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition (e.g., Asthma,
Diabetes, Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia) 129 20.7
Learning Difference/Disability (e.g., Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Cognitive/Language-based) 104 16.7
Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 34 5.5
Hard of Hearing or Deaf 26 4.2
Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 16 2.6
Autism Spectrum Disorder/Asperger’s Disorder 15 2.4
Low Vision or Blind 15 2.4
Alcohol/Substance abuse recovery 12 1.9
Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury 12 1.9
Speech/Communication Condition 8 1.3
A disability/condition not listed here 15 2.4

Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they have a condition/disability in Question 60 (n =
623). Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.
34
Table 8 depicts how respondents answered the survey item, “What is your citizenship status in
the U.S.? Mark all that apply.” For the purposes of analyses, the CSWG created two citizenship
categories:35 Ninety-two percent (n = 3,532) of respondents were U.S. Citizens and 7% (n = 263)
were Non-U.S. Citizens/U.S. Citizens Naturalized.
Table 8. Respondents’ Citizenship Status (Duplicated Totals)
Citizenship n %
U.S. citizen, birth 3,532 92.4
U.S. citizen, naturalized 137 3.6
A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) 77 2.0
Permanent resident 45 1.2
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) <5 ---
DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) <5 ---
Undocumented resident <5 ---
Refugee status 0 0.0
Other legally documented status 0 0.0
Currently under a withholding of removal status 0 0.0
Missing 28 0.7
Ninety percent (n = 3,439) of respondents reported that only English was spoken in their homes.
Three percent (n = 105) indicated that a language other than English was spoken in their homes,
while 6% (n = 242) indicated that English and at least one other language were spoken in their
homes. Some of the languages that respondents indicated that they spoke at home were Chinese,
French, German, Japanese, Creole, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
35
For the purposes of analyses, the collapsed categories for citizenship are U.S. Citizen and Non-U.S. Citizen/U.S.
Citizen Naturalized (includes naturalized U.S. Citizens, permanent residents; F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E, and TN
visa holders; DACA, DAPA, refugee status, other legally documented status, currently under a withholding of
removal status, and undocumented residents).
35
Additional analyses revealed that 95% (n = 3,643) of respondents had never served in the
military. Eight respondents (< 1%) were on active duty (including Reserves/National Guard) and
44 respondents (1%) formerly were active military. Less than 1% (n = 12) of respondents were in
ROTC.
Thirty-five percent (n = 176) of Staff respondents indicated that the highest level of education
they had completed was a master’s degree, 24% (n = 123) had a bachelor’s degree, 11% (n = 56)
had some college, 11% (n = 53) had finished an associate’s degree, and 7% (n = 36) had finished
some graduate work.
Table 9 illustrates the level of education completed by Student respondents’ parents or legal
guardians. Subsequent analyses indicated that 8% (n = 225) of Student respondents were First-
Generation Students.36
Table 9. Student Respondents’ Parents’/Guardians’ Highest Level of Education
Parent/legal Parent/legal
guardian 1 guardian 2
Level of education n % n %
No high school 49 1.3 67 1.8
Some high school 111 2.9 109 2.9
Completed high school/GED 478 12.5 567 14.8
Some college 368 9.6 414 10.8
Business/technical certificate/degree 107 2.8 145 3.8
Associate’s degree 216 5.7 207 5.4
Bachelor’s degree 986 25.8 1,062 27.8
Some graduate work 75 2.0 89 2.3
Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA) 966 25.3 715 18.7
Specialist degree (EdS) 17 0.4 29 .8
With the CSWG’s approval, “First-Generation Students” were identified as those with both parents/guardians
36
having completed no high school, some high school, or high school/GED.
36
Table 9. Student Respondents’ Parents’/Guardians’ Highest Level of Education
Parent/legal Parent/legal
guardian 1 guardian 2
Doctoral degree (PhD., EdD) 240 6.3 111 2.9
Professional degree (MD, JD) 153 4.0 108 2.8
Unknown 8 0.2 48 1.3
Not applicable 30 0.8 115 3.0
Missing 19 0.5 37 1.0

Note: Table reports only Student responses (n = 3,823).
As indicated in Table 10, 29% (n = 786) of Undergraduate Student respondents were first-year
students, 25% (n = 677) were second-year students, 21% (n = 565) were third-year students,
23% (n = 626) were fourth-year students, and 1% (n = 15) were fifth-year students. Less than
five respondents were in their sixth year or more of their undergraduate career.
Table 10. Students Year in College Career
Year in college career n %
First year 786 29.4
Second year 677 25.3
Third year 565 21.1
Fourth year 626 23.4
Fifth year 15 0.6
Sixth year (or more) <5 ---
Missing <5 ---

Note: Table reports only Undergraduate Student responses (n = 2,672).
37
Table 11 reveals that 8% (n = 213) of Undergraduate Student respondents were majoring in
Television-Radio, 8% (n = 200) in Business Administration, and 7% (n = 175) in Integrated
Marketing Communications.
Table 11. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Current or Intended Academic

Divisions/Majors
Academic division/major n %
Accounting 50 1.9
Acting 16 0.6
Aging Studies <5 ---
Anthropology 25 0.9
Applied Economics 9 0.3
Applied Psychology 24 0.9
Architectural Studies <5 ---
Art BA <5 ---
Art BFA 8 0.3
Art Education 5 0.2
Art History 9 0.3
Athletic Training 28 1.0
Biochemistry 19 0.7
Biology 51 1.9
Biology (Teaching) <5 ---
Business Administration 200 7.5
Chemistry 3-2 Engineering 0 0.0
Chemistry 10 0.4
Chemistry (Teaching) <5 ---
Cinema and Photography 119 4.5
Clinical Exercise Science 11 0.4
Clinical Health Studies 137 5.1
Communication Management and Design 87 3.3
Communication Studies 19 0.7
Community Health Education 0 0.0
Composition <5 ---
Computer Information Systems 0 0.0
Computer Science 28 1.0
38

Divisions/Majors
Culture and Communication 17 0.6
Documentary Studies and Production 25 0.9
Drama <5 ---
Economics 17 0.6
Emerging Media - Computation 0 0.0
Emerging Media - Design and Production 25 0.9
Emerging Media - Entrepreneur <5 ---
English 35 1.3
English (Teaching) 5 0.2
Environmental Science 19 0.7
Environmental Studies 38 1.4
Exercise Science 55 2.1
Exploratory 132 4.9
Extramural 0 0.0
Film, Photography, and Visual Arts 48 1.8
French <5 ---
French (Teaching) 0 0.0
French and Francophone Studies <5 ---
German (Teaching) 0 0.0
German Area Studies 0 0.0
Gerontology Certificate 0 0.0
Health Care Management 11 0.4
Health Education and Physical Education (Teaching) 7 0.3
Health Education (Teaching) 0 0.0
Health Policy Studies 0 0.0
Health Sciences 62 2.3
Health Sciences Preprofessional 43 1.6
History 9 0.3
Integrated Marketing Communications 175 6.5
Italian Studies <5 ---
Jazz Studies 5 0.2
Journalism 99 3.7
Legal Studies 30 1.1
39

Divisions/Majors
Mathematics 20 0.7
Mathematics (Teaching) 7 0.3
Mathematics-Computer Science <5 ---
Mathematics-Computer Science (Teaching) 0 0.0
Mathematics-Economics 5 0.2
Mathematics-Physics <5 ---
Music BA 6 0.2
Music BM 17 0.6
Music Education BM 61 2.3
Music Performance Education 27 1.0
Music with Outside Field 19 0.7
Music Theory <5 ---
Musical Theatre 9 0.3
Occupational Therapy 126 4.7
Outdoor Adventure Leadership 10 0.4
Performance 17 0.6
Philosophy <5 ---
Philosophy-Religion <5 ---
Physical Education (Teaching) <5 ---
Physics (Teaching) 0 0.0
Physics 3-2 Engineering 7 0.3
Physics 15 0.6
Planned Studies 13 0.5
Politics 51 1.9
Psychology 76 2.8
Public and Community Health 20 0.7
Recreation Management <5 ---
Social Studies <5 ---
Social Studies (Teaching) <5 ---
Sociology 41 1.5
Sound Recording Technology 0 0.0
Spanish 7 0.3
Spanish (Teaching) 0 0.0
40

Divisions/Majors
Speech Communication 0 0.0
Speech-Language Pathology BS 71 2.7
Speech-Language Pathology Integrated Program BS 0 0.0
Sport Management 32 1.2
Sport Media 20 0.7
Sport Studies 5 0.2
Television-Radio 213 8.0
Theatre Arts Management 16 0.6
Theatre Studies 45 1.7
Theatrical Production Arts 25 0.9
Therapeutic Recreation 14 0.5
Writing 59 2.2
Writing for Film, TV, Emerging Media 53 2.0
Note: Table reports only Undergraduate Student responses (n = 2,672). Table does not report majors where n < 5.
Sum does not total 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
Thirty-five percent (n = 54) of Graduate Student respondents were in the Physical Therapy DPT,
17% (n = 27) were in the Occupational Therapy MS, and 6% (n = 10) each were in Exercise and
Sports Sciences MS and Speech-Language Pathology MS (Table 12).
Table 12. Graduate Student Respondents’ Academic Programs
Academic division n %
Adolescence Education MAT 7 4.5
Business Administration MBA <5 ---
Childhood Education MS <5 ---
Communications Innovation MS <5 ---
Communications MS <5 ---
Composition MM <5 ---
Conducting MM <5 ---
Exercise and Sport Sciences MS 10 6.4
41
Table 12. Graduate Student Respondents’ Academic Programs
Academic division n %
Extramural GR 0 0.0
Health Education MS <5 ---
Music Education MM <5 ---
Music Education MS 0 0.0
Occupational Therapy Entry Level MS 11 7.0
Occupational Therapy MS 27 17.2
Performance MM 6 3.8
Physical Education MS 0 0.0
Physical Therapy DPT 54 34.4
Professional Accountancy MBA <5 ---
Speech-Language Pathology MS 10 6.4
Speech-Language Pathology Teaching

Integrated Program MS 6 3.8
Speech-Language Pathology Teaching MS 9 5.7
Sport Management MS 0 0.0
Suzuki Pedagogy MM <5 ---
Teachers of Students with Speech and

Language Disabilities MS 0 0.0
Note: Table reports only Graduate Student responses (n = 157). Table does not report majors where n < 5.
Sum does not total 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
42
Analyses revealed that 42% (n = 1,190) of Student respondents were employed on-campus, 13%
(n = 368) of Student respondents were employed off-campus, and 47% (n = 1,330) were not
employed during the academic year (Table 13).
Table 13. Student Employment
Employed n %
No 1,330 47.0
Yes, I work on campus 1,190 42.1
1-10 hours/week 732 62.9
11-20 hours/week 384 33.0
21-30 hours/week 30 2.6
31-40 hours/week 11 0.9
More than 40 hours/week 6 0.5
Yes, I work off campus 368 13.0
1-10 hours/week 156 43.6
11-20 hours/week 141 39.4
21-30 hours/week 49 13.7
31-40 hours/week 7 2.0

Forty-seven percent (n = 1,317) of Student respondents experienced financial hardship while

attending Ithaca College, including 47% (n = 1,250) of Undergraduate Student respondents and
44% (n = 67) of Graduate Student respondents. Of these 1,317 Student respondents, 82% (n =
1,073) had difficulty affording tuition, 60% (n = 791) had difficulty purchasing books/course
materials, 42% (n = 556) had difficulty in affording housing, and 36% (n = 477) had difficulty
affording food (Table 14). “Other” responses included “difficulty affording parking,” “difficulty
affording medicine,” “bills in general,” caring for dependents, and “study abroad.”
43
Table 14. Experienced Financial Hardship
Financial hardship n %
Difficulty affording tuition 1,073 81.5
Difficulty purchasing my books/course materials 791 60.1
Difficulty in affording housing 556 42.2
Difficulty affording food 477 36.2
Difficulty participating in social events 410 31.1
Difficulty in affording other campus fees 392 29.8

Difficulty in affording unpaid internships/research
opportunities 374 28.4
Difficulty affording travel to and from Ithaca College 367 27.9
Difficulty in affording alternative spring breaks 286 21.7
Difficulty affording co-curricular events or activities 269 20.4
Difficulty in affording health care 133 10.1
Difficulty affording commuting to campus 110 8.4
Difficulty in affording child care 8 0.6
A financial hardship not listed here 47 3.6

Note: Table reports only responses of Students who indicated on the survey that they experienced financial hardship (n = 1,317).
Sixty-seven percent (n = 1,905) of Student respondents depended on family contributions to pay

for their education at Ithaca College (Table 15). Sixty-nine percent (n = 1,830) of Undergraduate
Student respondents and 48% (n = 75) of Graduate Student respondents relied on family
contributions to pay for their education. Subsequent analyses indicated that 37% (n = 104) of
Low-Income Student respondents,37 71% (n = 1,743) of Not-Low-Income Student respondents,
37
The CSWG defined Low-Income Student respondents as those students whose families earn less than $30,000
annually.
44
44% (n = 99) of First-Generation students, and 69% (n = 1,806) of Not-First-Generation Student
respondents depended on family contributions.
Fifty-nine percent (n = 1,677) of Student respondents used loans to pay for college. Analyses
revealed that 74% (n = 210) of Low-Income Student respondents and 58% (n = 1,429) of Not-
Low-Income Student respondents used loans to pay for college. Sixty-nine percent (n = 155) of
First-Generation Student respondents and 58% (n = 1,522) of Not-First-Generation Student
respondents had loans to pay for college.
Fifty-two percent (n = 1,478) of Student respondents relied on non-need-based scholarships to

pay for their education. When analyzed by income status, the data revealed that 53% (n = 1,307)
of Not-Low-Income Student respondents and 45% (n = 128) of Low-Income Student respondents
relied on non-need-based scholarships to help pay for college. Likewise, 53% (n = 1,384) of Not-
First-Generation Student respondents and 42% (n = 94) of First-Generation Student respondents
depended on non-need-based scholarships.
Thirty-seven percent (n = 1,01) of Student respondents used need-based scholarships to pay for
college. When analyzed by income status, the data revealed that 34% (n = 840) of Not-Low-
Income Student respondents and 61% (n = 174) of Low-Income Student respondents relied on
need-based scholarships to help pay for college. Analyzed by first-generation status, 36% (n =
929) of Not-First-Generation Student respondents and 50% (n = 112) of First-Generation Student
respondents depended on need-based scholarships.
Table 15. How Student Respondents Were Paying for College
Source of funding n %
Family contribution 1,905 67.3
Loans 1,677 59.3
Non-need based scholarship (e.g., Merit, ROTC) 1,478 52.2
Need-based scholarship (e.g., Gates) 1,041 36.8
Grant (e.g., Pell) 1,025 36.2
45
Table 15. How Student Respondents Were Paying for College
Personal contribution 708 25.0
Campus employment 655 23.2
Credit card 230 8.1
Resident assistant 112 4.0

Dependent tuition remission (e.g., family member
works at Ithaca) 87 3.1
GI Bill 34 1.2
A method of payment not listed here 50 1.8

Six percent (n = 167) of Student respondents were the sole providers of their living and
educational expenses (i.e., they were financially independent). Subsequent analyses indicated
that 37% (n = 103) of Low-Income Student respondents, 3% (n = 60) of Not-Low-Income
Student respondents, 20% (n = 43) of First-Generation students, and 5% (n = 124) of Not-First-
Generation Student respondents were financially independent.
Ten percent (n = 284) of Student respondents reported that they or their families had annual
incomes of less than $30,000. Nine percent (n = 245) reported annual incomes between $30,000
and $49,999; 14% (n = 388) between $50,000 and $69,999; 18% (n = 510) between $70,000 and
$99,999; 21% (n = 580) between $100,000 and $149,999; 10% (n = 279) between $150,000 and
$199,999; 6% (n = 174) between $200,000 and $249,999; 7% (n = 193) between $250,000 and
$499,999; and 3% (n = 79) reported an annual income of $500,000 or more. These figures are
displayed by student status in Figure 11. Information is provided for those Student respondents
who indicated on the survey that they were financially independent (i.e., students were the sole
providers of their living and educational expenses) and those Student respondents who were
financially dependent on others.
46
Below $30,000
$30, 000 - $49, 999
$50, 000 - $69, 999
7 $70, 000 - $99, 999
9
15 $100,00 - $149,999
19 $150,000 - $199,999
Dependent
22 $200,000 - $249,999
St udents
11
7 $250,000 - $499,999
8 $500,000 or m ore
3
63
9
9
8
Independent
6
St udents
Figure 11. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Income

by Dependency Position Status (Dependent, Independent) (%)
Of the Students completing the survey, 50% (n = 1,385) lived in campus housing, 28% (n = 792)
lived in off-campus housing, 20% (n = 561) lived in on-campus apartment complexes, 2% (n =
58) lived in living learning communities, and less than five identified as being housing insecure
(Table 16). Subsequent analyses indicated that 52% (n = 1,383) of Undergraduate Student
respondents lived in on-campus housing, while 96% (n = 150) of Graduate Student respondents
lived in off-campus housing.
Table 16. Student Respondents’ Residence
Residence n %
On-Campus Residence Hall 1,385 49.5
Terraces 350 32.0
Landon, Bogart, & Clarke 129 11.8
Hilliard, Hood, & Holmes 121 11.1
East Tower 107 9.8
Emerson 105 9.6
West Tower 105 9.6
47
Table 16. Student Respondents’ Residence
Residence n %
Boothroyd, Rowland, & Tallcott 95 8.7
Eastman & Lyon 82 7.5
Living Learning Community 58 2.1
Honors Housing 25 44.6
Housing Offering a Multicultural Experience 6 10.7
La Casa Language Learning Community 6 10.7
The Sustainably Conscious Community 5 8.9
Outdoor Adventure Learning Community 5 8.9
The Interfaith Housing Community <5 ---
Substance Free Housing Community <5 ---
Quiet Study Housing <5 ---
Transfer Housing Program 0 0.0
On-Campus Apartment Complexes 561 20.0
Circle Apartments 326 63.5
Garden Apartments 187 36.5
Off-Campus Apartment/House 792 28.3
Housing Insecure (e.g., couch surfing, sleeping in car,

sleeping in campus office/lab) <5 ---
Twenty-six percent (n = 748) of Student respondents participated in academic

clubs/organizations, 22% (n = 612) participated in recreational sports, 19% (n = 530) were
involved with media clubs/organizations, 15% (n = 428) were involved with service
clubs/organizations, and 15% (n = 417) participated in intercollegiate athletics (Table 17).
Table 17. Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs/Organizations at Ithaca College
Club/organization n %
Academic 748 26.4
Recreational sports 612 21.6
Competitive sport club 322 53.0
48
Table 17. Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs/Organizations at Ithaca College
Club/organization n %
Recreational sport Club 307 50.2
Performance sport club 66 10.8
Media 530 18.7
Service 428 15.1
Intercollegiate athletics 417 14.7
Music 395 14.0
Performing 344 12.2

I do not participate in any clubs or organizations
at Ithaca College 341 12.1
Special interest 334 11.8
Activism 314 11.1
Professional 311 11.0
Non-profit 290 10.3
ALANA student organizations 239 8.4
Religious 236 8.3
Personal 227 8.0
Honorary 221 7.8
Cultural 198 7.0
Event programming 193 6.8
Environmental 151 5.3
Student governance 130 4.6
Political 116 4.1

Note: Table reports only Student responses (n = 2,829). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response
choices.
49
Table 18 indicates that most Student respondents earned passing grades. Sixty-one percent (n =
1,682) earned above a 3.5 grade point average (G.P.A.). Further analyses revealed that 61% (n =
1,571) of Undergraduate Student respondents and 71% (n = 111) of Graduate Student
respondents earned above a 3.5 G.P.A.
Table 18. Student Respondents’ Cumulative G.P.A. at the End of Last Semester
Undergraduate Student Graduate Student
respondents respondents
G.P.A. n % n %
3.75 – 4.00 856 33.2 64 40.8
3.50 – 3.74 715 27.7 47 29.9
3.25 – 3.49 502 19.5 32 20.4
3.00 – 3.24 293 11.4 14 8.9
2.75 - 2.99 115 4.5 0 0.0
2.50 – 2.74 46 1.8 0 0.0
2.25 – 2.49 29 1.1 0 0.0
2.00 – 2.24 16 0.6 0 0.0
Below 2.00 8 0.3 0 0.0

Note: Table reports only Undergraduate Student responses (n = 2,672) and Graduate Student responses (n = 157).
50
Campus Climate Assessment Findings38
The following section reviews the major findings of this study. 39 The review explores the climate
at Ithaca College through an examination of respondents’ personal experiences, their general
perceptions of campus climate, and their perceptions of institutional actions regarding climate on
campus, including administrative policies and academic initiatives. Each of these issues was
examined in relation to the relevant identity and status of the respondents.
Comfort with the Climate at Ithaca College
The survey posed questions regarding respondents’ levels of comfort with Ithaca College's
campus climate. Table 19 illustrates that 70% (n = 2,659) of the survey respondents were “very
comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at Ithaca College. Sixty-eight percent (n = 672)
of Faculty and Staff respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in
their departments/work units. Eighty-three percent (n = 2,733) of Student respondents and
Faculty respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes.
Table 19. Respondents’ Comfort With the Climate at Ithaca College
Comfort with climate

Comfort with overall in department/ Comfort with
climate work unit* climate in class**
Level of comfort n % n % n %
Very comfortable 741 19.4 298 30.1 969 29.5
Comfortable 1,918 50.2 374 37.7 1,764 53.7
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable 704 18.4 142 14.3 405 12.3
Uncomfortable 406 10.6 143 14.4 135 4.1
Very uncomfortable 54 1.4 34 3.4 11 0.3

*Faculty and Staff responses (n = 994) only.
**Faculty and Student responses (n = 3,295) only.
38
Frequency tables for all survey items are provided in Appendix B. Several pertinent tables and graphs are included
in the body of the narrative to illustrate salient points.
39
The percentages presented in this section of the report are valid percentages (i.e., percentages are derived from the
total number of respondents who answered an individual item).
51
Figure 12 illustrates that Undergraduate Student respondents (21%, n = 590) and Graduate
Student respondents (27%, n = 43) were significantly more likely to have felt “very comfortable”
with the overall climate at Ithaca College than were Faculty respondents (13%, n = 61) and Staff
respondents (9%, n = 49).i
Figure 12. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate by Position Status (%)
No significant differences emerged between the proportions of Undergraduate Students who

started at Ithaca College as a new first time student and who transferred from another institution
with regard to the overall climate. No significant differences emerged between the proportion of
tenure track/senior administrators with faculty rank, non-tenure track faculty, and adjunct/part-
52
time faculty with regard to the overall climate. No significant differences emerged between non-
exempt and exempt/senior administrators without faculty rank for overall campus climate.
No significant differences emerged between the proportions of Faculty respondents and Staff
respondents who were “very comfortable” with the climate in their department/program or work
unit at Ithaca College. No significant differences emerged between the proportions of tenure
track/senior administrators with faculty rank, non-tenure track faculty, and adjunct/part-time
faculty with regard to the climate in their department/program or work unit at Ithaca College.
Figure 13 illustrates that Staff respondents who are Exempt/Senior Administrator Without
Faculty Rank (34%, n = 107) were significantly more likely to have felt “very comfortable” with
the climate in their department/program or work unit at Ithaca College than were Staff
respondents who are Non-Exempt (25%, n = 52).ii
Figure 13. Staff Respondents’ Comfort with Climate in Department/Program or Work Unit by
Position Status (%)
53
Figure 14 illustrates that Graduate Student respondents (43%, n = 68) and Faculty respondents
(36%, n = 166) were significantly more likely to have felt “very comfortable” with the classroom
climate at Ithaca College than were Undergraduate Student respondents (28%, n = 735).iii
Figure 14. Respondents’ Comfort with Classroom Climate by Position Status (%)
No significant differences emerged between the proportions of Undergraduate Students who

started at Ithaca College as a new first time student and who transferred from another institution
with regard to the classroom climate. No significant differences emerged between the proportion
54
of tenure track/senior administrators with faculty rank, non-tenure track faculty, and
adjunct/part-time faculty with regard to the classroom climate.
Several analyses were conducted to determine whether respondents’ levels of comfort with the
overall climate, the climate in their departments/work units, or the climate in their classes
differed based on various demographic characteristics.40
By gender identity, 41 Men respondents (23%, n = 290) were significantly more likely to have felt
“very comfortable” with the overall climate at Ithaca College than Women respondents (18%, n
= 438) or Transspectrum respondents (13%, n = 12) (Figure 15).iv
Figure 15. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate by Gender Identity (%)
40
Figures include percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. As a result, the percentages in figures may
appear to total to more or less than 100%.
41
Per the CSWG, gender identity was recoded into the categories Men (n = 1,257), Women (n = 2,446), and
Transspectrum (n = 96), where Transspectrum respondents included those individuals who marked “transgender,”
"genderqueer," “non-binary,” or “a gender not listed above” for the question, “What is your gender/gender identity
(mark all that apply)?”
55
Men Employee respondents (36%, n = 140) were significantly more likely to have felt “very
comfortable” with the climate in their department/program or work unit at Ithaca College than
Women respondents (27%, n = 151) (Figure 16).v
Figure 16. Respondents’ Comfort with Department/Program or Work Unit by

Gender Identity (%)
56
A significantly higher percentage of Men Student and Faculty respondents (36%, n = 384)
compared to Women Student and Faculty respondents (27%, n = 567) and Transspectrum
Student and Faculty respondents (19%, n = 17) felt “very comfortable” in their classes
(Figure 17).vi
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Men
(n = 1,079) 36 51 10 3
Women
(n = 2,101) 27 55 13 5
Transspectrum
(n = 90) 19 48 23 8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 17. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort with Climate in Classes
by Gender Identity (%)
57
By racial identity, 42 significant differences emerged with regard to overall campus climate at
Ithaca College, such that Asian/Asian American respondents (55%, n = 95) were significantly
more likely to be “comfortable” with the campus climate compared to Black/African American
respondents (39%, n = 62). (Figure 18).vii
Figure 18. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate by Racial Identity (%)
42
The CSWG proposed six collapsed racial identity categories (Asian/Asian American, Black/African American,
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@, Additional People of Color, White, and Multiracial).
58
Figure 19 illustrates percentage differences in climate for Employees’ department/program or
work units at Ithaca College by racial identity; these differences were not significant.
Figure 19. Employee Respondents’ Comfort with Climate in Department/Program or Work Unit
by Racial Identity (%)
59
Figure 20 illustrates percentage differences in classroom climate for Student and Faculty
respondents by racial identity; these differences were not significant.
Figure 20. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes
by Racial Identity (%)
60
Significant differences occurred in respondents’ level of comfort with the overall climate based
on sexual identity (Figure 21). LGBQ respondents (15%, n = 100) were less likely to feel “very
comfortable” with the overall climate than were Heterosexual respondents (21%, n = 622).viii
Heterosexual (n = 3,038) 21 51 18 10
LGBQ (n = 652) 15 49 20 13 2
Asexual (n = 33) 67
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Note: Responses with n <5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 21. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate by Sexual Identity (%)
61
Figure 22 illustrates percentage differences in climate for Employees’ department/program or
work units at Ithaca College by sexual identity; these differences were not significant.
by Sexual Identity (%)
62
Figure 23 illustrates percentage differences in classroom climate for Student and Faculty
respondents by sexual identity; these differences were not significant.
Heterosexual (n = 2,586) 32 52 12 4
LGBQ (n = 588) 21 58 15 6
Asexual (n = 33) 18 70
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
by Sexual Identity (%)
63
Significant differences occurred in respondents’ level of comfort with the overall climate based
on religious/spiritual identity (Figure 24). Christian respondents (23%, n = 347) were more likely
to feel “very comfortable” with the overall climate than were respondents with No Affiliation
(17%, n = 282) or Multiple Affiliations (15%, n = 31).ix
Christian (n = 1,500) 23 50 17 9 1
Additional Faith Based (n = 399) 19 53 17 10 1
No Affiliation (n = 1,629) 17 50 19 12 2
Multiple Affiliations (n = 212) 15 51 24 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 24. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate by Religious/Spiritual Identity (%)
No significant difference existed in respondents’ level of comfort with the department/program

or work unit climate based on religious/spiritual identity.
64
Figure 25 illustrates significant differences in classroom climate for Student and Faculty
respondents by religious/spiritual identity. Christian respondents (34%, n = 427) were more
likely to feel “very comfortable” with the classroom climate than were respondents with No
Affiliation (28%, n = 391) or Multiple Affiliations (26%, n = 47).x
Christian (n = 1,274) 34 52 10 4
Additional Faith Based (n = 369) 26 58 13 3
No Affiliation (n = 1,407) 28 54 14 5
Multiple Affiliations (n = 179) 26 53 15 6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
by Religious/Spiritual Identity (%)
65
Figure 26 illustrates that respondents with a Single Disability (13%, n = 52) and respondents
with Multiple Disabilities (13%, n = 28) were significantly less likely to be “very comfortable”
with the overall climate than were respondents with No Disability (21%, n = 659).xi
Figure 26. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate by Disability Position Status (%)
66
Figure 27 illustrates significant differences in climate for Employees’ department/program or
work units at Ithaca College by disability status. Respondents with a Single Disability (30%, n =
22) were significantly more likely to be “uncomfortable” with the department/program or work
unit than were respondents with No Disability (13%, n = 113).xii
by Disability Position Status (%)
67
respondents by disability status. Respondents with a Single Disability (23%, n = 79) and
respondents with Multiple Disabilities (21%, n = 40) were significantly less likely to be “very
comfortable” with the classroom climate than were respondents with No Disability (31%, n =
845).xiii
by Disability Position Status (%)
68
In terms of Student respondents’ income status and comfort with the overall climate on campus,
significant differences emerged (Figure 29). Low-Income Student respondents (15%, n = 42)
were significantly less likely to feel “very comfortable” with the overall climate than were Not-
Low-Income Student respondents (23%, n = 569). xiv
Figure 29. Student Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate

by Income Position Status (%)
69
Not-Low-Income Student respondents (30%, n = 723) were significantly more likely to feel
“very comfortable” with the climate in their classes than were Low-Income Student respondents
(19%, n = 54) (Figure 30).xv
Figure 30. Student Respondents’ Comfort with Climate in Their Classes

by Income Position Status (%)
70
First-Generation Student respondents (20%, n = 44) were significantly less likely to be “very
comfortable” with the overall campus climate than were Not-First-Generation Student
respondents (23%, n = 589) (Figure 31).xvi
Figure 31. Student Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate

by First-Generation Position Status(%)
71
First-Generation Student respondents (22%, n = 49) were significantly less likely to be “very
comfortable” with the classroom campus climate than were Not-First-Generation Student
respondents (29%, n = 754) (Figure 32).xvii
Figure 32. Student Respondents’ Comfort with Climate in Their Classes

by First-Generation Position Status (%)
72
Respondents who were non-U.S. Citizens/U.S. Citizens Naturalized (3%, n = 8) were more likely
to feel “very uncomfortable” with the overall climate than were respondents who were U.S.
Citizens (1%, n = 46) (Figure 33). xviii
Figure 33. Respondents’ Comfort with Overall Climate

by Citizenship Position Status (%)
No significant differences emerged based on citizenship status emerged with regard to Faculty
and Staff respondents’ level of comfort with the climate in the department/program or work unit.
73
respondents by citizenship. Respondents who were non-U.S. Citizens/U.S. Citizens Naturalized
(23%, n = 56) were less likely to feel “very comfortable” with the overall climate than were
respondents who were U.S. Citizens (30%, n = 910).xix
by Citizenship Position Status (%)
i
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall
climate by position status: 2 (12, N = 3,823) = 507.335, p < .001.
ii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents by degree of comfort with the
department/program or work unit by position status: 2 (4, N = 526) = 14.617, p < .01.
iii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student and Faculty respondents by degree of comfort
with the classroom climate by position status: 2 (8, N = 3,284) = 34.606, p < .001.
iv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents by degree of comfort with the
overall climate by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 3,799) = 36.078, p < .001.
74
v
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Employee respondents by degree of comfort with the
department/program or work unit by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 972) = 31.645, p < .001.
vi
with the classroom climate by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 3,270) = 55.108, p < .001.
vii
climate by racial identity: 2 (20, N = 3,711) = 57.816, p < .001.
viii
climate by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 3,723) = 22.579, p < .01.
ix
climate by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (12, N = 3,740) = 36.613, p < .001.
x
with the classroom climate by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (12, N = 3,229) = 24.028, p < .05.
xi
climate by disability status: 2 (8, N = 3,790) = 36.313, p < .001.
xii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Employee respondents by degree of comfort with the
department/program or work unit by disability status: 2 (8, N = 979) = 19.728, p < .05.
xiii
with the classroom climate by disability status: 2 (8, N = 3,260) = 50.083, p < .001.
xiv
overall climate by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,732) = 34.118, p < .001.
xv
classroom climate by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,731) = 45.580, p < .001.
xvi
overall climate by first-generation status: 2 (4, N = 2,829) = 10.454, p < .05.
xvii
classroom climate by first-generation status: 2 (4, N = 2,827) = 19.202, p < .001.
xviii
climate by citizenship: 2 (4, N = 3,795) = 11.135, p < .05.
xix
with the classroom climate by citizenship: 2 (4, N = 3,260) = 22.866, p < .001.
75
Barriers at Ithaca College for Respondents with Disabilities

One survey item asked respondents with disabilities if they had experienced barriers in facilities,
technology and the online environment, or educational materials at Ithaca College within the past
year. Tables 20 through 22 highlight where respondents with one or more disabilities
experienced barriers at Ithaca College.43 With regard to campus facilities, 16% (n = 92) of
respondents with disabilities experienced barriers with college housing and 15% (n = 86)
experienced barriers with the health center within the past year.
Table 20. Facilities Barriers Experienced by Respondents with Disabilities

Not
Yes No applicable
Facilities n % n % n %
Athletic and recreational facilities 44 7.4 280 47.0 272 45.6
Classroom buildings 75 12.6 284 47.7 236 39.7
Classrooms, labs (including computer labs) 60 10.2 294 49.7 237 40.1
College housing 92 15.6 252 42.8 245 41.6
Dining facilities 81 13.8 276 46.9 231 39.3
Doors 31 5.3 316 53.7 241 41.0
Elevators/lifts 47 8.0 305 52.0 234 39.9
Emergency preparedness 27 4.6 32 53.7 242 41.7
Health Center 86 14.7 277 47.4 222 37.9
Office furniture (e.g., chair, desk) 34 5.9 310 53.4 237 40.8
Campus transportation/parking 78 13.4 278 47.8 226 38.8
Other campus buildings 39 6.7 304 52.4 237 40.9
Podium 17 2.9 307 52.7 259 44.4
Restrooms 34 5.8 315 53.9 235 40.2
Signage 20 3.4 310 53.4 251 43.2
Studios/performing arts spaces 15 2.6 297 51.1 269 46.3
Temporary barriers due to construction or
maintenance 58 9.9 285 48.7 242 41.4
Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks 57 9.9 283 49.3 234 40.8
Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 623).
See Appendix B, Table B107 for all responses to the question, “Within the past year, have you experienced a
43
barrier in any of the following areas at Ithaca College?”
76
Table 21 illustrates that, in terms of the technological or online environment, 8% (n = 47) of
respondents with one or more disabilities had difficulty with an accessible electronic format and
7% (n = 42) experienced barriers with Sakai.
Table 21. Barriers in Technology/Online Environment Experienced by Respondents with Disabilities
Not
Yes No applicable
Technology/online environment n % n % n %
Accessible electronic format 47 8.1 312 54.1 218 37.8
Clickers 21 3.7 303 52.9 249 43.5
Computer equipment
(e.g., screens, mouse, keyboard) 33 5.7 330 57.2 214 37.1
Electronic forms 28 4.9 331 57.6 216 37.6
Electronic signage 17 3.0 335 58.4 222 38.7
Electronic surveys (including this one) 13 2.3 349 60.8 212 36.9
Kiosks 19 3.3 325 56.7 229 40.0
Library database 22 3.8 333 58.1 218 38.0
Sakai 42 7.3 315 55.1 215 37.6
Phone/Phone equipment 21 3.7 339 59.2 213 37.2
Software (e.g., voice
recognition/audiobooks) 28 4.9 325 56.7 220 38.4
Video /video audio description 24 4.2 332 58.0 216 37.8
Website 26 4.6 335 58.7 210 36.8
77
In terms of instructional and campus materials, 9% (n = 50) of respondents with one or more
disabilities had difficulty with food menus, 9% (n = 48) had difficulty with textbooks, and 6% (n
= 33) experienced barriers with syllabi (Table 22).
Table 22. Barriers in Instructional Campus Materials Experienced by Respondents with Disabilities
Yes No Not applicable

Instructional/Campus Materials n % n % n %
Brochures 18 3.2 337 59.1 215 37.7
Food menus 50 8.7 310 54.2 212 37.1
Forms 26 4.6 335 58.7 210 36.8
Journal articles 28 4.9 327 57.5 214 37.6
Library books 20 3.5 334 58.8 214 37.7
Other publications 20 3.5 333 58.3 218 38.2
Syllabi 33 5.8 321 56.5 214 37.7
Textbooks 48 8.5 308 54.3 211 37.2
Video-closed captioning and text
description 26 4.7 315 56.6 216 38.8
A total of 174 respondents elaborated on their experiences with accessibility. The themes that
emerged among all respondents were mobility and accessibility and issues regarding mental
health. Among Student respondents, academic accommodations and the health services also
emerged as themes.
All Respondents - Mobility and Accessibility: Respondents commented on the availability of

resources for individuals with a mobility impairment. Respondents largely described inadequate
resources, as stated by the following Staff respondent. “Ramps and elevators are in many cases
out of the way or take more time to navigate. When elevators are not working, taking the stairs
can at times be difficult. Snow removal in winter makes it dangerous to navigate campus.” An
Undergraduate Student respondent described the difficulty navigating while on crutches or in a
wheelchair. “Both a friend and I were on crutches and found it nearly impossible to navigate this
campus without difficulty. Why do you think no students come here that use wheelchairs?
Because it is almost completely inaccessible to someone on wheels.” One Graduate Student
respondent more specifically described a situation where “they require you have a key to use the
78
elevator to get from the first floor of the Gannett Center to any other floor. That’s insane, and
completely unacceptable.” Respondents who did not state they had a physical disability noted the
difficulty getting around campus, as illustrated by the following comments. “I am not physically
disabled, but for people who are, I can understand how it would be difficult to get around
campus because there isn't a lot of accessibility accommodations for that stuff.” “Though I do
not have a permanent disability that hinders my walking, I spent some time on crutches last
semester, and getting around campus was AWFUL. There are many areas that are too steep, only
accessible via stairs (or seriously long detours), doors that are not usable while on crutches / in a
chair, etc. There needs to be serious improvement in campus accessibility for students with
mobility impairments.”
All Respondents – Mental Health Concerns: Respondents largely described poor mental health
services at Ithaca. Student respondents spoke more directly to the ability of professors to provide
accommodations and the ability of the health center to assist. One Undergraduate Student stated,
“A lot of professors don't take into account mental health. It's difficult to tell a professor you
can't get an assignment done because of depression. I know the health center has resources, but
they're not very helpful.” Other Undergraduate Student respondents wrote, “Few faculty and
staff are willing to work with, respect, and accommodate for students with mental disabilities and
variant identities.” “Mental health related concerns. Barrier to treatment in CAPS, professors not
understanding my needs related to PTSD.” “I am mentally ill and the school does not provide
easy access to on-campus psychological treatment, so I must go off campus. That is fine, as I
have adequate insurance, but it cuts into my time as a student. You have a single psychologist on
campus and somewhere around 3 or 4 therapists for a school of nearly 7,000 students. That is
unacceptable.”
One Employee respondent described feeling afraid to reveal her mental health condition. “As
always, there's the concern that if I out my mental health diagnosis, I'll risk my job. I have not
outed my disability status, but I have also not been given a reason to believe anything negative
would happen to me. This is from prior experiences.” Another Employee respondent explained
how limited services were available for employees with mental health conditions. “The health
center does not serve faculty. There are no meaningful resources for faculty who struggle with
mental illness. Almost no psychiatrists in Ithaca take IC's insurance plans.”
79
Student Respondents – Health Services: Student respondents described varying levels of

experience with the various health services available on campus. Among the services mentioned
were the Health Center, Student Accessibility Services (SAS) and the Center for Counseling and
Psychological Services (CAPS). Comments that found the quality of services to be positive
included, “SAS and CAPS help me with my disability and managing my workload because of
the restraints my depression, anxiety and ADHD put on my academic life. School is still hard,
but it's so much more manageable for me.” “SAS has been more than helpful.” “SAS does a
great job allowing me to take all of my exams in a quiet environment with extended time. They
were all able to get me all of my textbooks in an alternative format.” “SAS is incredibly helpful
and has made transitioning to college life easier.”
Student respondents who had difficulty with these services elaborated on several different issues.
One Undergraduate Student described, “I wish the Health Center was more accessible around the
clock. I wish there were longer hours (ideally 24/day) and it was easier to get in quickly for same
day appointments or semi-urgent needs. There have been times where I've needed medical care
that was not urgent enough to go to the hospital, but still required attention and the Health Center
was not able to help me because it was closed, or because their soonest appointment was several
hours after I had called.” Undergraduate Student respondents described, “I have been diagnosed
with [an autoimmune disorder] which is very serious. I attempted to work with SAS, the dining
hall services and other resources on campus to provide a housing accommodation where I would
feel safe and free from contamination. My request was not approved, which is very disappointing
because I believe that my health is at serious risk. It is very frustrating when there is no gluten-
free food on campus, and the dining services cannot accommodate. I pay a lot of money for a
meal plan, but I spend a lot of money buying food because I am not getting enough food to keep
me healthy as a student-athlete at the dining halls. I am very frustrated with IC's lack of
understanding for my situation.” “I have not had the best experiences with CAPS. I only went
once or twice because although I had a really good session with the therapist, she immediately
referred me to the psychiatrist and tried to put me on medication. I opted out of the appointment
and did not go back because they told me they could only see me about once a month because
80
they were too booked. I needed something more consistent at the time and I do not think I am the
only student who feels this way.”
Student Respondents - Academics and Classes: Student respondents reported difficulty obtaining
academic accommodations. One Undergraduate Student respondent stated, “I sometimes feel
teachers are not as accommodating as they could be.” Another Undergraduate Student
respondent described, “I've had teachers not understand that I need things written out or
presentations to be put on Sakai. They tell me that's not their style of teaching and that I should
get notes from another student. I've also had professors tell me I can't have extra time on a test
because that's ‘cheating.’ It's not cheating if I need it.” An Undergraduate Student respondent
with a “hearing disorder” wrote, “In large lectures halls where microphones are available it's
helpful when a teacher uses it but since it's not mandatory I often times find that I can't hear or
understand the professor because there is competing background noise.” Other Student
respondents with a hearing disability explained similar situations, such as “I have a hearing loss.
I wear hearing aids. Any time that there is background noise, that I can't see the speaker, that it's
quiet, this will be challenging for me.” “With certain classrooms like in Hill, it's difficult for me
to be able to hear with all of the noises from the computers/air ventilations. This is solved easily
after I talk to the professor about it, but with some of the classroom set ups it is still difficult for
me to hear,” and “When it comes to my hearing problems, it is difficult to find a seat to cater to
my disorder in a big class.” Overall, the Student respondents felt that professors were “not very
accepting” or “haven’t been very understanding” of their disability.
81
Barriers at Ithaca College for Transspectrum Respondents

One survey item asked Transspectrum respondents if they had experienced barriers in facilities
and identity accuracy at Ithaca College within the past year. Table 23 highlights where
respondents experienced barriers at Ithaca College.44 With regard to campus facilities, 43% (n =
20) of Transspectrum respondents experienced barriers regarding restrooms within the past year.
In terms of identity accuracy, 31% (n = 14) of Transspectrum respondents experienced difficulty
with surveys.
Table 23. Barriers Experienced by Transspectrum Respondents

Not
Yes No applicable
n % n % n %
Facilities
Changing rooms/locker rooms 14 30.4 18 39.1 14 30.4
College housing 13 28.3 20 43.5 13 28.3
Restrooms 20 42.6 17 36.2 10 21.3
Signage 13 29.5 19 43.2 12 27.3
Identity Accuracy
Alumni correspondence and
publications 6 13.3 19 42.2 20 44.4
Ithaca College ID Card 8 18.2 26 59.1 10 22.7
Electronic databases (e.g., Homer,
Parnassus) 12 26.1 24 52.2 10 21.7
Email account 11 24.4 24 53.3 10 22.2
Intake forms (e.g., Health Center) 10 22.2 22 48.9 13 28.9
Learning technology 6 13.6 23 52.3 15 34.1
Ithaca College media 6 14.0 24 55.8 13 30.2
Surveys 14 31.1 23 51.1 8 17.8
Benefits
Health Insurance 7 15.2 21 45.7 18 39.1
Other benefits (e.g., retirement) <5 --- 20 44.4 22 48.9
Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that their gender identity was Transgender (n = 48).
See Appendix B, Table B108 for all responses to the question, “Within the past year, have you experienced a
44
barrier in any of the following areas at Ithaca College?”
82
Twenty-four respondents elaborated on accessibility for Transspectrum individuals. The two
themes that emerged were lack of inclusive facilities and use of name.
Lack of Inclusive Facilities: Respondents had a variety of experiences with the facilities on
campus. Several respondents discussed the lack of gender neutral bathrooms. One Undergraduate
Student respondent said, “There is a painfully small number of gender neutral bathrooms on
campus. If, for example, I'm in class in Textor and I need to go to the bathroom, the closest
gender neutral one is on the fifth floor of the library. So the option I'm presented with is miss
twenty minutes of class to go pee, or deal with the dysphoria that comes from using a gendered
bathroom. I shouldn't have to make that choice.” Another Undergraduate Student described, “I
avoid bathrooms most of the time, and/or try to find the nearest gender neutral option available.
If that is not available, I will use gendered bathrooms (usually Women's bathrooms because I am
more afraid of the Men's room). I have been lucky enough to find roommates who are open to
my identity and have no problem sharing a space with me regardless of my identity, however it
definitely caused a barrier.” Other respondents thought that Ithaca could improve the quality of
their signage. One Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “New signs that don't say male or
female would be nice. It could just be changed to the titles saying ‘bathroom with urinals’ or
‘bathroom without urinals.’
Use of Name: Respondents described various experiences being mis-gendered or called the
wrong name while at Ithaca. One Undergraduate Student described an experience at orientation.
“Before my freshman year, I legally changed my name (and updated all of my information with
the college before arriving on campus), but my name was not updated on a folder handed to me
at Orientation. It was a folder containing information about my major, and the department head
read my old name out loud and asked me to come to the front of the room to pick it up. It was
incredibly embarrassing.” Another Undergraduate Student respondent described, “I was
misgendered despite wearing my pronoun buttons…. I was able to change my id card name but
was ironically misgendered during the entire process.” Finally, another Undergraduate Student
respondent stated, “It is also frustrating that I cannot have my IC email addressed changed once
my preferred name is officially changed through the school; only once I change my legal name,
which is a lengthy and difficult process.” One Staff respondent pointed out the need to have
inclusive forms in place. “HR processes and forms and benefits that include us and honor us and
83
center us not as an afterthought or a no-thought-at-all, HR people that have even a tiny clue
about trans people (hey, it's not like there aren't tons of opportunities for them to learn more
RIGHT HERE ON OUR VERY CAMPUS!), things with the wellness center…other ‘benefits’
and HR offerings that require one to select only one of two genders, with no idea how these are
meaningfully used by the program. (when I asked, no one could really give me an answer and I
opted out because selecting either of the two options would not yield me usable info if I
participated - they were doing exercise and bloodwork and benchmarking these, but no one could
tell me which benchmarks should be used if I participated).”
84
Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct45
Twenty percent (n = 753) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced
exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullied, harassed)
conduct that had interfered with their ability to work, learn, or live at Ithaca College within the
past year.46 Table 24 reflects the perceived bases and frequency of exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct. Of the respondents who experienced such conduct, 27% (n =
204) indicated that the conduct was based on their gender/gender identity. Twenty-one percent (n
= 157) noted that the conduct was based on their ethnicity and 18% (n = 135) felt that it was
based on their position at Ithaca College (e.g., staff, faculty, student). “Reasons not listed above”
included responses such as “being blamed for others’ failures,” “campus culture that enables and
allows this behavior,” “favoritism,” “financial status,” “immaturity,” “insensitivity towards
survivors of sexual assault,” “lack of civility during interaction,” “participation in protests,”
“supervisor is a narcissist,” and “willful ignorance,” among others.
Table 24. Bases of Experienced Conduct

Basis of conduct n %
Gender/Gender identity 204 27.1
Ethnicity 157 20.8
Position (e.g., staff, faculty, student) 135 17.9
Racial identity 122 16.2
Political views 103 13.7
Age 100 13.3
Don’t know 97 12.9
Major field of study 90 12.0
Philosophical views 85 11.3
Mental health/psychological disability/condition 83 11.0
Sexual identity 76 10.1
Socioeconomic status 73 9.7
Academic performance 71 9.4
45
This report uses the phrases “conduct” and “exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct” as a
shortened version of conduct that someone has “personally experienced” including “exclusionary (e.g., shunned,
ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) conduct.”
46
The literature on microaggressions is clear that this type of conduct has a negative influence on people who
experience the conduct, even if they feel at the time that it had no impact (Sue, 2010; Yosso et al., 2009).
85
Table 24. Bases of Experienced Conduct

Basis of conduct n %
Physical characteristics 66 8.8
Length of service at Ithaca College 60 8.0
Religious/spiritual views 51 6.8
Gender expression 47 6.2
Participation in an organization 47 6.2
Educational credentials (e.g., MS, PhD) 44 5.8
International status/national origin 35 4.6
English language proficiency/accent 30 4.0
Immigrant/citizen status 27 3.6
Learning disability/condition 23 3.1
Medical disability/condition 23 3.1
Parental status (e.g., having children) 14 1.9
Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 12 1.6
Physical disability/condition 10 1.3
Pregnancy <5 ---
Military/veteran status <5 ---
A reason not listed above 124 16.5
Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct (n = 753). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
The following figures depict the responses by selected characteristics (gender/gender identity,
ethnicity, position) of individuals who responded “yes” to the question, “Within the past year,
have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored) intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct (e.g., bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability to
work, learn, or live at Ithaca College?”
86
By gender identity, a significantly greater percentage of Transspectrum respondents (44%, n =
42) than Women respondents (21%, n = 507), and Women respondents than Men respondents
(15%, n = 193) indicated that they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or
hostile conduct within the past yearxx (Figure 35). Fifty-seven percent (n = 24) of Transspectrum
respondents, 31% (n = 155) of Women respondents, and 11% (n = 22) of Men respondents who
noted that they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct
indicated that the conduct was based on their gender identity. xxi
(n = 1,257)¹ (n = 2,442)¹ (n = 95)¹

(n = 193)² (n = 507)² (n = 42)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.
Figure 35. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or

Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Gender Identity (%)
87
In terms of ethnicity/racial identity, a significantly lower proportion of White respondents (16%,
n = 467) believed that they had experienced this conduct than Asian/Asian American (27%, n =
46), Black/African American (33%, n = 52), Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ respondents (33%, n =
47), Multiracial respondents (29%, n = 90), and Additional People of Color respondents (40%, n
= 15) xxii (Figure 36).
Of those respondents who noted that they believed that they had experienced this conduct, larger
percentages of Asian/Asian American (67%, n = 31), Black/African American (54%, n = 28),
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ respondents (51%, n = 24), Multiracial respondents (41%, n = 37),
and Additional People of Color respondents (33%, n = 5) than White respondents (5%, n = 25)
thought that the conduct was based on their ethnicity/race. xxiii
(n = 171)¹ (n = 160)¹ (n = 144)¹ (n = 314)¹ (n = 38)¹ (n = 2,879)¹

(n = 46)² (n = 52)² (n = 47)² (n = 90)² (n = 15)² (n = 467)²

Figure 36. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or

Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Ethnicity (%)
88
In terms of position status, significant differences existed between respondents who indicated on
the survey that they had experienced this conduct xxiv (Figure 37). Twenty-nine percent (n = 136)
of Faculty respondents, 28% (n = 147) of Staff respondents, 17% (n = 456) of Undergraduate
Student respondents, and 9% (n = 14) of Graduate Student respondents believed that they had
experienced this conduct. Of those respondents who noted that they had experienced this
conduct, 43% (n = 63) of Staff respondents, 27% (n = 36) of Faculty respondents, and 8% (n =
35) of Undergraduate Student respondents thought that the conduct was based on their position
status.xxv
Overall experienced conduct¹
Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of
position status²
43
29 27 28
17
8 9
Undergraduate Students Graduate Students Faculty Staff

(n = 2,688)¹ (n = 157)¹ (n = 466)¹ (n = 527)¹
(n = 456)² (n = 14)² (n = 136)² (n = 147)²

Figure 37. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive,

and/or Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Position Status (%)
89
Table 25 illustrates the manners in which respondents experienced exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct. Forty-five percent (n = 342) felt ignored or excluded, 40% (n =
303) felt isolated or left out, 36% (n = 268) felt intimidated and bullied, and 21% (n = 161) felt
others staring at them. Other forms of such conduct included “assaulted by an upperclassmen
RA, “being told I was “too white” to be Hispanic,” “defamation of character,” “explicit photos
from random people,” “I experienced a hostile home/dorm environment,” “I was robbed,” “I was
treated with a lack of respect; lack of civility; lack of humanness,” “mocking accent,” “people
constantly say ignorant things about black people,” “stopped by cops after leaving library,”
“transphobia and misgendering from faculty, staff, and students,” and “verbally yelled at and
blamed,” among others.
Table 25. Forms of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile

Conduct
% of those
who
experienced
Form of conduct n the conduct
I was ignored or excluded 342 45.4

I was isolated or left out 303 40.2
I was intimidated/bullied 268 35.6
I felt others staring at me 161 21.4
I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks 150 19.9
I experienced a hostile work environment 120 15.9
I experienced a hostile classroom environment 109 14.5
I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group 98 13.0
I was the target of workplace incivility 94 12.5
The conduct made me fear that I would get a poor grade 66 8.8
I received a low or unfair performance evaluation 58 7.7
Someone assumed I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity
group 51 6.8
I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling 51 6.8
I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email 48 6.4
I received derogatory written comments 45 6.0
I received derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter, Yik-Yak) 40 5.3
90
Table 25. Forms of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile
Conduct
% of those
who
experienced
Form of conduct n the conduct
I was “outed” against my wishes (e.g., gender identity, sexuality,
disability status) 36 4.8
I was denied accommodations 35 4.6
The conduct threatened my physical safety 34 4.5
I was not fairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process 29 3.9
I received threats of physical violence 18 2.4
Someone assumed I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity
group 16 2.1
I was the target of stalking 12 1.6
I was the target of physical violence 11 1.5
I was the target of graffiti/vandalism 5 0.7
The conduct threatened my family’s safety 5 0.7
An experience not listed above 112 14.9
Twenty-nine percent (n = 219) of respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct noted that it occurred in a meeting
with a group of people, 28% (n = 207) in a class/lab, and 18% (n = 134) in campus housing
(Table 26). Many respondents who marked “a venue not listed above” described email, social
media, fraternity house, and faculty department meetings. Respondents also noted the specific
office, meeting, building, campus location, or event where the incidents occurred.
Table 26. Locations of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile

Conduct
% of
respondents
who
experienced
Location of conduct n conduct
In a meeting with a group of people 219 29.1
In a class/lab 207 27.5
In other public spaces at Ithaca College 134 17.8
In campus housing 134 17.8
91
Table 26. Locations of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile
Conduct
% of
respondents
who
experienced
In a meeting with one other person 126 16.7
While working at a Ithaca College job 113 15.0
At an Ithaca College event/program 101 13.4
In an Ithaca College administrative office 93 12.4
Off campus 93 12.4
On phone calls/text messages/e-mail 93 12.4
While walking on campus 84 11.2
In a faculty office 72 9.6
On social media sites (Facebook/Twitter/ Yik-Yak) 61 8.1
In an Ithaca College dining facility 41 5.4
In athletic facilities 29 3.9
In off-campus housing 24 3.2
In the Ithaca College library 19 2.5
In an experiential learning environment (e.g., community-based

learning, retreat, externship, internship) 9 1.2
In Counseling and Psychological Services 7 0.9
In the Wellness Center 7 0.9
In the Health Center <5 ---
A venue not listed above 42 5.6

Forty-five percent (n = 335) of the respondents who indicated on the survey that they
experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct identified students as
the source of the conduct; 22% (n = 167) identified faculty members or other instructional staff,
and 22% (n = 164) identified coworkers/colleagues as the sources of the conduct (Table 27).
Sources of exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct “not listed above”
included “administrator,” “Associate Dean,” “media specialist,” “roommate,” “student parents,”
and “teammates,” among others.
92
Table 27. Sources of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile
Conduct
% of
respondents who
experienced
Source of conduct n conduct
Student 335 44.5

Faculty member/Other Instructional Staff 167 22.2
Co-worker/colleague 164 21.8
Friend 132 17.5
Senior administrator (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean) 81 10.8
Staff member 76 10.1
Supervisor or manager 72 9.6
Stranger 71 9.4
Department Chair 61 8.1
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) 34 4.5
Ithaca College Public Safety Officer 24 3.2
Student staff 24 3.2
Faculty advisor 23 3.1
Alumnus/a 22 2.9
Student Organization 17 2.3
Ithaca College media (posters, brochures, flyers, handouts, web sites,
etc.) 15 2.0
Off campus community member 15 2.0
Don’t know source 14 1.9
Academic advisor (advising center) 12 1.6
Athletic coach/trainer 8 1.1
Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to me) <5 ---
Student Teaching Assistant/Student Lab Assistant/Student Tutor <5 ---
Donor <5 ---
A source not listed above 41 5.4
93
Figures 38 through 40 display the perceived source of experienced exclusionary conduct by
position status. Students were the greatest source of reported exclusionary conduct for both
Undergraduate Student and Graduate Student respondents.
Figure 38. Student Respondents’ Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive,

and/or Hostile Conduct (%)
94
Faculty respondents most often cited coworkers and faculty as the source of the exclusionary
conduct. Staff respondents most often cited coworkers, supervisors, staff, and senior
administrators as the source of the exclusionary conduct (Figure 39).
Figure 39. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

by Employee Position Status (%)
95
Exempt Staff and Non-Exempt Staff respondents identified coworkers, supervisors, and staff as
their greatest sources of exclusionary conduct (Figure 40).
Figure 40. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

by Staff Position Status (%)
96
In response to this conduct, 62% (n = 467) of respondents felt angry, 49% (n = 369) felt
embarrassed, 28% (n = 212) ignored it, 23% (n = 176) felt afraid, and 21% (n = 155) felt
somehow responsible (Table 28). Of respondents who indicated their experience was not listed,
several added comments that indicated many respondents felt “belittled,” “depressed,”
“disappointed,” “extremely stressed,” “frustrated,” “hopeless,” “hurt and threatened,” “shamed,”
“insulted, devalued,” “powerless, disgusted,” and “traumatized,” among others.
Table 28. Respondents’ Emotional Responses to Experienced Exclusionary,

Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of respondents who
Emotional response to conduct n experienced conduct
I was angry. 467 62.0
I felt embarrassed. 369 49.0
I ignored it. 212 28.2
I was afraid. 176 23.4
I felt somehow responsible. 155 20.6

Also in response to experiencing the conduct, 44% (n = 329) told a friend, 42% (n = 313) didn’t
do anything, 38% (n = 286) avoid the person/venue, and 30% (n = 222) told a family member
(Table 29). Of the 14% (n = 102) of respondents who sought support from an Ithaca College
resource, 30% (n = 30) sought support from a faculty member, 30% (n = 30) from a senior
administrator (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president), and 28% (n = 28)
sought help from a staff member. Some “response not listed above” comments were “consulted
with HR,” “discussed with coworkers,” “attempted to dialogue with person,” “consulted an
attorney,” “dropped the class,” “I got a therapist,” “I quit the job,” “I told my coach,” “I wrote a
poor evaluation of the professor,” “spoke to res.life,” and “staff council,” among others.
97
Table 29. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents
who
experienced
Actions in response to conduct n conduct
I told a friend 329 43.7

I didn’t do anything 313 41.6
I avoided the person/venue 286 38.0
I told a family member 222 29.5
I confronted the person(s) later 146 19.4
I didn’t know who to go to 143 19.0
I confronted the person(s) at the time 125 16.6
I told a supervisor 114 15.1
I contacted an Ithaca College resource 102 13.5
Faculty member 30 29.4
Senior administrator 30 29.4
CAPS (Counseling and Psychological Services) 20 19.6
Residential Life 19 18.6
Title IX Coordinator 12 11.8
Student Accessibility Services 9 8.8
Ithaca College Office of Public Safety 6 5.9
LGBT Center 6 5.9
Student Affairs OSEMA, Multicultural Affairs 5 4.9
Student staff <5 ---
Case Manager <5 ---
Human Resources <5 ---
The Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity
(CSRE) <5 ---
ENI Employee Assistance <5 ---
Hammond Health Center <5 ---
Muller Chapel <5 ---
Center for Health Promotion <5 ---
International Programs <5 ---
I sought information online 42 5.6
I contacted a local law enforcement official 14 1.9
98
Table 29. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating,
Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents
who
experienced
Actions in response to conduct n conduct
I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services 14 1.9

I sought support from a member of the clergy or spiritual
advisor (e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest, imam) 13 1.7
I submitted a bias incident report through an Ithaca College
confidential on-line reporting system (e.g., EthicsPoint) <5 ---
A response not listed above 92 12.2
Table 30 illustrates that 88% (n = 650) of respondents did not report the incident and that 13% (n
= 93) of respondents did report the incident. Of the respondents who reported the incident, 8% (n
= 7) were satisfied with the outcome and 44% (n = 41) felt the incident was not appropriately
responded to.
Table 30. Respondents’ Reporting Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile
Conduct
% of respondents
who experienced
Reporting the conduct n conduct
No, I didn’t report it. 650 87.5
Yes, I reported it 93 12.5
Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome. 7 7.5
Yes, I reported the incident, and while the outcome is not what I had
hoped for, I feel as though my complaint was responded to
appropriately. 15 16.1
Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to
Missing 30 32.3
99
A total of 289 respondents elaborated on their experiences with exclusionary, (e.g., shunned,
ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (e.g., bullied, harassed). Among the
respondents, 154 were Student respondents, 72 were Faculty (including Faculty Tenure-Track,
Non-Tenure-Track, and Part-time/Adjunct) respondents, and 63 were Staff (including Staff and
Senior Administrators without Faculty Rank) respondents.
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Experiences with Harassment: One theme
that emerged among the Student respondents was experiences of harassment and bullying from
various groups on campus. Many of the Student respondents described experiences with
harassment and bullying from other students. As one Undergraduate Student respondent
explained, “My roommate and her friends bullied me in person and online.” Another
Undergraduate Student respondent mentioned “constantly having to deal with being teased or
ignored because of my accent.” Other comments describing the harassment and bullying
included, “A male student who lived in my building- who is now an RA- would constantly stare
at me and often times follow me around discreetly to dining halls- laundry-kitchen. And would
often force a conversation- invade my personal space.” “Someone decided a comment I wrote
was not, ‘sincere enough’ and accused me of being a ‘fucking asshole,’ and multiple people
started doing so.”
Student respondents who reported the harassment or bullying felt that the situation was not
properly resolved. One Undergraduate Student respondent described, “This would take pages,
but my harassment was ignored/minimized by staff and administration. They turned me into the
aggressor rather than the victim and pushed to make me believe that, then tried to push me to
sign documents saying that I would never speak of my experience.” Other Student respondents
described, “I don't feel like appropriate action was taken in response to really threatening yik
yaks and phone calls.” “I have a saddening suspicion that my teacher's lack of support was
because of two things: race and academic achievement. I assume that the classmate was
harassing me because he was jealous of my positive academic history, which could explain why
the content of his under-breath comments were devaluing my intelligence. My teacher, who
learned of my academic experiences and observed my interactions with him, told me in the
meeting (paraphrasing), "you don't know how hard it is for other students," in reference to my
query about academic outcomes for tardy students. This comment assumed that my own
100
academic experience was not hard, which lead her to miss the core of my displeasure with the
harassment I had received.”
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Racism on Campus: Student respondents

also described experiencing exclusionary conduct based on race. One Undergraduate Student
respondent described several incidents and wrote, “First, I feel like the only person of color in
my classrooms, especially in the Park school. Second, I don't think the Park scholar program
should be as exclusive as it is, for example, there seem to be all non people of color in the
program and it is only offered to Park students. Third, a faculty member approached me on the t-
cat bus, as I was talking to him, he asked me where I was from ‘where I was really from.’ This
sentence is extremely problematic. He then went on to continue about the exoticism of my
ethnicity and race.” Other descriptions by Undergraduate Student respondents included,
“Another incident professors did not intervene when white students asked blatantly racist
questions like ‘Why didn't they send all the black people back to Africa after slavery?’ Or
another incident occurred where a white student called me ‘uncivilized’ for telling another white
student that they were racist and ignorant after making remarks about how black people in low
income areas obviously steal things.” “The one that resonates the most was being kicked out of a
party because of speaking Spanish.” “There have been ‘jokes’ about my English, my ethnicity or
nationality by student and teachers that just make me feel uncomfortable and make me feel that
maybe I’m making a ‘big deal’ out of it. Also, a lot of ethnocentric and classist judgment in
almost every class that I've had, from other students.”
Student respondents who were White also described experiencing exclusionary conduct based on
race. Responses included, “I experienced racial shaming for identifying myself as a white
individual. I was informed that white people are selfish and power hungry people who find
pleasure in the hierarchy of their color. I was told that I did not even deserve to be called white,
but I should be referred to as a non-colored person to change my identity to a lesser status.” “But
what bothers me and has constantly made me feel uncomfortable is that I am often found to be
worthless or a terrible person because I am white.” “I had a professor who encouraged the class
to stereotype those sitting around them which led to a very uncomfortable number of situations
in which myself, being white, got yelled at and blamed for a number of historical issues and in
which other groups as well were reduced to nothing but a simple degrading stereotype by their
101
peers and by the professor, who in the name of ‘teaching,’ encouraged the discussion to
continue.”
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Sexism and Heterosexism on Campus:

Another theme that emerged among the Student respondents was experiences with sexism and
heterosexism. One Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “Many people have suggested that
the financial aid that I was given was due to my gender in my field. A faculty has constantly
questioned my position as a leader due to my gender, as if I was only elected because I was a
woman and I would not succeed.” Other descriptions included, “In class I can consistently feel
other students staring at me or not associating with me and I know it's because I am non-binary.
One night while walking on campus late at night holding hands with my girlfriend a boy and his
friend passed us and made gunshot sounds and pretended to point guns at us, which was
particularly alarming in the wake of the Orlando shooting.” “I am often told I'm not strong
enough because I'm a woman. I also feel like in the classroom, specifically my film production
classes, that woman aren't seen as worthy of production jobs and I am given "easy" tasks because
I'm not a man. They are subtle microaggressions that I get from colleagues and faculty members,
predominantly cis men.” “I have had professors use offensive and problematic language when
speaking about the LGBT community. I have had professors teach or give out misinformation
about the LGBT community.” “My first year roommates pretended I didn't exist for a whole
year, due to what I believe was homophobia.” “I have a marketing professor who has made 2
explicitly transphobic remarks this semester. He referred to a survey asking someone's gender as
‘the way things used to be, back when things were simple.’ As well as, ‘I don't even know how
to talk about that anymore,’ when gender was referenced on the first day of class. My accounting
professor would not call on females in the room.” Overall, as one Undergraduate Student
respondent described, “The sexism is REAL!”
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Classroom Environment: Student

respondents also described incidents of exclusionary conduct either in the classroom or involving
interactions with professors or advisors. One Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “I was
told that perhaps that politics wasn't the major for me do to my military background. That the
politics department is a different major at Ithaca and I wouldn't fit in. I was also told by an
advisor that perhaps I should transfer.” Other descriptions included, “I experienced a micro-
102
aggression in the classroom, that seemed to be caused by a well-intentioned professor who was
ignorant about the topic she was speaking of. Her words silenced a group of people in the room.”
“A professor refused to accommodate for the Jewish holidays and I told her she was required to
do so or I would speak with the department head. She then changed the date of the exam and
since has been giving me unfair grades on assignments and docking points for trivial things such
as wiggling my foot or opening my backpack during class.” Student respondents described how
these incidents left them “embarrassed,” “worried,” “unsafe, angry, and uncomfortable.”
Employee Respondents – Harassment and Bullying: Employee respondents also described

experiences with bullying and harassment. One Part-Time/Adjunct respondent described feeling
harassed because of their status at a Part-time faculty member. “I have felt attacked by the Ithaca
College administration on a number of occasions. Most recently, a group of part-time faculty sat
at the bargaining table after 2 months of ‘dialogue’ to hear Nancy Pringle, et al. rationalize the
treatment of part-time faculty at IC by presenting us with notes on the pay of other adjuncts at
other institutions. This type of rationalization is abusive and parallels many other instances
where the oppressed are made to feel that their conditions are ‘fine’ by the oppressor. I have
never in my life felt so frustrated, upset and pained by the complete disregard that these
individuals had for their own faculty.” Another Part-Time/Adjunct respondent described being
bullied by others. “A full-time faculty member bullied me into changing a course and not being
allowed to use facilities for a course I was teaching and would teach in the future. She pulled
rank and exerted a territorial dominion…Her language in emails was bullying as well.” Other
Employee respondents described similar incidents with colleagues. One Faculty Tenure-Track
respondent wrote, “I work with several bullies whose behaviors have not been addressed in any
effective way for several years. I consider any action or discussion that may have taken place
(although non-transparency rules the day around here) to be ineffective when the behaviors
continue to persist.” Another Staff respondent wrote, “I was bullied by a coworker after I was
given additional responsibilities in the office. They teamed up with other coworkers in the office
to confront me during a meeting where no supervisors were present. I cried in my office, and
went to my supervisor for help.”
Reporting of the harassment or bullying left many Employee respondents unsatisfied with the
outcome. As one Staff respondent reported, “I submitted a report of bullying to HR and nothing
103
was ever done. None of my supervisors have ever done anything. The employee still works in the
department and we just do not ever speak to each other or even make eye contact. Life goes on
and the work gets done, but it's a crappy solution and makes work uncomfortable everyday.”
Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “I was sexual harassed and then harassed and
put-down by the person in front of students. I reported it to the appropriate office but I felt that
nothing ever really happened. I had to avoid and ignore the person for years.” Another Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent said, “There is no way to report out incidents. I've heard from others
that have reported and they were told to deal with it from HR and administrators and later
penalized.” One Staff respondent described how nothing was done after reporting an individual
who was bullying. “I spoke with HR about the bullying. They recommended I speak with my
supervisor. I did that, and my supervisor listened and seemed supportive. She then spoke with
her supervisor who said that this person has worked at the college for a long time and that's just
how she is.” The effect of these incidents was to make “the working environment extremely
frustrating and demeaning” and make their “investment and engagement in the college is
dropping daily.”
Employee Respondents – Racism: Employee respondents elaborated on a variety of experiences

with racism on campus, ranging from those who felt that they were being “attacked” for being
White or male to those who felt that they were experiencing racism because they were part of an
underrepresented group. One Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent explained how he felt
attacked for being a White male in the following comment, “I had POC attack me for what they
perceived to be inappropriate or racist comments, or micro-aggressions. However, their
accusations had no basis or no context, beside the fact that I am a white male. These POC
individuals then conspired with each other to mount an attack on my character, for no other
reason than their own ideological agenda.” Another Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent
described, “I am in danger of being singled out because of my race and gender identity. I
recognize that white males are a privileged group in the US, but not being able to speak at all,
providing no input due to public shaming, is not a positive climate for an institution dedicated to
education.” Another Staff respondent echoed and similar sentiment and wrote, “I was called a
racist because I am white. I was called a sexist because I am a man. I don't know why. I don't
believe my race or gender should be the basis for broad generalizations and condemnation
without knowing me as a person.”
104
Employee respondents also explained how being a part of an underrepresented group led to
experiences of racism. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “Last year a colleague came
to my office and yelled at me and used derogatory terms based on my ethnicity and country of
origin. While I shared this with my Dean and he said I had grounds for reporting it I didn't
because I will have to continue working with this person for many more years to come and I
preferred to seek peace rather than a hostile working environment for other 10 years.” Another
Faculty Tenure-Track respondent explained how their underrepresented status affected their
experiences with racism. “On more than one occasion my department chair has asked me to take
charge of something due to my minority status in the department (i.e. immigrant/non-citizen,
LGBT etc.). On other occasions, my department chair and a couple colleagues have dismissed
the contributions of immigrants/non-citizens to the diversity of our faculty in my presence, while
ignoring my immigrant status. These faculty have also downplayed the importance of diversity
within the workplace/our department, and expressed ignorance on the issues of women's
equality, maternity leave, micro-aggressions etc.” Other Employee respondents described a
culture that promoted racism, as one Faculty Tenure-Track respondent described, “In department
meetings, I feel like I generally have to be the voice of reason when it comes to racist behavior
and this is often met with varying degrees of resistance. For instance, on one occasion, the
department was mulling over segregated hiring practices under the assumption that there would
be no one of color qualified. I voiced my opinions several times, but I was ignored. The
department ran with the plan until it was shut down by a higher body, but they still congratulated
themselves for trying.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “My former department
chair mobilized a group of 4 men to oppose the possibility that I would be elected as department
chair. One of the junior faculty was threatened with support for his tenure for nominating me as a
department chair. I was eventually elected ‘unanimously’ - only because a couple of them chose
to abstain. This was mostly the ‘boys club’ problem.” Employee respondents described handling
these incidents as “tiring,” “upset,” and “frustrating.”
Employee Respondents – Issues with Colleagues and Supervisor: Another theme among the
Employee respondents was experiencing exclusionary conduct perpetrated by colleagues and
supervisors. Faculty respondents often described incidents with a superior. One Faculty Tenure-
105
Track respondent described, “The dean of my school seems to be dismissing the ideas of senior
faculty in favor of his own or those of junior faculty.” One Non-Tenure-Track respondent wrote,
“Being a full-time, non-tenure track faculty member puts me in a weird limbo in the department.
Some members view me as their equal, based on my education and experience. Others see me as
expendable and not worthy of equal treatment. This person in particular who treated me as a
second class citizen is very close to my supervisor, which makes me hesitant to report her
behavior. I just do whatever I can to avoid this person and not have any interaction.” Staff
respondents had similar descriptions, as illustrated by the following response. “There was an
incident that happened in front of my supervisor that my co-worker was inches from my face
yelling at me. I was reprimanded because I choose not to say anything back. I was told that
because I seemed to shut down that I had to go to the Advocacy center in Ithaca to work out our
problems. I also lost my merit raise that year. I went to Human Resource several times to get
help from all the verbal abuse. She was finally let go because she made a racial remark about a
student that came in our office. She was not fired but was able to retire with full benefits even
though she had not worked long enough at the college.” Other Staff respondents wrote,
“Managers are not reprimanded. Their conduct is ignored in our department by our director.” “I
am trying to work it out with my supervisor but it is tough going. She often misinterprets
situations and then refuses to see the other side or admit that her interpretation might be wrong,”
and “Just an insecure and vindictive supervisor who enjoyed blaming her employees for all
problems and issued passive aggressive comments constantly about the ability and value of her
staff.”
xx
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who experienced exclusionary,
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by gender identity: 2 (2, N = 3,794) = 53.069, p < .001.
xxi
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct based on their gender/gender identity by gender identity: 2 (2, N =
742) = 46.377, p < .001.
xxii
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 3,706) = 85.654, p < .001.
xxiii
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct based on their ethnicity by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 717) = 211.915,
p < .001.
xxiv
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by position status: 2 (3, N = 3,818) = 71.819, p < .001.
xxv
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct based on their position by position status: 2 (3, N = 753) = 102.515,
p < .001.
106
Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
Respondents’ observations of others experiencing exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or

hostile conduct also may contribute to their perceptions of campus climate. Thirty-three percent
(n = 1,245) of survey respondents observed conduct directed toward a person or group of people
on campus that they believe created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) working or learning environment at Ithaca
College47 within the past year. Most of the observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or
hostile conduct was based on racial identity (38%, n = 476), ethnicity (36%, n = 444), and
gender/gender identity (28%, n = 346). Nineteen percent (n = 231) of respondents indicated that
they did not know the basis (Table 31).
Table 31. Bases of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile

Conduct
% of respondents
who observed
Characteristic n conduct

Ethnicity 444 35.7
Gender/gender identity 346 27.8
Position (staff, faculty, student) 161 12.9
Age 127 10.2
Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition 113 9.1
Academic Performance 71 5.7
47
This report uses “conduct” and the phrase “exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct” as a
shortened version of “conduct directed toward a person or group of people on campus that you believe created an
exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) working or
learning environment at Ithaca College.”
107
Table 31. Bases of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile
Conduct
% of respondents
who observed
Characteristic n conduct

Educational credentials (BS, MS, PhD, etc.) 58 4.7
Participation in an organization/team 41 3.3
Pregnancy 8 0.6
Military/veteran status 7 0.6
Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they observed exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct (n = 1,245). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
Figures 41 and 42 separate by demographic categories (i.e., position status, gender identity,
racial identity, sexual identity, religious/spiritual identity, disability status, income status, first-
generation status, citizenship) the noteworthy responses of those individuals who indicated on
the survey that they observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct within
the past year. No significant differences were noted in the percentages of respondents who
indicated on the survey that they had observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or
hostile conduct within the past year by first-generation status or citizenship status.
A significantly higher percentage of Transspectrum respondents (49%, n = 47) than Women

respondents (30%, n = 377) and Men respondents (33%, n = 815) observed such conduct.xxvi
Also noteworthy, there were statistically different percentages of witnessing exclusionary,
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct among Asian/Asian American respondents (34%,
n = 58), Black/African American respondents (44%, n = 71), Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@
respondents (36%, n = 52), Multiracial respondents (40%, n = 126), Additional People of Color
(42%, n = 16), and White respondents (31%, n = 87).xxvii There were also significantly different
108
observations across sexual identities among LGBQ respondents (46%, n = 297), Asexual
respondents (33%, n = 11), and Heterosexual respondents (30%, n = 900).xxviii
Figure 41. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by

Respondents’ Gender Identity, Racial Identity, and Sexual Identity (%)
109
Higher percentages of respondents with Multiple Disabilities (47%, n = 99) and respondents with
a Single Disability (43%, n = 167) than respondents with No Disability (31%, n = 970) indicated
that they had observed such conduct (Figure 42). xxix
In terms of religious/spiritual identity, respondents with Christian Affiliations (28%, n = 422)

were less likely to have witnessed such conduct than were respondents with Multiple Affiliations
(43%, n = 91), respondents with No Affiliation (35%, n = 574), and respondents with Additional
Faith-Based Affiliation (33%, n = 130). xxx
Figure 42. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

by Respondents’ Disability Status and Religious/Spiritual Identity (%)
110
Higher percentages of Low-Income Student respondents (39%, n = 111) than Not Low-Income
Student respondents (30%, n = 726) indicated that they had observed such conduct (Figure 43).
xxxi
In terms of position status at Ithaca College, significantly higher percentages of Faculty
respondents (41%, n = 190) and Staff respondents (38%, n = 198) indicated that they had
observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct than did Undergraduate
Student respondents (31%, n = 821) or Graduate Student respondents (23%, n = 36).xxxii
Figure 43. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

by Respondents’ Position Status and Student Income Status (%)
Table 32 illustrates that respondents most often observed this conduct in the form of someone
being the target of derogatory verbal remarks (52%, n = 648), deliberately ignored or excluded
(34%, n = 424), being isolated or left out (30%, n = 378), being the target of racial profiling
(27%, n = 340), or being intimidated/bullied (27%, n = 338).
111
Table 32. Forms of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents
who observed
Form of conduct n conduct
Derogatory verbal remarks 648 52.0

Person ignored or excluded 424 34.1
Person isolated or left out 378 30.4
Racial/ethnic profiling 340 27.3
Person intimidated/bullied 338 27.1
Person experiences a hostile classroom environment 237 19.0
Person experienced a hostile work environment 195 15.7
Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group 186 14.9
Person being stared at 182 14.6
Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/
promoted based on his/her identity 164 13.2
Derogatory written comments 149 12.0
Derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line 146 11.7
Person was the target of workplace incivility 142 11.4
Derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail 98 7.9
Person received a low or unfair performance evaluation 77 6.2
Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/
Person was “outed” against their wishes (e.g., gender identity, sexuality,
disability status) 65 5.2
Person was unfairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process 64 5.1
Threats of physical violence 64 5.1
Person was denied accommodations 59 4.7
Graffiti/vandalism 48 3.9
Person received a poor grade 35 2.8
Derogatory phone calls 29 2.3
Physical violence 26 2.1
Person was stalked 21 1.7
Something not listed above 79 6.3
112
Additionally, 29% (n = 364) of the respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed
exclusionary conduct noted that it happened in a class/lab and 29% (n = 358) in other public
spaces at Ithaca College (Table 33).
Table 33. Locations of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents
who observed
Off campus 208 16.7
On social media (Facebook/Twitter/ Yik-Yak) 197 15.8
While working at an Ithaca College job 108 8.7
In an experiential learning environment (e.g., community-based learning,

retreat, externship, internship) 17 1.4
In the Health Center 5 0.4
In the Counseling and Psychological Services <5 ---
In the Wellness Center <5 ---

113
Sixty-eight percent (n = 843) of respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct noted that the targets of the conduct
were students (Table 34). Other respondents identified friends (23%, n = 288), faculty members
(15%, n = 188), coworkers/colleagues (12%, n = 148), and staff members (12%, n = 143) as
targets. Other sources not listed included “Diversity Training Specialists,” “minority groups,”
“self,” and “the Jewish student body,” among others.
Table 34. Targets of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents who
observed
Target n conduct
Student 843 67.7

Friend 288 23.1
Faculty member/Other instructional staff 188 15.1
Stranger 131 10.5
Alumnus/a 67 5.4
Don’t know target 62 5.0
Ithaca College Public Safety office 39 3.1
Ithaca College media (e.g., posters, brochures,
flyers, handouts, web sites) 36 2.9
Department chair 27 2.2
Academic advisor 13 1.0
Supervisor or manager (including experiential sites) 12 1.0
Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to you) 7 0.6
Donor 6 0.5
114
Table 34. Targets of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents who
observed
Target n conduct
Student teaching assistant/Student lab assistant/

Student tutor 6 0.5
A target not listed above 37 3.0

Of respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed exclusionary, intimidating,
offensive, and/or hostile conduct directed at others, 56% (n = 700) noted that students were the
sources of the conduct (Table 35). Respondents identified additional sources as faculty members
(24%, n = 295), senior administrators (13%, n = 159), and strangers (12%, n = 152).
Table 35. Sources of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents who
observed
Source n conduct
Student 700 56.2

Stranger 152 12.2
Friend 98 7.9
Alumnus/a 68 5.5
Ithaca College media (e.g., posters, brochures, flyers, handouts,
web sites, etc.) 55 4.4
Student organization 35 2.8
115
Table 35. Sources of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents who
observed
Source n conduct

Donor 11 0.9
Student tutor 5 0.4
Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to you) <5 ---
In response to this conduct, 35% (n = 437) of respondents did not do anything, 30% (n = 368)
told a friend, and 16% (n = 197) confronted the person at the time (Table 36). Of respondents
who indicated their experience was not listed, several added comments that they “acted as an
ally,” “attended protests,” “diverted conversation,” “became an activist,” “provided support to
the student,” “ spoke to my therapist,” “it was covered by the press,” “reached out to the affected
person,” “silent protest as a group,” and “talked to campus security,” among others.
Table 36. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or
Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents
who observed
Actions in response to observed conduct n conduct
I did not do anything 437 35.1

I did not know who to go to 180 14.5
116
Table 36. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or
Hostile Conduct
% of
respondents
who observed
Actions in response to observed conduct n conduct
LGBT Center 9 12.5
Student staff 7 9.7
Student Affairs OSEMA, Multicultural Affairs <5 ---
The Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity (CSRE) <5 ---
Case Manager <5 ---
Student Accessibility Services <5 ---

I sought support from a member of the clergy or spiritual advisor (e.g., pastor,
rabbi, priest, imam) 11 0.9
I contacted a local law enforcement official <5 ---

.
Table 37 illustrates that 93% (n = 1,121) of respondents did not report the incident and that 7%
(n = 83) of respondents did report the incident. Of the respondents who reported the incident,
17% (n = 14) were satisfied with the outcome, 21% (n = 17) felt that the complaint received an
appropriate response, and 31% (n = 26) felt that the incident did not receive an appropriate
response.
117
Table 37. Respondents’ Reporting of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile
Conduct
% of
respondents
who observed
Reporting the observed conduct n conduct
No, I didn’t report it. 1,121 93.1
Yes, I reported it. 83 6.9
Yes, I reported the incident, and while the outcome is not what I had hoped
for, I feel as though my complaint was responded to appropriately. 17 20.5
Missing 26 31.3
A total of 294 respondents elaborated on their observations of conduct that created an

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning environment. Two
themes emerged among all respondents: conduct based on race and conduct based on gender and
sexual orientation. Among Employee respondents, an additional theme of lack of civility and
bullying on campus also emerged.
All Respondents: Observed Conduct based on Race: Respondents often described having
observed incidents based on an individual’s race or ethnicity. Several respondents described how
these incidents occurred during the POC@IC movement, as illustrated by the following
Undergraduate Student respondent, who wrote, “Harassment, derogatory remarks,
tokenizing/treating people as a representative of their race or of a protest movement, online
threats of violence, all directed against people of color (regardless of their involvement in
protests) in response to POCatIC protests.” Other comments included, “Person was yelled at
POC at IC rallies for rather politely asking a member of the protesting organization why they
thought what they did,” “POC@IC's protests were so important and also distracting. There was
not proper communication between POC@IC and the administration, making both of them
bullies in different ways,” and “several comments/emails sent to POCIC that were from
alumni/community members that threatened violence against people of color.” Beyond the
118
POC@IC movement, respondents explained that they felt that the climate was unwelcoming for
people of color and that no one was taking their concerns seriously. One Undergraduate Student
respondent stated, “There is a very hostile environment directed toward ALANA orgs and POC.
A lot of white students get away with harassing, intimidating and excluding POC within
classrooms, on campus and off-campus. POC are tired of reporting these incidents and not
getting active responses. White students are not held accountable for their actions.” Another
Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “Many people of color were feeling very
underrepresented and ignored. No one was taking our concerns seriously.” Finally, one
Undergraduate Student respondent elaborated on the types of incidents that occurred. “Online
harassment where a group of Cornell and IC students targeted a group of my friends with racial
slurs and threats of deportation; Yik-Yak threat of stabbing/injuring protestors at Cortaca last
fall; the invitation for AEPi's racially themed party last fall; Tatiana Sy being called a savage; the
use of the N-word by non-black people; the shaming of women who did report the men who
sexually assaulted them.”
Respondents commented on some actions in response to the racial incidents. The following
Faculty Tenure-Track respondent explained what occurred at this year’s convocation. “I was also
extremely concerned about the convocation ceremony, particularly the entrance and exit music.
It seemed to me and other faculty members that the response to last year's campus climate issues
was attempted to be remedied by having mostly white students dress up in traditional African
clothing and dance to African music and/or play the congo drums barefoot. As a white woman,
this made me extremely uncomfortable, as it seemed to be a clear instance of cultural
appropriation. Other faculty members in my department felt similarly. I can only imagine what
students, and particularly new students, were thinking. That is not the way to introduce new
students and faculty to our campus community.” The following Staff respondent elaborated on
why there should be a focus on training to support students of color. “In general, when I talk to
students, the place they are regularly singled out for their race/ethnicity is in the classroom.
Faculty need more training, and it upsets me that they are the ones exempt from the diversity and
social justice training provided by HR.”
Finally, respondents commented on how the climate during the POC@IC was hostile toward
those in the majority. One Undergraduate Student respondent explained, “When students of split
119
standing on the issue (generally, white students) would try to initiate dialogue whether in a
classroom or on campus, they were met with hostile and demeaning remarks from POC @ IC
members and supports.” Another Undergraduate Student wrote, “‘reverse racism’ doesn't exist
but there are a bunch of people here who hate all white people and any POC who doesn't also
hate all white people so it's as close as it gets,” and one Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent
explained, “Some students believe that the color of their skin means they have the right to
intimidate/argue with/be downright disrespectful toward faculty who do not share those same
characteristics. I believe we fail to show students that racism comes in ALL forms: not just
whites oppressing blacks. Conversation about these issues is one thing, but failure to
acknowledge that there still needs to be an environment of respect is another.”
All Respondents - Observed Conduct based on Gender and Sexual Orientation: Respondents
commented on “this institution doesn't particularly seem concerned about sexism.” Respondents
elaborated on how the sexism was pervasive on campus. The following Faculty Tenure-Track
respondent explained, “To whom are you going to report that someone is condescending and has
a tendency toward mansplaining and ignoring women's voices? That isn't a violation of title IX,
it is not sexual harassment. It is just pervasive, but because of the dominant consideration of
men, this is "normative" behavior but one which has a very real and detrimental effect in the
workplace, of shutting down women's voices, etc.… For most women, this is just a fact of life
that we live with everyday that simply is not prioritized or, often, acknowledged.” Another Staff
respondent explained, “It's implicit bias against women. Happens every day, everywhere.”
Respondents also commented on heterosexism on campus. One Undergraduate Student

explained how heterosexism was seen on campus. “There are a few professors that are not good
about LGBTQ people in their classes, and calling people out to speak for their whole group. Or
calling them the wrong pronouns and embarrassing or outing them to the class.” Another
Undergraduate Student respondent explained how both heterosexism and sexism were pervasive
on campus. “I've had multiple friends be outed in class without their consent, and one of these
friends had two people openly stare at them in the dining hall and leave a bible on their table
while they were getting food. I've had a friend be called a ‘fucking faggot’ in the parking lot. I've
had female friends be catcalled, be disregarded by others on campus, be laughed at and
120
invalidated.” As another Undergraduate Student respondent explained, “Some staff members are
blatantly heteronormative and gender-binary enforcing. It's very uncomfortable to be around.”
Employee Respondents - Lack of Civility and Bullying on Campus: Employee respondents

described observing incidents of bullying and a general lack of civility on campus. Comments
were made about the Blue Sky event. One Staff respondent stated, “Our guest alum bullied our
recent grad at the Blue Sky event.” Employee respondents described acts of bullying by various
colleagues. As one Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “We have a senior colleague that is
quite powerful that acts as a bully to get her way. She has driven off talented colleagues.”
Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “There are about 5-8 bullies on the SOM
faculty--their exploits are legend,” and a Staff respondent explained, “Bullying in many offices
happens and nothing is done about it.” One Staff respondent explained the general climate of the
campus as “Lack of civility, untruthful rumors, unwillingness to engage in dialogue.” Another
Staff respondent explained how this created a “culture of mean-spiritedness toward people who
do not fully agree with prevailing viewpoints.”
xxvi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they observed
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by gender identity: 2 (2, N = 3,789) = 16.155, p < .001.
xxvii
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 3,704) = 24.676, p < .001.
xxviii
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 3,713) = 63.451, p < .001.
xxix
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by disability status: 2 (2, N = 3,779) = 45.374, p <
.001.
xxx
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (2, N = 3,713) =
63.451, p < .001.
xxxi
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by income status: 2 (1, N = 2,729) = 10.554, p < .001.
xxxii
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct by position status: 2 (3, N = 3,812) = 31.235, p < .001.
121
Unwanted Sexual Experiences
Fifteen percent (n = 555) of respondents indicated on the survey that they had experienced
unwanted sexual conduct,48 with 2% (n = 57) experiencing relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed,
controlling, hitting), 2% (n = 88) experiencing stalking (e.g., following me, on social media,
texting, phone calls), 8% (n = 285) experiencing sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated
sexual advances, sexual harassment), and 3% (n = 125) experiencing unwanted sexual contact
(e.g. fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent, or gang rape) while a member of
the Ithaca College community (Figure 44).
Figure 44. Respondents Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Conduct by Position Status (n)
48
The survey used the term “unwanted sexual conduct” to depict any unwanted sexual experiences and defined it as
“unwanted sexual contact/conduct (including interpersonal violence, sexual harassment, stalking, sexual assault,
sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, sodomy or gang rape).”
122
Relationship Violence
Subsequent analyses of the data suggested that Undergraduate Student respondents (2%, n = 54)
were significantly more likely to experience relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling,
hitting) than were Staff respondents (<1%, n < 5) (Figure 45).xxxiii Similarly, LGBQ respondents
(3%, n = 19) were more likely than were Heterosexual respondents (1%, n = 38) to have
experienced relationship violence.xxxiv A higher percentage of respondents with Multiple
Disabilities (3%, n = 6) and respondents with a Single Disability (3%, n = 10) than respondents
with No Disability (1%, n = 41) experienced relationship violence. xxxv There were no significant
differences in experiencing relationship violence by gender identity.
54
41
38
19
10
6
Figure 45. Respondents’ Experiences of Relationship Violence While at Ithaca College by

Position Status, Sexual Identity, and Disability Position Status (n)
123
Student respondents49 were asked if alcohol and/or drugs were involved in the relationship
violence and 26% (n = 14) indicated “yes.” Of those who indicated drugs and alcohol were
involved, 50% (n = 7) reported it was alcohol only and less than 5 indicated that it was either
drugs only or both alcohol and drugs.
Student respondents were also asked to share what year in their college career they experienced
relationship violence. Of note, the greatest percentage of occurrences of relationship violence of
any kind happened each fall semester. Of Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that
they experienced relationship violence, 48% (n = 26) noted that it occurred within their first year,
46% (n = 25) noted that it occurred in their second year, 30% (n = 16) noted that it occurred in
their third year, and 6% (n < 5) noted that it occurred during their fourth year (Table 38). Six
percent (n < 5) of Student respondents who experienced relationship violence indicated that it
occurred during their time as a Graduate Student at Ithaca College.
Table 38. Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Relationship

Violence
Year experience occurred n %
During my time as a student at Ithaca

College <5 ---
Undergraduate first year 26 48.1
Fall semester 16 61.5
Spring semester 14 53.8
Summer semester 5 19.2
Undergraduate second year 25 46.3

Summer semester <5 ---
Undergraduate third year 16 29.6

49
Analysis of Undergraduate and Graduate Student responses were combined because the number of Graduate
Student respondents was too low to maintain confidentiality.
124
Table 38. Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Relationship

Violence
Undergraduate fourth year <5 ---

Fall semester <5 ---
Spring semester <5 ---
After my fourth year as an
undergraduate <5 ---
Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 54).
Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
Fifty-four percent (n = 31) of the respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced
relationship violence identified current or former dating/intimate partner as the perpetrators of
the conduct. Respondents also identified other sources as Ithaca College students (46%, n = 26)
and acquaintances/friends (30%, n = 17).
Asked where the relationship violence incidents occurred, 46% (n = 26) of respondents indicated
that they occurred off-campus and 70% (n = 40) indicated they occurred on campus.
Respondents who experienced relationship violence on campus commented that the instances
happened in “Circle Apartments,” “Gardens,” and “dorm rooms,” among others.
Asked how they felt in response to experiencing relationship violence, 60% (n = 34) felt angry,
47% (n = 27) felt embarrassed, and 46% (n = 26) felt somehow responsible (Table 39).
Table 39. Emotional Reaction to Relationship Violence

Emotional reaction n %
I felt angry. 34 59.6
I felt afraid. 17 29.8

125
In response to experiencing relationship violence, 21 respondents (37%) sought support from a
member of the clergy or spiritual advisor (Table 40). Respondents also avoided the person/venue
(35%, n = 20), sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services (32%, n = 18), sought
information online (30%, n = 17), contacted a local law enforcement official (28%, n = 16), or
confronted the person(s) at the time (28%, n = 16).
Table 40. Actions in Response to Relationship Violence
Action n %
I sought support from a member of the clergy or

spiritual advisor (e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest, imam) 21 36.8
I avoided the person/venue. 20 35.1
I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy
services. 18 31.6
I sought information online. 17 29.8
I contacted a local law enforcement official. 16 28.1
I confronted the person(s) at the time. 16 28.1
I didn’t do anything. 10 17.5
I confronted the person(s) later. 10 17.5
I didn’t know who to go to. 8 14.0
I contacted an Ithaca College resource. 8 14.0
Residential Life <5 ---
Senior administrator <5 ---
Ithaca College Office of Public Safety <5 ---
Title IX Coordinator <5 ---
Faculty member <5 ---
Staff member <5 ---
Case Manager <5 ---
LGBT Center <5 ---
126
Table 40. Actions in Response to Relationship Violence
Action n %
I submitted a bias incident report through an Ithaca
College confidential on-line reporting system (e.g.,
EthicsPoint) <5 ---
A response not listed above <5 ---
Ninety-one percent (n = 52) of respondents did not report the relationship violence and 9% (n =
5) reported the incident (Table 41).
Table 41. Respondents’ Reporting Relationship Violence

% of respondents
who experienced
Reporting the relationship violence n conduct
No, I didn’t report it.

52 91.2
Yes, I filed an official complaint to Ithaca College Department of Public

Safety, Title IX Coordinator, and/or Ithaca College Police Department. <5 ---
Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome. <5 ---
appropriately. <5 ---
Yes, I reported the incident to someone other than Ithaca College

Department of Public Safety, Title IX Coordinator, and/or Ithaca College
Police Department. <5 ---
127
Table 41. Respondents’ Reporting Relationship Violence
% of respondents
who experienced
Reporting the relationship violence n conduct
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
A total of 43 respondents elaborated on why they did not report the relationship violence to a
campus official or staff member. The two themes that emerged were having a valid reason and
no desire to report.
Reason for Not Reporting: Respondents described several different reasons for not reporting the
relationship violence. Some responses downplayed the incident, as illustrated by the following
responses. “Was fairly minor. I didn't get hurt.” “Didn't feel the need to.” “it wasn't a big deal.
she was drunk and upset and it caused no harm or damage to me.” “He never physically hurt me.
It was mainly more ridiculing my choices, manipulating me to forgive him when he made
mistakes or cheated on me, making me feel isolated about my identity (as a woman of color), so I
didn't really think it was worth reporting as much as it was something that I could handle, and I
eventually did.” Other respondents felt that they “did not want to get the person in trouble” or
were embarrassed by the situation (“I felt embarrassed that my girlfriend was mentally abusing
me so I did not want to report it to anyone.”). Finally, respondents who did not experience
physical violence felt that they did not need to report it, as the following respondents reported.
“There were never physical altercations. Just mental abuse, controlling, and stalking.” “It was all
mental. There is nothing that anyone could do. So, he didn't let me go out on weekends or make
friends that he didn't approve of. I figured, what could anyone do anyway?”
Less than five respondents answered the question on reporting relationship violence and overall
indicated that the harassment occurred much more discretely after reporting.
128
Stalking
Subsequent analyses of the data suggested significant differences in experiencing stalking (e.g.,
following me, on social media, texting, phone calls) (Figure 46). Transspectrum respondents
(4%, n < 5) and Women respondents (3%, n = 70) were more likely than were Men respondents
(1%, n = 14) to experience stalking. xxxvi Likewise, LGBQ respondents (4%, n = 28) were more
likely than were Heterosexual respondents (2%, n = 59) to have experienced stalking. xxxvii A
higher percentage of respondents with Multiple Disabilities (5%, n = 10) and respondents with a
Single Disability (4%, n = 15) than respondents with No Disability (2%, n = 62) experienced
stalking.xxxviii
Figure 46. Respondents’ Experiences of Stalking While at Ithaca College by Gender Identity,
Sexual Identity, and Disability Position Status (n)
129
Student respondents50 were asked if alcohol and/or drugs were involved in the stalking and 17%
(n = 13) indicated “yes.” Of those who indicated drugs and alcohol were involved, 54% (n = 7)
reported it was alcohol only.
stalking. Of Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that they experienced stalking,
68% (n = 52) noted that it occurred within their first year, 43% (n = 33) noted that it occurred in
their second year, 13% (n = 10) noted that it occurred in their third year, and 4% (n < 5)
indicated that it occurred during their fourth year (Table 42). One percent (n < 5) of Student
respondents who experienced stalking indicated that it occurred during their time as a Graduate
Student at Ithaca College.
Table 42. Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Stalking
During my time as a graduate student at

Ithaca College <5 ---
42.9
Undergraduate second year 33
13.0
Undergraduate third year 10
Undergraduate fourth year <5 ---

After fourth year as undergraduate <5 ---

Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 77).
Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
50
Student respondents (n < 5) was too low to maintain confidentiality.
130
Fifty-five percent (n = 48) of the respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced
stalking identified an Ithaca College student as the perpetrators of the conduct. Respondents also
identified other sources as acquaintances/friends (27%, n = 24), strangers (23%, n = 20), and
current or former dating/intimate partners (13%, n = 11).
Asked where the stalking incidents occurred, 48% (n = 42) of respondents indicated that they
occurred off-campus and 71% (n = 62) indicated they occurred on campus. Respondents who
experienced stalking off-campus indicated that the incidents occurred in places such as
“downtown,” “moonies,” “online,” and “social media,” among others. Respondents who
experienced stalking on campus commented that the instances happened in “class,” “dining
halls,” “dorms,” “library,” and “terraces,” among others.
Asked how they felt in response to experiencing stalking, 48% (n = 42) of respondents felt
afraid, 41% (n = 36) felt angry, and 40% (n = 35) felt somehow responsible (Table 43).
Table 43. Emotional Reaction to Stalking


In response to experiencing stalking, most 61 respondents (69%) avoided the person/venue

(Table 44). Other respondents sought support form a member of the clergy or spiritual advisor
(47%, n = 41), sought information online (40%, n = 35), sought support from off-campus hot-
line/advocacy services (33%, n = 29), or contacted a local law enforcement official (30%, n =
26).
131
Table 44. Actions in Response to Stalking
Action n %

services. 29 33.0
Staff member <5 ---
LGBT Center <5 ---
CAPS (Counseling and Psychological Services) <5 ---
Case Manager <5 ---
EthicsPoint) 5 5.7
132
Table 44. Actions in Response to Stalking
Action n %
I told a friend <5 ---
Eighty-two percent (n = 71) of respondents did not report the stalking and 18% (n = 16) reported
the incident (Table 45).
Table 45. Respondents’ Reporting Stalking

% of respondents
who experienced
Reporting the stalking n conduct

Safety, Title IX Coordinator, and/or Ithaca College Police Department. 9 10.3

Police Department. 7 8.0
Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
No Reason for Reporting: A total of 63 respondents elaborated on why they did not report
stalking to a campus official or staff member. Respondents mostly stated that they felt that they
had no need to report the behavior. Many of the respondents thought that it was not “that big of a
133
deal,” that they did not “think it was serious enough to,” or that it “didn’t get to the point” where
it should be reported. Other respondents stated that they “didn’t feel threatened,” “I was okay
with it,” or that reporting would “aggravate the problem.” Finally, respondents also indicated that
they felt that their safety was not in danger, as illustrated by the following comments. “Did not
feel as if my safety was in danger, just would not leave me alone, and was resolved rather
quickly.” “I felt like it wasn't an extremely major situation in which my security was at risk. it
was more so a strange experience and I knew I never wanted to see this person alone or ever so I
simply avoided them.”
Less than five respondents answered the question on reporting stalking and generally indicated
that they felt that nothing appropriate was done.
134
Unwanted Sexual Interaction
Analyses of the data suggested that Undergraduate Student respondents (10%, n = 253) and
Graduate Student respondents (8%, n = 13) were significantly more likely to have experienced
unwanted sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment) than
were Faculty respondents (2%, n = 9) and Staff respondents (2%, n = 10)xxxix (Figure 47).
Transspectrum respondents (17%, n = 16) and Women respondents (11%, n = 256) were more
likely than were Men respondents (1%, n = 13) to experience unwanted sexual interaction.xl
LGBQ respondents (13%, n = 86) were more likely than were Heterosexual respondents (7%, n
= 196) to have experienced unwanted sexual interaction.xli Higher percentages of respondents
with Multiple Disabilities (13%, n = 28) and respondents with a Single Disability (13%, n = 49)
than respondents with No Disability (7%, n = 208) experienced unwanted sexual interaction. xlii
253 256
208
196
86
49
28
13 13 16
9 10
Figure 47. Respondents’ Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Interaction While at Ithaca College
by Position Status, Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, and Disability Status (n)
135
Student respondents51 were asked if alcohol and/or drugs were involved in the unwanted sexual
interaction and 50% (n = 132) indicated “yes.” Of those who indicated drugs and alcohol were
involved, 75% (n = 99) reported it was alcohol only and 17% (n = 23) reported both alcohol and
drugs.
unwanted sexual interaction. Of Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that they
experienced unwanted sexual interaction, 68% (n = 182) noted that it occurred within their first
year, 45% (n = 120) noted that it occurred in their second year, 23% (n = 62) noted that it
occurred in their third year, and 12% (n = 31) noted that it occurred during their fourth year
(Table 46). Two percent (n = 6) of Student respondents who experienced unwanted sexual
interaction indicated that it occurred during their time as a Graduate Student at Ithaca College.
Table 46. Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted

Sexual Interaction
During my time as a graduate student at

Ithaca College 6 2.3
51
Student respondents (n = 6) was too low to maintain confidentiality.
136
Sexual Interaction
Undergraduate fourth year 31 11.7

Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they experienced
unwanted sexual interaction (n = 266). Percentages may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple response choices.
Fifty-eight percent (n = 164) of the respondents who indicated on the survey that they
experienced unwanted sexual interaction identified an Ithaca College student as the perpetrator
of the conduct. Respondents also identified other sources as strangers (48%, n = 137) and
acquaintances/friends (28%, n = 81).
Asked where the unwanted sexual interaction incidents occurred, 61% (n = 174) of respondents
indicated that they occurred off-campus and 54% (n = 155) indicated they occurred on campus.
Respondents who experienced unwanted sexual interaction off-campus indicated that the
incidents occurred in places such as “at a party,” “at a bar downtown,” “The Commons,”
“Cornell,” and “house party,” among others. Respondents who experienced unwanted sexual
interaction on campus commented that the instances happened in “Circles,” “dorm,” “in class,”
“outside,” and “Terraces.”
137
Asked how they felt in response to experiencing unwanted sexual interaction, 57% (n = 162) felt
afraid, 48% (n = 137) felt embarrassed, and 40% (n = 114) ignored it (Table 47).
Table 47. Emotional Reaction to Unwanted Sexual Interaction


unwanted sexual interaction (n = 285).
In response to experiencing unwanted sexual interaction, 162 respondents (57%) avoided the
person/venue (Table 48). Other respondents sought support from a member of the clergy or
spiritual advisor (44%, n = 126), didn’t know who to go to (39%, n = 100), or contacted a local
law enforcement official (34%, n = 98).
Table 48. Actions in Response to Unwanted Sexual Interaction
Action n %

services. 92 32.3
138
Table 48. Actions in Response to Unwanted Sexual Interaction
Action n %
Staff member 5 33.3
LGBT Center <5 ---
Case Manager <5 ---
EthicsPoint) <5 ---
I told a friend <5 ---
unwanted sexual interaction (n = 116).
139
Ninety-four percent (n = 269) of respondents did not report the unwanted sexual interaction and
6% (n = 16) reported the incident(s) (Table 49).
Table 49. Respondents’ Reporting Sexual Interaction

% of respondents
who experienced
Reporting the unwanted sexual interaction n conduct


Police Department. 9 3.2
Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n
= 116). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple response choices.
A total of 226 respondents elaborated on why they did not report the unwanted sexual
interaction. The themes that emerged were a belief it was not serious, unsure how to address
catcalling, and having an excuse to not report.
The Seriousness of the Incident: Respondents often stated that they did not report the unwanted
sexual interaction because “I didn't think it was serious enough to.” Other respondents stated, “It
happens in everyday life,” “I didn't feel like it was a big deal,” “Worse things have happened, did
not seem necessary,” “It didn't feel necessary,” or “It wasn't that serious of an offense, I was
uninjured, and I avoided the person ever since so it has not happened again.” Other respondents
140
believed that reporting the incident meant that “it wouldn’t have been taken seriously” or that
“there would be no way to provide who really did it.” Finally, respondents explained how they
did not realize that the incident was serious enough to report. As one respondent stated, “I was a
new student and at the time I didn't realize that what happened was wrong. I thought it was just
something that I had to put up with as a girl.” Other respondents wrote, “I didn't report it because
I wasn't sure if it was a serious enough issue. I also felt that since I was intoxicated it may not
have been taken as seriously and that it is a somewhat ‘normal’ occurrence for females to be
catcalled,” and “I wasn't sure whether it was significant enough until it was too late.”
How to Address Catcalling: Respondents who had experiencing catcalling wrote that they did
not feel that catcalling needed to be reported. Many expressed that “it happens all the time,” and
as one respondent stated, “I can't report every man who has yelled stuff at me.” As one
respondent wrote, “Sadly with cat-calling it feels too common to actually report it.” Respondents
also felt that if they reported catcalling that nothing would be done if it was reported. As another
respondent wrote, “I highly doubt anything would be done about it if reported because it is fairly
common, and I did not want to put myself through the trouble because I know most people doing
that are ignorant jerks.” Another respondent was more specific and wrote, “It took two offenses
of men cat-calling my residents (in a different incident), and two phone calls to public safety
about my residents feeling unsafe for them to actually take matters seriously, and even then the
men were not removed, they were able to stay on the floor making everyone uncomfortable. The
public safety officer’s response to the first call was ‘boys will be boys’ which in my opinion is
not an acceptable answer.” Other respondents also explained, “Reporting catcalling does nothing
unless it's repeated by the SAME person, catcalling happens all the time,” and “Because I have
never heard of police stopping cat-calling, and if the police cannot help my friends who have
reported sexual harassment, they will not help in cat-calling incidences.”
Reasons for not Reporting: Respondents often had reasons for not reporting the unwanted sexual
interaction. Some respondents simply stated that they “didn’t want to” report or “I didn’t want to
make it a big deal.” Others stated that they did not report because they could not identify the
perpetrator. As respondents stated, “person not identifiable” and “Since I did not know the
person, there isn't much the college could do.” Another reason often given was not knowing what
could be reported or feeling it could not be reported because alcohol was involved. Some
141
responses illustrating this included “I did not feel that it was a justified assault because alcohol
was involved,” “I didn't know if it qualified or not,” and “I felt that I was not able to give consent
whilst under the influence, but because I didn't say anything to stop it (and because I am a man),
I did not report anything. It was an unwanted sexual interaction, but not an assault.” Finally,
respondents felt that reporting the incident would not lead to satisfactory results, as summarized
by the following respondents who wrote, “What would be the point in reporting that an IC
football player, off season and off campus, tried to make me suck his dick when I have real live
friends who have actually been sexually assaulted, and on campus at that, and have gotten
NOTHING from public safety in terms of help or support. what would be the honest point?? so
no. I didn't. I left and never spoke to him again. just as if not more effective than involving a
campus official,” and “Did not feel it was worth it, because the system shames victims and finds
ways to protect boys.”
Six respondents elaborated on why they did not report the unwanted sexual interaction.
Respondents mostly felt that nothing was done in response to their report. As one respondent
stated, “[the school] was quick to throw the incident under the bus even though there have been
repeated incidents with this professor and female students of all backgrounds. Title IX was great
except they weren't able to affect much change as he is sexually harassing students (the latest
I’ve heard was within the last week).”
142
Unwanted Sexual Contact
Analyses of the data suggested significant differences in experiencing unwanted sexual contact
(e.g. fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent, or gang rape) (Figure 48).
Transspectrum respondents (15%, n = 14) were more likely than Women respondents (4%, n =
94) to have experienced unwanted sexual contact, and Women respondents were more likely
than were Men respondents (1%, n = 17) to have experienced unwanted sexual contact.xliii LGBQ
respondents (7%, n = 46) were more likely than were Heterosexual respondents (2%, n = 74) to
have experienced unwanted sexual contact.xliv Higher percentages of respondents with Multiple
Disabilities (10%, n = 21) and respondents with a Single Disability (8%, n = 30) than
respondents with No Disability (2%, n = 73) experienced unwanted sexual contact.xlv
94
74 73
46
30
21
17
14
Figure 48. Respondents’ Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact While at Ithaca College by
Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, and Disability Status (n)
143
Student respondents52 were asked if alcohol and/or drugs were involved in the unwanted sexual
contact and 70% (n = 85) indicated “yes.” Of those who indicated drugs and alcohol were
involved, 67% (n = 57) reported it was alcohol only and 24% (n = 20) reported both alcohol and
drugs.
unwanted sexual contact. Of note, the greatest percentage of occurrences of unwanted sexual
contact of any kind happened each fall semester. Of Undergraduate Student respondents who
indicated that they experienced unwanted sexual contact, 63% (n = 77) noted that it occurred
within their first year, 34% (n = 41) noted that it occurred in their second year, 10% (n = 12)
noted that it occurred in their third year, and 3% (n < 5) noted that it occurred during their fourth
year (Table 50). Less than 5 respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact indicated
that it occurred during their time as a Graduate Student at Ithaca College.

Sexual Contact
During my time as a student at Ithaca

College <5 ---
33.6
Undergraduate second year 41
9.8
Undergraduate third year 12
<5 ---
52
Student respondents (n < 5) was too low to maintain confidentiality.
144
Sexual Contact

Undergraduate fourth year

Note: Table reports responses from individuals who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n =
122). Percentages may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple response choices.
Fifty-nine percent (n = 74) of the respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced
unwanted sexual contact identified an Ithaca College student as the perpetrators of the conduct.
Respondents also identified acquaintances/friends (43%, n = 54) and strangers (21%, n = 26).
Asked where the unwanted sexual contact incidents occurred, 42% (n = 52) of respondents
indicated that they occurred off-campus and 64% (n = 80) indicated they occurred on-campus.
Respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact off-campus indicated that the incidents
occurred in places such as “frat house,” “house party,” and “off campus apartment.” Respondents
who experienced unwanted sexual contact on campus commented that the instances happened in
“Circles Apartment,” “dorm room,” “Lower Quads,” “Terrace,” and “West Tower.”
Asked how they felt in response to experiencing unwanted sexual contact, 56% (n = 70) felt
embarrassed, 56% (n = 70) felt angry, and 54% (n = 68) felt somehow responsible (Table 51).
Table 51. Emotional Reaction to Unwanted Sexual Contact


125).
145
In response to experiencing unwanted sexual contact, 74 respondents (59%) avoided the
person/venue (Table 52). Most respondents sought support from a member of the clergy or
spiritual advisor (58%, n = 72), told a supervisor (51%, n = 64), or sought support from off-
campus hotline/advocacy series (47%, n = 59).
Table 52. Actions in Response to Unwanted Sexual Contact
Action n %

services 59 47.2
Staff member <5 ---
LGBT Center <5 ---
Case Manager <5 ---
146
Table 52. Actions in Response to Unwanted Sexual Contact
Action n %
EthicsPoint) <5 ---
125).
147
Ninety-one percent (n = 112) of respondents did not report the unwanted sexual contact and 9%
(n = 11) reported the incident(s) (Table 53).
Table 53. Respondents’ Reporting Unwanted Sexual Contact

% of respondents
who experienced
Reporting the unwanted sexual contact n conduct


Police Department. <5 ---
125). Percentages may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple response choices.
A total of 96 respondents elaborated on why they did not report the unwanted sexual contact.
Three themes emerged from the responses. These were having a reason to not report, seriousness
of the incident, and lack of response.
Reasons for not Reporting: Respondents cited a variety of reasons for not reporting the incident.
Many reported feeling embarrassed or at fault for the situation. As one respondent stated,
“Because I was embarrassed and felt somewhat responsible.” Other respondents wrote, “Once
again, embarrassed, scared, disenchanted with the power that IC has to discipline its student
athletes,” and “felt embarrassed and at fault and put it behind me.” Others did not realize that the
148
incident was reportable, as illustrated by the following responses. “I as a first year freshman who
had no one to go to. I was scared and didn't want to get the person in trouble because we were
friends. I didn't realize it was a problem until much later when I realized that certain touches and
memories make me physically sick. I didn't realize it was a problem until I literally blocked it
from my memory. I didn't know what to do.” “I didn't realize that what had happened to me
constituted as sexual assault.” “I did not realize at the time of the assault that the experience was
in fact traumatic and detrimental to my wellbeing. For a long time I pretended to be okay with
what happened and repressed my memories of the experience.” Finally, respondents stated that
they did not report the incident when a friend was involved. As respondents wrote, “She's a
friend. I don't think it was purposefully done and I don't want anything to happen to her. It was
just an accident.” “Because it was between friends, and I don't remember enough of it to want to
press charges against these people,” and “She was a friend. She's still friends with all of my
friends. It was over the summer, everyone was gone. I was intoxicated, and I blamed myself. It
happened twice. No one would have believed me. I didn't want to ruin her life.”
Seriousness of the Incident: Respondents described feeling that it was “unnecessary” to report
the incident. Respondents stated, “It didn't feel serious enough,” “To me, it wasn't a serious act
that occurred. It sort of feels like it didn't really count as sexual harassment because all he did
was touch my butt briefly,” “I still have doubts that it actually counts as assault,” and “It wasn't a
serious incident. A boy just grabbed my butt going into a party. There are more serious incidents
that happen on and off campus that I don't want to take help and time away from helping them.”
Lack of Response: Respondents indicated that they felt that “sexual assault is taken lightly here”
and therefore reporting the incident would not be worth the “mental and emotional anguish.” As
one respondent wrote, “I probably wouldn't have had a ‘case’ due to lack of evidence and the
like. I did not give consent but it is very unlikely that my account would have even been paid any
attention. The justice system here only favors a few, even if I had evidence, look at Brock
Turner, walking free. I decided to spare myself the mental and emotional anguish and move on
with my life.” Other responses included, “They're on a large team, reporting it would only lead to
people doubting me and probably targeting me.” “Because I didn't have proof and I'm not even a
citizen here, I do not have your bureaucratic system on my side. Reporting it would have meant
reviving it and causing more damage to myself without the guarantee of justice. So no thanks.”
149
“A friend of mine had been sexually assaulted, did not want to report it, but wanted some
counseling. While trying to get counseling the people at CAPS were extremely rude and
unwelcoming, scaring her from trying to make an appointment.”
Five respondents explained why they felt that the response to the unwanted sexual contact was
not appropriate. Overall, the respondents felt that they felt like the victim after reporting. As one
respondent stated, I left “feeling like it was my fault and that I should be held responsible.”
xxxiii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they
had experienced relationship violence by position status: 2 (3, N = 3,823) = 13.492, p < .01.
xxxiv
had experienced relationship violence by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 3,723) = 10.368, p < .01.
xxxv
had experienced relationship violence by disability status: 2 (2, N = 3,790) = 6.585, p < .05.
xxxvi
had experienced stalking by gender identity: 2 (2, N = 3,799) = 12.703, p < .01.
xxxvii
had experienced stalking by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 3,723) = 13.813, p < .001.
xxxviii
had experienced stalking by disability status: 2 (2, N = 3,790) = 11.639, p < .01.
xxxix
had experienced unwanted sexual interaction by position status: 2 (3, N = 3,823) = 60.134, p < .001.
xl
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had
experienced unwanted sexual interaction by gender identity: 2 (2, N = 3,799) = 118.366, p < .001.
xli
experienced unwanted sexual interaction by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 3,723) = 35.695, p < .001.
xlii
experienced unwanted sexual interaction by disability status: 2 (2, N = 3,790) = 29.057, p < .001.
xliii
experienced unwanted sexual contact by gender identity: 2 (2, N = 3,799) = 55.658, p < .001.
xliv
experienced unwanted sexual contact by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 3,723) = 36.954, p < .001.
xlv
experienced unwanted sexual contact by disability status: 2 (2, N = 3,790) = 63.868, p < .001.
150
Summary
Seventy percent (n = 2,659) of the survey respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable”
with the climate at Ithaca College. Sixty-eight percent (n = 672) of Faculty and Staff respondents
were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units.
Eighty-three percent (n = 2,733) of Student respondents and Faculty respondents were “very
comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes. The findings from investigations
at higher education institutions across the country (Rankin & Associates Consulting, 2015),
where 70% to 80% of respondents found the campus climate to be “comfortable” or “very
comfortable,” suggests a similar range for Ithaca College respondents (%) as “very comfortable”
or “comfortable” with the climate at Ithaca College.
Twenty percent to 25% of individuals in similar investigations indicated that they personally had
experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. At Ithaca College,
20% (n = 753) of respondents noted that they personally had experienced exclusionary,
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. These results also parallel the findings of other
climate studies of specific constituent groups offered in the literature, where generally members
of historically underrepresented and underserved groups were slightly more likely to believe that
they had experienced various forms of exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile
conduct and discrimination than those in the majority (Guiffrida et al., 2008; Harper & Hurtado,
2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sears, 2002;
Settles et al., 2006; Silverschanz et al., 2008; Yosso et al., 2009).
Thirty-three percent (n = 1,245) of Ithaca College survey respondents indicated that they had
observed conduct directed toward a person or group of people at Ithaca College that they
believed created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning
environment within the past year. Most of the observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive,
and/or hostile conduct was based on racial identity, ethnicity, and gender/gender identity.
Nineteen percent (n = 231) of respondents indicated that they did not know the basis. About one-
third of respondents (35%, n = 437) did not do anything when they observed exclusionary,
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.
151
unwanted sexual conduct while at Ithaca College, with 2% (n = 57) experiencing relationship
violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling, hitting), 2% (n = 88) experiencing stalking (e.g., following
me, on social media, texting, phone calls), 8% (n = 285) experiencing unwanted sexual
interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment), and 3% (n = 125)
experiencing unwanted sexual contact (e.g. fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without
consent, or gang rape) while a member of the Ithaca College community. Unwanted sexual
conduct largely went unreported to authorities.
152
Faculty and Staff Perceptions of Climate
This section of the report describes Faculty and Staff responses to survey items focused on
certain employment practices at Ithaca College (e.g., hiring, promotion, and disciplinary actions),
their perceptions of the workplace climate on campus; and their thoughts on work-life issues and
various climate issues.
Perceptions of Employment Practices
The survey queried Faculty and Staff respondents about whether they had observed
discriminatory employment practices at Ithaca College. No significant differences were found
between Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that they had observed hiring
practices at Ithaca College (e.g., hiring supervisor bias, search committee bias, limited recruiting
pool, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) within the past year/hiring cycle that they
perceived to be unfair or unjust or that would inhibit diversifying the community (Table 54).
Table 54. Employee Respondents Who Observed Employment Practices That Were Unfair or Unjust, or
That Would Inhibit Diversifying the Community
Promotion/tenure/
Employment-related reappointment/
Hiring practices discipline or action reclassification
n % n % n %
No
Faculty 362 79 405 88 310 68
Staff 423 81 441 84 396 76
Yes
Faculty 97 21 55 12 149 33
Staff 101 19 82 16 127 24
Note: Table reports only Faculty and Staff responses (n = 983).
Of those Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that they had observed discriminatory
hiring at Ithaca College, 30% (n = 60) noted that it was based on ethnicity, 25% (n = 50) on
racial identity, 23% (n = 45) on gender/gender identity, and 22% (n = 43) on age.
153
Subsequent analyses53 indicated the following:
• By racial identity: 35% (n = 8) of Asian/Asian American Employee Respondents, 24% (n
= 6) of Black/African American Employee respondents, 32% (n = 9) of
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ employee respondents, 34% (n = 15) of Multiracial Employee
respondents, and 18% (n = 148) of White Employee respondents indicated that they had
observed discriminatory hiring practices. xlvi
• By sexual identity: 28% (n = 36) of LGBQ Employee respondents and 19% (n = 150) of
Heterosexual Employee respondents indicated that they had observed discriminatory
hiring practices.xlvii
• By disability status: 44% (n = 16) of Employee respondents with Multiple Disabilities,
29% (n = 21) of Employee respondents with a Single Disability, and 18% (n = 158) of
employee respondents with No Disability indicated that they had observed discriminatory
hiring practices.xlviii
• By citizenship status: 29% (n = 20) of Non-U.S. Citizen Employee respondents and 20%
(n = 177) of U.S. Citizen Employee respondents indicated that they had observed
discriminatory hiring practices.xlix
Hiring Based on Race: Employee respondents explained observations of unjust hiring practices
based on race. One Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent wrote how people of color were often
negatively singled out during the hiring process. “I have been astonished by the profiling of
candidates based solely on an ‘ethnic’ sounding name. Search committees are not required to
provide a reason for de-selecting candidates in the initial round, however, on two separate search
committees HR has called the chair of the committee to ask for a specific reason that candidates
with ethnic/foreign sounding names were de-selected with no requests for justification of de-
selecting candidates with names that sound ‘white’ (i.e. Smith, Murphy, etc.).” A Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent also explained how “Hispanic as qualified as person hired was not
even interviewed.” Employee respondents also wrote that while Ithaca wants to recruit diverse
talent, little is done to support this. One Staff respondent explained, “When hiring we didn't do
anything to actively diversify the talent pool. We posted the job online just like we've always
53
Chi-square analyses were conducted by gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, religious/spiritual identity,
disability status, and citizenship; only significant differences are reported.
154
done and while if minorities and women applied we didn't actively discriminate against them we
didn't do anything to increase the population for women and minority applications.” Another
Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “I believe that a lot of lip service is paid to hiring
diverse candidates, but there is little to no effort to go the extra mile that is often necessary in
these cases. In the name of ‘fairness,’ minority candidates were not given the benefit of the doubt
in certain situations that might have made the difference in hiring them.” Beyond recruitment,
respondents pointed out that little is done to retrain minority employees. As one Senior
Administrator without Faculty Rank respondent stated, “Equally important has been the lack of
retention, and promotion of exist faculty and staff members of color to tenure positions and
promotion to supervisory level positions at the college.” Another Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
respondent wrote, “Ithaca College has a major problem with hiring people of color as they are
non existent and are often denied promotion and tenure.”
Other Employee respondents felt that racial/ethnic minorities were favored during the hiring
process, as illustrated by the following Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent, who wrote,
“Committee members discussed looking back at candidates' names that had originally been
deemed not fit for the position to identify those that may be of a different background/ethnicity
to increase diversity. Credentials and experience were not fully considered but rather the name in
an effort to hire someone of a different background regardless of qualifications.” Another Staff
respondent wrote, “Minorities are always hired first.” Finally, a Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
respondent wrote, “I have been on dozens of search committees, and we often have hired on the
basis of race. Hiring because someone is black is racist, but this college actively promotes that.
Human Resource officers actively promote this. It is wrong.”
Hiring based on Gender: Employee respondents elaborated on unfair hiring practices based on
an individual’s gender or sexual orientation. Respondents explained how women were unfairly
overlooked during hiring. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “The search overlooked
qualified (and female) candidates to hire a NTEN into the tenure eligible line.” Another Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent explained, “In one case a non-gender-conforming faculty member was
denied tenure.” A Staff respondent wrote how men are often placed in higher level positions.
“Seems like there are a lot of men being hired in positions of authority, oftentimes in positions
that women used to hold.” Other Employee respondents explained how implicit bias against
155
women influenced hiring. One Staff respondent explained, “Outgoing woman candidate
perceived to be aggressive vs. male candidate.” Another Pre-doctoral/Post-doctoral respondent
explained how there was a “lack of sensitivity and consideration and implicit bias toward
women.” One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “While on a search committee, a senior
faculty member did not want to hire an internal candidate because he found her too sexy for the
position.”
Comments were also made about hiring individuals who identify as LGBTQ, as illustrated by the
following Staff respondent comment. “A comment was made that hiring a person who identified
as LGBTQ+ would not promote our goal for a more diverse community. ‘We already have
enough.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent explained, “We had an opportunity to hire a
world class artist who had worked at the pinnacle of the industry for years and who teaches
magnificently, but an internal white, straight male with little more than student engagements on
his resume was selected over the more expert lesbian candidate.”
System of Nepotism: Respondents described observing a system of nepotism in place during the
hiring process. Staff respondents described, “Hiring someone because they knew them
personally better, instead of the one recommended by the search committee, who felt the other
person was more qualified,” and “I was on a search committee and in my opinion, I felt the
hiring manager showed marked favoritism toward the interim/incumbent (whom they hand
picked to be the interim while the search was going on) even as the committee has a strong
alternative candidate.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “I have witnessed
internal candidates get hired into positions for which they were not the best qualified, but
because of their connection to the department.” A Staff respondent explained seeing “a internal
hire because of a friendship. This person in my opinion does not qualify for the position.” This
type of nepotism was seen as “reproduce[ing] the kind of homogeneity that exists on campus and
in the local community.”
156
Fourteen percent (n = 137) of Faculty and Staff respondents indicated, within the past year/hiring
cycle at Ithaca College, that they had observed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory employment-
related disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal, that they perceived to be unjust or that
would inhibit diversifying the community. Subsequent analyses indicated that of those
individuals, 21% (n = 29) believed that the discrimination was based on position status, 19% (n =
26) on age, 15% (n = 21) on both length of service at Ithaca College and philosophical views,
and 13% (n = 18) on gender/gender identity. No significant differences were found between
Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that they had observed unfair, unjust,
or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions.

• By racial identity: 22% (n = 5) of Asian/Asian American Employee Respondents, 21% (n
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ employee respondents, 23% (n = 10) of Multiracial Employee
respondents, 63% (n = 5) of Additional People of Color Employee respondents, and 12%
(n = 101) of White employee respondents indicated that they had observed unfair, unjust,
or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions.l
• By sexual identity: 20% (n = 26) of LGBQ Employee respondents and 13% (n = 102) of
Heterosexual Employee respondents indicated that they had observed unfair, unjust, or
discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions. li
• By disability status: 32% (n = 12) of Employee respondents with Multiple Disabilities,
22% (n = 16) of Employee respondents with a Single Disability, and 12% (n = 107) of
Employee respondents with No Disability indicated that they had observed unfair, unjust,
or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions.lii
Fifty respondents elaborated on observations of employment-related discipline or action, up to

and including dismissal practices. The major theme that emerged was unevenly applied criteria.
5454
Chi-square analyses were conducted by gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, religious/spiritual
identity, disability status, and citizenship; only significant differences are reported.
157
Unevenly Applied Criteria of Employment-Related Discipline or Action: Employee respondents
explained how they observed unfairly applied criteria of employment-related discipline or action.
One Staff respondent described this culture, and wrote, “It is my perception that some employees
in my department are held to more lenient standards than others. Exceptions are made for some
and withheld for others. These exceptions/less professional standards seem to be extended to
people who have been at IC longer. They can engage in some behaviors with impunity while
others are spoken to/reprimanded for behaving in an identical manner.” Another Staff respondent
explained, “I believe that in some cases, discipline action is jumped to instead of getting ‘both
sides of the story.’”
Other Employee respondents blamed this culture of having unevenly applied criteria on the
current administration. The following Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “Most recently,
employment decisions revolve around the president's choice of friends and foes. He is firing an
entire swath of folks who he suspects might not fully be loyal to his position. Such cronyism has
become debilitating for the college as evident in the unprecedented exodus and firing on non
tenured staff and administrative members. That vindictive approach to employment and
assessment is so destructive, the campus is engulfed in a climate of staff anxiety supervised by
President Rochon.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent pointed out that someone was
“fired because of a personal vendetta (of Tom Rochon's) that had nothing to do with her job
performance,” and a different Faculty Tenure-Track respondent stated that a different person’s
firing was “no doubt attributable to President Rochon's odious, weasel-like methods of
management.” Overall, Employee respondents felt that there were “definitely power dynamics
being at play in hiring/firing.”
158
Twenty-eight percent (n = 276) of Faculty and Staff respondents indicated that they had observed
unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, reclassification, and/or transfer practices at Ithaca
College. Subsequent analyses indicated that of those individuals, 20% (n = 55) believed that the
unjust practices were based on position status, and 19% (n = 52) on gender/gender identity.
• By sexual identity: 39% (n = 50) of LGBQ employee respondents and 25% (n = 204) of
Heterosexual employee respondents indicated that they had observed unjust promotion,
tenure, reappointment, reclassification, and/or transfer practices. liii
• By disability status: 68% (n = 25) of employee respondents with Multiple Disabilities,
35% (n = 25) of employee respondents with a Single Disability, and 26% (n = 222) of
employee respondents with No Disability indicated that they had observed unjust
promotion, tenure, reappointment, reclassification, and/or transfer practices.liv
One hundred nine Employee respondents elaborated on observations of unjust behavior,

procedures, or employment practices related to promotion, tenure, reappointment, or
reclassification. The three themes that emerged were unjust decisions about tenure/promotion,
nepotism, and unjust promotion based on status.
Unjust Decisions about tenure/promotion: Employee respondents elaborated on observing unjust

behavior during the tenure and promotion process for faculty. One Faculty Tenure-Track
respondent explained at length how a colleague was denied tenure. “One of my colleagues was
unjustly denied tenure because her department chair wanted his spouse to have that position. She
also was in a bad position because she ended up doing 2 faculty jobs when one of her colleagues
promptly quit after being harassed by another faculty member for performance issues in her
department. The first colleague did not receive good student evaluations the year she was doing
2 jobs. Despite lengthy colleague evaluation reports that explained the situation, she was denied
tenure. Her position to this date has not been filled - the search has failed 4 times because no one
is as qualified as she was.” Other respondents spoke more generally about seeing unjust
5555
Chi-square analyses were conducted by gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, religious/spiritual
identity, disability status, and citizenship; only significant differences are reported.
159
decisions about tenure and promotion. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “I perceive a
case to have been unjust, but as I was not in a position to review the file, it is merely my
perception and I don't want to give it more weight than that,” and another Faculty Tenure-Track
respondent stated, “I think there have been unjust tenure decisions, but I am not privy to the
details.”
Some respondents thought that the criteria were not clear. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent
wrote, “Utilizing personal standards for evaluation verses the standards that are written \in policy
manuals,” and others stated, “Philosophical views on what constitutes adequate criteria for
promotion - this is not clear nor accepted across campus.” “Negative promotion, tenure, and
reappointment decisions are never simple or traceable to a single factor - and that's because
anyone's teaching and/or scholarship can always be critiqued. Over my many years at IC, and
including my own tenure and promotion case, I have witnessed many decisions that are at least
in part political - based on a person's age, credentials, area of study, race, sexuality, class. Of
course it is always couched in terms of problems with teaching and/or scholarship, but as I said,
these are always open to critique.” Other respondents also mentioned how preferences were
given even when tenure was denied, as stated by the following Faculty Tenure-Track respondent.
“For someone who was denied tenure, a plush administrative position was created. The search
for the position was structured and done in such a way that that person would get the job (there
would be no competition). The position was opposed by most faculty on principle, but it was
created nonetheless to appease certain powerful faculty and administration members who
actually used the ‘diversity’ card to override serious performance issues (and the nature and
responsibilities of the position itself).” Respondents reported that individuals were often denied
tenure in spite of a good record of teaching, research, and service, and that this loss was an
“enormous loss for the students” and “a terrible shame.”
Nepotism: Respondents reported seeing unjust promotions based on a system of nepotism. One
Staff respondent described seeing someone “promoted into higher position due to friendship with
supervisor and threats to leave if new position was not created for them.” Another Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent reported a similar situation. “Person was preselected for the position
she/he was then hired into. Job description deliberately created so only that person could
160
“apply.” One Staff respondent stated, “I've seen people promoted despite the fact they have cost
the college $100,000s in failed projects, because the tell management what they want to hear.”
Respondents also described seeing unfair application of promotion policy, as stated by the
following Staff respondent, who wrote, “We may have an internal candidate that is extremely
qualified for a position and have earned a promotion and the college won't allow that person to
be promoted. Instead that person needs to apply for the job and waste the college's and
individuals time and money. Additionally, some can be promoted while others receive the HR
policy that we don't have promotions at IC.” Another Staff respondent described, “There's a
person in our office that has temporarily held a position for six months without being offered the
actual job. There's a person in our office who had to apply for a job that he had temporarily
filled for six months before the job was formally posted. It isn't discrimination based off of
identity, it's just bureaucratic nonsense.” Overall, Employee respondents saw a system where
there was a “bias toward/against other based on friendship.”
Unjust Promotion based on Status: Employee respondents described seeing a system where part-
time/adjunct and non-tenure-track faculty had a more difficult time getting promotion or contract
renewals. One Part-time/Adjunct respondent wrote, “The college will allegedly not hire part time
employees on full time tracks as they do not want to provide benefits to them, or at least that is
how it has been explained to me every time I ask to add a class to my course load.” Another Staff
respondent added, “I heard from part time faculty who have had issues with getting family leave
and reappointment to their position each academic year.” A Part-time/Adjunct Faculty
respondent asked, “How does one denote that an adjunct instructor experiences unjust and
unequal employment procedures and practices on a daily basis?” Respondents also described a
similar climate for Non-Tenure-Track faculty, as the following Part-time/Adjunct respondent
explained, “Why to Non-Tenure faculty members who apply to TT positions made to STEP
DOWN/RESIGN when they apply to TT positions in their same departments? Although the
search is designed for them, it doesn't mean the position will go to them. It seems unnecessary on
behalf of Ithaca College to increase stress on a person who is already employed by the college
and wants to shift to a more secure TT position.” Overall, the feeling was that climate was one
where “tenure faculty.... thinking they are BETTER than Clinical Faculty!!” and that “part-timers
have no future at IC.”
161
Staff Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance
Several survey items queried Staff respondents about their opinions regarding work-life issues,
support, and resources available at Ithaca College. Frequencies and significant differences based
on staff status (Exempt Staff or Non-Exempt Staff) gender identity, racial identity, sexual
identity, religious/spiritual identity, disability status, and citizenship status are provided in Tables
55 through 58.
Sixty-one percent (n = 322) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they had
supervisors who gave them job/career advice or guidance when they needed it (Table 55). No
statistically significant differences were found between groups.
Sixty-six percent (n = 346) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they had
colleagues/coworkers who gave them job/career advice or guidance when they needed it. No
Fifty-seven percent (n = 298) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they were
included in opportunities that would help their careers as much as others in similar positions. No
Table 55. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
Neither
agree
Strongly nor Strongly
agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree
Perception n % n % n % n % n %
I have supervisors who give me

job/career advice or guidance when I
need it. 141 26.7 181 34.3 113 21.4 61 11.6 32 6.4
I have colleagues/coworkers who give

me job/career advice or guidance when
I need it. 130 24.7 216 41.0 120 22.8 43 8.2 18 3.4
I am included in opportunities that will

help my career as much as others in
similar positions. 117 22.3 181 34.5 126 24.0 69 13.1 32 6.1
162
Table 56 illustrates that 51% (n = 268) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that
the performance evaluation process was clear. No statistically significant differences were found
between groups.
Twenty-nine percent (n = 152) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the
performance evaluation process was productive. No statistically significant differences were
found between groups.
Table 56. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Performance Evaluation Process

Neither
Strongly agree nor Strongly
The performance evaluation process

is clear. 74 14.1 194 36.9 118 22.4 92 17.5 48 9.1
The performance evaluation process

is productive. 48 9.2 104 19.9 142 27.2 132 25.3 96 18.4
Table 57 illustrates frequencies and significant differences based on staff status (Exempt Staff
and Non-Exempt Staff),56 gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, disability status,
citizenship status, and religious/spiritual identity for several items in survey Question 39.
Sixty-nine percent (n = 360) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
supervisors provided adequate support for them to manage work-life balance. No statistically
significant differences were found between groups.
Thirteen percent (n = 68) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that people who do
not have children were burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work
weekends) beyond those who do have children. Fewer than 5 Non-Exempt Staff respondents and
6% (n = 20) of Exempt Staff respondents “strongly agreed” that people who do not have children
were burdened with work responsibilities. Ten percent (n = 6) of LGBQ Staff respondents and
56
Readers will note that Staff respondents further identified their positions as Non-Exempt Staff (40%, n = 209) or
Exempt Staff (60%, n = 319).
163
4% (n = 16) of Heterosexual Staff respondents “strongly agreed” that people who do not have
children were burdened with work responsibilities.
Few Staff respondents (22%, n = 114) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they were burdened by
work responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations
(e.g., committee memberships, departmental/program work assignments). No statistically
Thirty-seven percent (n = 192) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
performed more work than colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., formal and
informal mentoring or advising, helping with student groups and activities, providing other
support). No statistically significant differences were found between groups.
Fifty-one percent (n = 266) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca
College provided adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance (e.g., child care,
wellness services, elder care, housing location assistance, transportation). No statistically
Table 57. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Work-Life Issues

Neither
Strongly agree Strongly
agree Agree nor disagree Disagree disagree
My supervisor provides adequate

support for me to manage work-life
balance. 165 31.4 195 37.1 84 16.0 56 10.6 26 4.9
People who do not have children are

burdened with work responsibilities
beyond those who do have children. 24 4.6 44 8.4 191 36.3 149 28.3 118 22.4
Position statuslv
Non-Exempt <5 --- 13 6.3 80 38.5 57 27.4 54 26.0
Exempt 20 6.3 31 9.7 111 34.9 92 28.9 64 20.1
lvi
Sexual identity
LGBQ 6 9.8 9 14.8 20 32.8 18 29.5 8 13.1
Heterosexual 16 3.6 35 7.9 163 36.9 124 28.1 104 23.5
164
Table 57. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Work-Life Issues
Neither
Burdened by work responsibilities

beyond those of my colleagues with
similar performance expectations 24 4.6 90 17.2 196 37.5 145 27.7 68 13.0
I perform more work than colleagues

with similar performance expectations. 54 10.3 138 26.3 180 34.3 115 21.9 38 7.2
Ithaca College provides adequate

resources to help me manage work-life
balance. 53 10.1 213 40.5 185 35.2 48 9.1 27 5.1
Forty-seven percent (n = 242) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they were
able to complete their assigned duties during scheduled hours (Table 58). A significantly greater
percentage of Non-Exempt respondents (22%, n = 45) than Exempt respondents (10%, n = 31)
“strongly agreed” that they believed that they were able to complete their assigned duties during
scheduled hours.
More than half (52%, n = 273) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
workload increased without additional compensation as a result of other staff departures (e.g.,
retirement positions not filled). No statistically significant differences were found between
groups.
Thirty-three percent (n = 171) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they were
pressured by departmental/program work requirements that occurred outside of normally
scheduled hours. Five percent (n = 11) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 10% (n = 33) of
Exempt Staff respondents “strongly agreed” that they felt pressured by departmental/program
work requirements that occurred outside of normally scheduled hours. Forty percent (n = 24) of
LGBQ Staff respondents and 22% (n = 99) of Heterosexual Staff respondents “agreed” that they
felt pressured by departmental/program work requirements that occurred outside of normally
scheduled hours.
165
Sixty-three percent (n = 327) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they are
given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities. Twelve percent (n = 7) of
LGBQ Staff respondents and 2% (n = 9) of Heterosexual Staff respondents “strongly disagreed”
that they are given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities.
Fifty-nine percent (n = 310) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that a hierarchy
existed within staff positions that allowed some voices to be valued more than others. No
Table 58. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workload

Neither
I am able to complete my assigned

duties during scheduled hours. 76 14.8 166 32.3 100 19.5 102 19.8 70 13.6
Staff statuslvii
Non-Exempt Staff 45 21.8 82 39.8 34 16.5 34 16.5 11 5.3
Exempt Staff 31 10.1 84 27.3 66 21.4 68 22.1 59 19.2
My workload was permanently

increased without additional
compensation due to other staff
departures (e.g., retirement positions
not filled). 145 27.7 128 24.5 114 21.8 90 17.2 46 8.8
I am pressured by departmental work

requirements that occur outside of my
normally scheduled hours. 44 8.4 127 24.2 132 25.2 158 30.2 63 12.0
Staff statuslviii
Non-Exempt Staff 11 5.3 36 17.4 47 22.7 79 38.2 34 16.4
Exempt Staff 33 10.4 91 28.7 85 26.8 79 24.9 29 9.1
Sexual identitylix
LGBQ <5 --- 24 39.3 11 18.0 18 29.5 5 8.2
Heterosexual 38 8.6 99 22.4 114 25.9 132 29.9 58 13.2
I am given a reasonable time frame to

complete assigned responsibilities. 74 14.1 253 48.4 125 23.9 53 10.1 18 3.4
Sexual identitylx
LGBQ 7 11.5 28 45.9 12 19.7 7 11.5 7 11.5
Heterosexual 65 14.8 214 48.6 108 24.5 44 10.0 9 2.0
There is a hierarchy within staff

positions that allows some voices to be
valued more than others. 112 21.3 198 37.7 115 21.9 74 14.1 26 5.0
166
One hundred fifty-one Staff (including Senior Administrators without Faculty Rank) respondents
elaborated on the workplace climate at Ithaca. The two themes that emerged were increased
workload and poor supervision.
Increased workload: Staff respondents elaborated on feeling overburdened with the workload,
causing increased stress. As one Staff respondent stated, “I see all my colleagues working hard.
They get sick often due to stress. I work very hard and yet, many of us are not paid what we
should be, given our workload and our levels of education and degrees.” Another Staff
respondent noted, “For the first time in 30 years I feel stressed getting my work done.” Staff
respondents often noted how this increased workload was due to positions being vacant (either
through departures or retirement), and Ithaca not rehiring for those positions or compensating
employees who take on the additional duties. This point was illustrated by the following
comments. “I feel that staff positions are being cut, forcing some staff like myself to take on two
positions without receiving any additional pay, which is not fair and can contribute to an
uncomfortable work environment.” “People leave and you are expected to pick up the slack.”
“We have been ‘doing more with less’ for a long time. Less staff and more responsibilities.” “We
have lost so many people in our department, that's why the workload is insane.” Overall, Staff
respondents felt that they were not supported in their additional workload. A Senior
Administrator without Faculty Rank respondent wrote, “I have been asked to perform multiple
job responsibilities, duties and tasks without appropriate staff support.” Also, as one Staff
respondent stated, “Huge lack of support…especially with workload and compensation after
people left and positions were not refilled jobs came to me. Without removing any of my duties
and with NO additional pay. When I talk to my supervisors and HR it is ‘brushed off,’ like it's
not important and they will get to it eventually. Some job duties have been with me for over a
year and 50% of another position was added to me 4 months ago - not sure how long I am
expected to wait for this to be reviewed. Makes you feel unwanted and unappreciated.”
Poor supervision: Another theme that emerged from the data from Staff respondents was the
poor quality of supervision. Some Staff respondents noted that there was very little supervision.
“There is very little supervision in our Department, and everything is very task-oriented, not
strategic.” “During the 2014-15 AY, I had only 4 private conversations with my then
167
supervisor.” “Supervisor has no interest in giving me career advice; jokes that I'm ‘not allowed
to leave.’” Other Staff respondents felt that their supervisor did not care about their well being.
“It would be great to have a supervisor who demonstrates more care about the areas they
oversee, so that people felt recognized and supported to work healthier hours and do meaningful
work.” “The most important resource for managing work-life balance is a supervisor that is
trained to support their employees.” Finally, Staff respondents commented on how the
performance evaluation process was poor and did not allow their supervisor to properly assess
their work. As one Staff respondent wrote, “The performance evaluation process is a joke. Last
year, we were informed we were being evaluated on 17 different criteria, none of which were
communicated to us at the beginning of the year and MANY of which are not quantifiable
criteria. Way too subjective. And most of the time, your performance doesn't matter anyway.
You can show up, put in 110% while others do not and you all wind up with the same pay
increase. Very demotivating.” Other respondents included, “I feel that the performance
evaluation process is redundant. Supervisors should be expected to communicate with direct
reports regularly without a form,” and “The performance review process is meaningless, as it has
no direct tie to the annual increase process and the categories are too vague to accurately assess
an individual's performance.” Finally, another Staff respondent questioned how evaluations of
supervisors were used. “Performance evaluation tool utilized should not be used by all staff at all
levels. Another issue is the evaluation of supervisors - this is especially difficult for a staff
member who is supervised by chair. Staff did not complete this evaluation because they felt there
would be repercussions. Also, what happened with those evaluations that were completed on
supervisors? Did the supervisors receive that needed feedback?”
xlvi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that they
observed unfair hiring practices by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 940) = 14.495, p < .05.
xlvii
observed unfair hiring practices by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 934) = 6.213, p < .05.
xlviii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that
they observed unfair hiring practices by disability status: 2 (2, N = 971) = 18.394, p < .001.
xlix
observed unfair hiring practices by citizenship status: 2 (1, N = 975) = 3.843, p < .05.
l
observed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 942)
= 22.703, p < .001.
168
li
observed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 937)
= 11.357, p < .01.
lii
observed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions by disability status: 2 (2, N =
972) = 15.415, p < .001.
liii
observed unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, reclassification, and/or transfer practices by sexual identity: 2 (2,
N = 933) = 12.643, p < .01.
liv
observed unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, reclassification, and/or transfer practices by disability status: 2
(2, N = 971) = 32.495, p < .001.
lv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who noted that people who do not
have children are burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children by position status: 2 (4, N
= 526) = 9.544, p < .05.
lvi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who noted that people who do not
have children are burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children by sexual identity: 2 (4,
N = 503) = 10.497, p < .05.
lvii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who noted that they are able to
complete their assigned duties during scheduled hours by position status: 2 (4, N = 514) = 38.360, p < .001.
lviii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who felt pressured by departmental
work requirements that occur outside of normally scheduled hours by position status: 2 (4, N = 524) = 24.127, p <
.001.
lix
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who felt pressured by departmental
work requirements that occur outside of normally scheduled hours by position status: 2 (4, N = 524) = 24.127, p <
.001.
lx
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who noted that they are given a
reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities by sexual identity: 2 (4, N = 501) = 16.051, p < .01.
169
Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Support and Value at Ithaca College
One question in the survey queried Staff respondents about their opinions on various topics,
including their support from supervisors and the institution as well as Ithaca College’s benefits
and salary. Tables 57 to 59 illustrate Staff responses to these items. Analyses were conducted by
staff status (Exempt or Non-Exempt), gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity,
religious/spiritual identity, disability status, and citizenship status; significant differences are
presented in the tables.
Seventy percent (n = 367) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca College
provided them with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities (Table
59). Exempt Staff respondents (55%, n = 174) were significantly more likely to “agree” that
Ithaca College provides them with resources to pursue training/professional development
opportunities than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (44%, n = 91). LGBQ Staff respondents (37%,
n = 22) were significantly more likely to “strongly agree” that Ithaca College provides them with
resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities than Heterosexual Staff
Sixty-eight percent (n = 355) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
supervisors provided them with resources to pursue training/professional development
opportunities. Exempt Staff respondents (27%, n = 87) were significantly more likely to
“strongly agree” that their supervisor provides them with resources to pursue
training/professional development opportunities than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (17%, n =
35).
Forty percent (n = 208) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca College
was supportive of taking extended leave (e.g., FMLA, parental). Non-Exempt Staff respondents
(15%, n = 30) were significantly more likely to “strongly agree” that Ithaca College is supportive
of taking extended leave than Exempt Staff respondents (8%, n = 24). LGBQ Staff respondents
(13%, n = 8) were significantly more likely to “disagree” that Ithaca College is supportive of
taking extended leave than Heterosexual Staff respondents (4%, n = 18).
170
Seventy-three percent (n = 381) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
believed that their supervisors were supportive of them taking leave (e.g., vacation, parental,
personal, short-term disability). There were no significant differences by group.
Few Staff respondents (7%, n = 34) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that staff in their
department/program who used family accommodation (FMLA) policies were disadvantaged in
promotion or evaluations. There were no significant differences by group.
Eighteen percent (n = 95) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca College
policies (e.g., FMLA) were fairly applied across Ithaca College. There were no significant
differences by group.
More than half of Staff respondents (55%, n = 290) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca
College was supportive of flexible work schedules. There were no significant differences by
group.
Two-thirds of respondents (63%, n = 329) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their supervisors
were supportive of flexible work schedules. There were no significant differences by group.

Neither
Ithaca College provides me with

resources to pursue
training/professional development
opportunities. 102 19.4 265 50.4 89 16.9 55 10.5 15 2.9
Position statuslxi
Non-Exempt Staff 34 16.4 91 44.0 47 22.7 27 13.0 8 3.9
Exempt Staff 68 21.3 174 54.5 42 13.2 28 8.8 7 2.2
Sexual identitylxii
LGBQ 22 36.7 18 30.0 12 20.0 8 13.3 <5 ---
Heterosexual 74 16.7 237 53.5 72 16.3 47 10.6 13 2.9
171
Neither
My supervisor provides me with

resources to pursue
training/professional development
opportunities. 122 23.2 233 44.3 96 18.3 59 11.2 16 3.0
Position statuslxiii
Non-Exempt Staff 35 16.7 80 38.3 51 24.4 34 16.3 9 4.3
Exempt Staff 87 27.4 153 48.3 45 14.2 25 7.9 7 2.2
Ithaca College is supportive of

taking extended leave (e.g.,
FMLA, parental). 54 10.3 154 29.4 275 52.6 26 5.0 14 2.7
Position statuslxiv
Non-Exempt Staff 30 14.5 66 31.9 93 44.9 11 5.3 7 3.4
Exempt Staff 24 7.6 88 27.8 182 57.6 15 4.7 7 2.2
Sexual identitylxv
LGBQ 7 11.5 12 19.7 33 54.1 8 13.1 <5 ---
Heterosexual 45 10.3 133 30.3 230 52.4 18 4.1 13 3.0
My supervisor is supportive of my
taking leaves (e.g., vacation,
parental, personal, short-term
disability). 155 29.6 226 43.2 119 22.8 14 2.7 9 1.7
Staff in my
department/program who
use family accommodation
(FMLA) policies are
disadvantaged in promotion
or evaluations. 6 1.1 28 5.4 298 57.1 122 23.4 68 13.0
Ithaca College policies (e.g.,

FMLA) are fairly applied across
Ithaca College. 24 4.6 71 13.6 365 69.8 37 7.1 26 5.0
Ithaca College is supportive of

flexible work schedules. 64 12.1 226 42.9 142 26.9 67 12.7 28 5.3
My supervisor is supportive of
flexible work schedules. 110 20.9 219 41.6 107 20.3 61 11.6 30 5.7
Queried about salary and benefits, one fifth of Staff respondents (20%, n = 104) “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” that staff salaries were competitive (Table 60). Staff with No
Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (29%, n = 63) were significantly more likely to “strongly
disagree” that staff salaries are competitive than Christian Staff respondents (16%, n = 36).
172
Seventy-two percent (n = 376) of Staff respondents noted that they believed that vacation and
personal time packages were competitive. There were no differences across groups.
Fifty-eight percent (n = 305) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that health
insurance benefits were competitive. There were no differences across groups.
Only 17% (n = 86) of Staff respondents indicated that child care benefits were competitive.
There were no differences across groups.
Fifty-two percent (n = 272) of Staff respondents felt that retirement benefits were competitive.
Exempt Staff respondents (12%, n = 37) were significantly more likely to “strongly agree” that
retirement benefits are competitive than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (6%, n = 13).
Table 60. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Salary and Benefits

Strongly Neither agree Strongly
agree Agree Disagree nor disagree disagree
Perceptions n % n % n % n % n %
Staff salaries are

competitive. 19 3.6 85 16.2 138 26.2 164 31.2 120 22.8
Religious/Spiritual
Identitylxvi
Christian Affiliation 12 5.4 30 13.5 67 30.0 78 35.0 36 16.1
Another Faith-Based
Affiliation <5 --- 8 28.6 6 21.4 5 17.9 7 25.0
No Affiliation <5 --- 36 16.5 59 27.1 57 26.1 63 28.9
Multiple Affiliations <5 --- 8 26.7 <5 --- 15 50.0 <5 ---
Vacation and personal

time packages are
competitive. 98 18.7 278 53.0 96 18.3 40 7.6 13 2.5
Health insurance
benefits are
competitive. 60 11.4 245 46.5 133 25.2 57 10.8 32 6.1
Child care benefits are

competitive. 14 2.7 72 14.0 324 62.9 55 10.7 50 9.7
Retirement benefits are

competitive. 50 9.6 222 42.4 187 35.8 45 8.6 19 3.6
173
Table 60. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Salary and Benefits

agree Agree Disagree nor disagree disagree
Position Statuslxvii
Non-Exempt 13 6.3 79 38.2 93 44.9 15 7.2 7 3.4
Exempt 37 11.7 143 45.3 94 29.7 30 9.5 12 3.8
Thirty-nine percent (n = 206) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
believed that staff opinions were valued on Ithaca College committees. Twenty-five percent (n =
132) of Staff respondents noted that they believed that staff opinions were valued by Ithaca
College administration (Table 61).
Thirteen percent (n = 70) of Staff respondents noted that they believed that staff opinions were
valued by Ithaca College faculty. Exempt Staff respondents (33%, n = 106) were significantly
more likely to “disagree” that staff opinions are valued by Ithaca College faculty than Non-
Exempt Staff respondents (18%, n = 37).
Sixty-nine percent (n = 361) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
believed that there were clear expectations of their responsibilities. There were no differences
across groups.
Only 19% (n = 99) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” there were clear
procedures on how they could advance at Ithaca College. There were no differences across
groups.
Thirty-one percent (n = 163) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt
positively about their career opportunities at Ithaca College. Exempt Staff respondents (27%, n =
87) were significantly more likely to “agree” that they are positive about their career
opportunities at Ithaca College than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (18%, n = 37). Heterosexual
Staff respondents (36%, n = 157) were significantly more likely to “neither agree nor disagree”
that they are positive about their career opportunities at Ithaca College than LGBQ Staff
174
Sixty-one percent (n = 322) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they would
recommend Ithaca College as a good place to work. There were no differences across groups.
Fifty-two percent (n = 274) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they had job
security. Exempt Staff respondents (47%, n = 149) were significantly more likely to “agree” that
they have job security than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (34%, n = 70).

Neither
Staff opinions are valued on

Ithaca College committees. 27 5.1 179 34.0 180 34.2 91 17.3 49 9.3
Staff opinions are valued by
Ithaca College faculty and
administration. 21 4.0 111 21.1 171 32.6 144 27.4 78 14.9
Staff opinions are valued by

Ithaca College faculty. 12 2.3 58 11.0 214 40.8 143 27.2 98 18.7
lxviii
Position Status
Non-Exempt 8 3.8 26 12.5 99 47.6 37 17.8 38 18.3
Exempt <5 --- 32 10.1 115 36.3 106 33.4 60 18.9
There are clear expectations

of my responsibilities. 82 15.6 279 53.1 82 15.6 67 12.8 15 2.9
There are clear procedures

on how I can advance at
Ithaca College. 26 5.0 73 14.0 158 30.4 147 28.3 116 22.3
Positive about my career
opportunities at Ithaca
College 39 7.5 124 23.7 174 33.3 119 22.8 67 12.8
lxix
Position Status
Non-Exempt 10 4.9 37 18.0 81 39.3 47 22.8 31 15.0
Exempt 29 9.1 87 27.4 93 29.3 72 22.7 36 11.4
Sexual identitylxx
LGBQ 7 11.7 19 31.7 9 15.0 17 28.3 8 13.3
Heterosexual 32 7.3 100 22.7 157 35.7 96 21.8 55 12.5
I would recommend Ithaca
College as good place to
work. 74 14.1 248 47.1 135 25.7 52 9.9 17 3.2
175

Neither
I have job security. 55 10.5 219 41.6 138 26.2 82 15.6 32 6.1
lxxi
Position Status
Non-Exempt 16 7.7 70 33.7 73 35.1 37 17.8 12 5.8
Exempt 39 12.3 149 46.9 65 20.4 45 14.2 20 6.3
One hundred fifty-three Staff respondents elaborated on work/life balance at Ithaca. The themes
that emerged from the data were feeling valued, adequate benefits, lack of opportunity for
advancement, poor pay, and lack of job security.
Feeling Valued by the Institution: Staff respondents commented that they did not feel valued by
the institution and, in particular, did not feel valued by faculty. As one Staff respondent stated, “I
do not believe ‘staff’ are valued by many at Ithaca College, particularly faculty. It is rare that I
encounter faculty or administrators who view my work as staff in a professional context.”
Another Staff respondent commented, “I do not think faculty value staff opinions especially
those of us who are hourly (although I have been here longer than most of them - 23 years).”
More broadly, Staff respondents felt that the administration did not value their opinion, as Staff
respondents wrote, “Staff opinions are only sought by administration only to ‘check a box,’” “I
do not feel that staff opinions are valued by the administration at all,” and “Everyone says that
they're interested in our opinions, but when you try to give an opinion you are either ignored or
told why your opinion isn't valid.” One Staff respondent described a specific incident where they
felt that their opinion was not valued, “Following introductions, the BOT suggested the students
share what's on their minds, and then they asked the faculty. The staff members were not asked
to speak, nor was there an apology or even an acknowledgement that time had run out. I felt silly
sitting there. Why was I even invited? Was it so that the BOT can say that they met with a cross-
section of the campus community? That's what it seems like to me at the moment. We are
assured by the administration that, of course, staff is important and does invaluable work, but the
actions don't match the words.”
176
Adequate Benefits: While some Staff respondents felt that their benefits were better than
previous employers (“The benefits offered at IC are better than those received at another
institution I worked at.”), overall, staff respondents reported feeling as if their “benefits were not
competitive.” Some Staff respondents commented on health benefits. “Health benefits are not
competitive with the industry.” “Regarding Health Insurance, why are ‘annual exams’ not
covered annually? They are only covered every other year.” Other respondents commented that
flexible schedules were not evenly applied. “Flexible hours seem to be fair, but some who have
requested flex time have not been given them.” “A lot of staff in my school have flexible
schedules, but I am not allowed to change my schedule.” “Flexible work arrangements like
working from home are only for exempt staff. Non-exempt staff are not allowed these
arrangements. I believe this is unfair. As the computer driven campus we are now, some non-
exempt staff could work from home with no issues or decrease in service/response time.”
Finally, Staff respondents who used the tuition remission appreciated the benefit but found it
difficult to use. Some comments that illustrated this included, “One of the perks of my position is
that I am eligible for tuition remission. That said, there are policies (minimum of 7 people
registered etc.) that sometimes hinder my ability to take advantage of that perk,” and “It was
extremely difficult to schedule school around my work schedule. Even though I am allowed to
take 2 classes, I have only been approved for 1, and I needed to find alternative means to take the
2nd course. I am stressed every semester with trying to find a conducive schedule wondering, ‘is
this the semester that it doesn't work?’”
Lack of Opportunity for Advancement: Staff respondents also elaborated on how they felt that
were no opportunities for advancement within the institution. As one Staff respondent stated,
“Career paths and advancement opportunities do not exist at IC.” Another Staff respondent
explained their experience. “Ithaca is not an institution that has policies and procedures that
encourage promotion from within the institution. I have applied for no less than 6 positions
internal to the College and have had a very mixed experience of those experiences from being a
finalist to not even know that interviews were taking place and finding out the position had been
filled by a colleague at another institution on Facebook.” Other Staff respondents explained how
they felt that HR was not clear on what they needed to do to advance, as illustrated by the
following respondents. “HR was unable or unwilling even to provide job descriptions that might
show a path for advancement. No recognizable policy regarding successions or internal
177
promotions,” and “Paths to advancement are largely unknown by either my supervisors or
coworkers. Increased transparency/communication from HR would be appreciated.” Overall, the
lack of advancement opportunities left Staff respondents anticipating “having to leave eventually
to advance in my career.”
Poor Pay: Staff respondents were dissatisfied with their salary and felt that the salaries were “not
competitive.” One Staff respondent wrote, “Staff salaries are not competitive, maybe on campus,
but not at Cornell. I know a lot of people who work at Cornell with the same level position and
make a lot more money starting a new position. I like it here, otherwise, I would follow many
who left IC for Cornell.” Other Staff respondents also compared Ithaca salaries to Cornell, as
illustrated by the following respondent, who wrote, “Human Resources says that we can not or
will not compare ourselves with Cornell but that is unrealistic as they are our largest competitor
for qualified staff. The recent ‘flight’ from IC to Cornell is a good example of a serious
problem.” Other Staff respondents explained, “The salary I make in this position could be
matched if I took the same position at another institution, but Cornell pays more and has a better
benefits package. I live a fairly humble lifestyle, but I still have to work a second job to make
ends meet,” and “We can't hire competent replacements for vacancies, since salaries are so low.
IC administration says ‘we don't compete with Cornell.’ Bull. Cornell pays better for similar
work. So, we will continue to be 2nd a tier institution until administration & trustees realize you
get what you pay for.”
Lack of Job Security: Staff respondents often expressed feeling unsure about their job security,
especially given the workforce analysis recently completed on campus. As one Staff respondent
explained, “The lack of transparency around the work force analysis created a sense that
anyone's job could be on the line. It also created stress in how it was implemented: i.e. you didn't
know a position was eliminated until you tried to call someone and they weren't there anymore
and had to figure out who was now covering that responsibility.” Another Staff respondent
wrote, “I would say that I strongly agree that I feel I have job security, but the workforce analysis
(which happened before I started here) puts a small doubt in my mind.” The workforce analysis
and the staffing changes that occurred left Staff respondents feeling anxious about their future at
Ithaca. “The unexpected layoffs/firings/reorganizations last year have left those in my position
with very little understanding of our job security and future at IC.” Other comments included, “I
178
would like to think I have job security, but I can't be so ignorant to really believe that anyone is
that valuable -- basically as Tom Rochon said at an all-college meeting a couple of fall semesters
ago,” and “I used to feel confident that my job would continue, but not anymore. I have been
here more than 20 years and I feel that I am watching my department dissolve over time due to
budget restraints and a lack of support by management and those above them.”
179
Question 95 on the survey queried Staff respondents about the degree to which they felt valued at
Ithaca College. Frequencies and significant differences based on staff status (Non-Exempt or
Exempt), gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, and disability status are provided in
Tables 62 through 64.
Eighty-one percent (n = 424) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt
valued by coworkers in their department (Table 62). Seventy-one percent (n = 374) of Staff
respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt valued by coworkers outside of their
department. Seventy-six percent (n = 395) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
that they felt valued by their supervisors/managers. Fifty-nine percent (n = 307) of Staff
respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt valued by Ithaca College students. There
were no differences across groups.
Thirty-four percent (n = 175) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt
valued by Ithaca College faculty. Non-Exempt Staff respondents (49%, n = 101) were
significantly more likely to “neither agree nor disagree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College
faculty than Exempt Staff respondents (36%, n = 114).
Thirty percent (n = 158) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt valued
by Ithaca College senior administrators (e.g., president, dean, vice president, provost). Exempt
Staff respondents (13%, n = 41) were significantly more likely to “strongly agree” that they feel
valued by Ithaca College senior administrators than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (5%, n = 10).
180
Table 62. Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Value
Neither
Feelings of value n % n % n % n % n %
I feel valued by coworkers

in my department. 189 36.1 235 44.8 66 12.6 30 5.7 4 0.8
I feel valued by coworkers

outside my department. 119 22.7 255 48.6 107 20.4 34 6.5 10 1.9
I feel valued by my
supervisor/manager. 202 38.8 193 37.0 56 10.7 53 10.2 17 3.3
I feel valued by Ithaca

College students. 105 20.2 202 38.8 176 33.8 29 5.6 8 1.5

College faculty. 50 9.6 125 24.1 215 41.4 103 19.8 26 5.0
lxxii
Position Status
Non-Exempt 22 10.7 41 20.0 101 49.3 32 15.6 9 4.4
Exempt 28 8.9 84 26.8 114 36.3 71 22.6 17 5.4

College senior
administrators (e.g.,
president, dean, vice
president, provost). 51 9.8 107 20.6 181 34.9 112 21.6 68 13.1
lxxiii
Position Status
Non-Exempt 10 5.0 34 16.8 85 42.1 45 22.3 28 13.9
Exempt 41 12.9 73 23.0 96 30.3 67 21.1 40 12.6
Table 63 depicts Staff respondents’ attitudes about certain aspects of the climate in their
departments/programs and at Ithaca College. Subsequent analyses were conducted to identify
significant differences in responses.
Eighteen percent (n = 92) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that coworkers in
their work units pre-judged their abilities based on their perceptions of their identity/background.
Sixteen percent (n = 82) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
supervisors/managers pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their
181
identity/background. Exempt Staff respondents (16%, n = 49) were significantly more likely to
“agree” that they think their supervisor/manager prejudges their abilities based on their
perception of their identity/background than Non-Exempt Staff respondents (8%, n = 16).
Eighteen percent (n = 94) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that faculty
prejudged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. Exempt Staff
respondents (17%, n = 54) were significantly more likely to “agree” that they think faculty
prejudge their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background than Non-Exempt
Staff respondents (9%, n = 19).
Table 63. Staff Respondents’ Perception of Climate

Neither
I think that coworkers in

my work unit prejudge my
abilities based on their
perception of my
identity/background. 18 3.4 74 14.2 154 29.5 194 37.2 82 15.7
I think that my
supervisor/manager
prejudges my abilities
based on their perception of
my identity/background. 17 3.3 65 12.6 126 24.4 194 37.6 114 22.1
lxxiv
Position Status
Non-Exempt 10 5.0 16 7.9 58 28.7 73 36.1 45 22.3
Exempt 7 2.2 49 15.6 68 21.7 121 38.5 69 22.0
I think that faculty

prejudges my abilities
based on their perception of
lxxv
Position Status
Non-Exempt 10 5.0 19 9.4 101 50.0 42 20.8 30 14.9
Exempt 11 3.5 54 17.3 125 39.9 86 27.5 37 11.8
182
More than half (58%, n = 304) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
department/program encouraged free and open discussion of difficult topics (Table 64). Sixty-
eight percent (n = 355) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their skills were
valued, and 69% (n = 363) felt that their work was valued. There were no significant differences
across staff status, gender identity, or racial identity.
Table 64. Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Neither
I believe that my
department/program
encourages free and open
discussion of difficult
topics. 106 20.3 198 37.9 114 21.8 78 14.9 26 5.0
I feel that my skills are

valued. 123 23.5 232 44.4 80 15.3 61 11.7 27 5.2
I feel that my work is

valued. 125 23.9 238 45.5 84 16.1 53 10.1 23 4.4
lxi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that Ithaca College
provided them with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities by staff status: 2 (4, N =
526) = 14.505, p < .01.
lxii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that Ithaca College
provided them with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities by sexual identity: 2 (4, N
= 503) = 19.353, p < .001.
lxiii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that their supervisor
provided them with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities by position status: 2 (4, N
= 526) = 25.952, p < .001.
lxiv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that Ithaca College is
supportive of taking extended leave by staff status: 2 (4, N = 523) = 10.989, p < .05.
lxv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that Ithaca College is
supportive of taking extended leave by sexual identity: 2 (4, N = 500) = 10.895, p < .05.
lxvi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that staff salaries are
competitive by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (12, N = 499) = 34.412, p < .001.
lxvii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that retirement benefits
are competitive by position: 2 (4, N = 523) = 14.191, p < .01.
lxviii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that staff opinions are
valued by Ithaca College faculty by position status: 2 (4, N = 525) = 19.597, p < .001.
183
lxix
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that they are positive
about their career opportunities at Ithaca College by position status: 2 (4, N = 523) = 12.893, p < .05.
lxx
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that they are positive
about their career opportunities at Ithaca College by sexual identity: 2 (4, N = 500) = 10.903, p < .05.
lxxi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who agreed that they have job
security by position status: 2 (4, N = 526) = 19.196, p < .001.
lxxii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who feel valued by faculty by staff
status: 2 (4, N = 519) = 11.125, p < .05.
lxxiii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who feel valued by Ithaca College
senior administrators by staff status: 2 (4, N = 519) = 15.442, p < .01.
lxxiv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who feel that their
supervisor/manager prejudges their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by staff status: 2
(4, N = 516) = 11.225, p < .05.
lxxv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who feel that faculty prejudge their
abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by staff status: 2 (4, N = 515) = 11.860, p < .05.
184
Faculty Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance
Three survey items queried Faculty respondents (n = 466) about their opinions regarding various
issues specific to workplace climate and faculty work (Tables 63 through 65). Question 33
queried Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 279), Question 35 addressed Non-
Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 103), and Question 37 addressed all Faculty respondents.
Chi-square analyses were conducted by gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity,
religious/spiritual identity, disability status, and citizenship status; only significant differences
are reported.
Table 65 illustrates that a slight majority of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents
“strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the criteria for tenure are clear (53%, n = 147). Less than half
felt that tenure standards/promotion standards were applied equally to faculty in their
schools/division (44%, n = 122). There were no differences across groups.
Fifty-one percent (n = 139) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed”
or “agreed” that they felt supported and mentored during the tenure-track years, with significant
differences across citizenship status. Faculty respondents who are not U.S. Citizens (26%, n = 9)
were significantly more likely to “strongly disagree” that they feel supported and mentored
during the tenure-track years than Faculty respondents who are U.S. Citizens (9%, n = 21).
Only 10% (n = 26) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents noted that they believed
that faculty used Ithaca College policies for delay of the tenure-clock. There were no differences
across groups.
185
Table 65. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
Neither
The criteria for tenure are

clear. 45 16.2 102 36.7 41 14.7 68 24.5 22 7.9
The tenure
standards/promotion
standards are applied
equally to faculty in my
college. 52 18.6 70 25.1 62 22.2 64 22.9 31 11.1
Supported and mentored

during the tenure-track
years. 53 19.3 86 31.4 60 21.9 44 16.1 31 11.3
lxxvi
Citizenship
U.S. Citizen 49 20.9 76 32.5 47 20.1 41 17.5 21 9.0
Not-U.S. Citizen <5 --- 9 25.7 11 31.4 <5 --- 9 25.7
Ithaca College policies for

delay of the tenure-clock
are used by all faculty. 7 2.6 19 7.0 140 51.7 64 23.6 41 15.1
Note: Table reports only Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty responses (n = 279).
Table 66 illustrates that 65% (n = 179) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents
“strongly agreed” or “agreed” that research was valued by Ithaca College. A greater percentage
of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (86%, n = 238) “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
that teaching was valued by Ithaca College. Fifty-six percent (n = 153) of Tenured and Tenure-
Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their service contributions were
valued by Ithaca College. There were no differences across groups.
Twenty-two percent (n = 60) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” that they felt pressured to change their research/scholarship agenda to
achieve tenure/promotion. There were no differences across groups.
186
Neither
Research/Scholarship is
valued by Ithaca College. 41 14.9 138 50.0 29 10.5 43 15.6 25 9.1
Teaching is valued by Ithaca

College. 142 51.4 96 34.8 16 5.8 16 5.8 6 2.2
Service contributions are

valued by Ithaca College. 39 14.3 114 41.8 47 17.2 44 16.1 29 10.6
Pressured to change my
research/scholarship agenda
to achieve tenure/promotion. 22 8.0 38 13.9 38 13.9 92 33.6 84 30.7
Forty-five percent (n = 125) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed”
or “agreed” that they were burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships,
departmental/program work assignments) beyond those of their colleagues with similar
performance expectations (Table 67). Forty-five percent (n = 124) of Tenured and Tenure-Track
Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they performed more work to help
students (e.g., formal and informal advising, thesis advising, helping with student groups and
activities) than did their colleagues. There were no differences across groups.
Eight percent (n = 22) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or
“agreed” that faculty members in their departments/programs who used family accommodation
(FMLA) policies (e.g., child care, elder care) were disadvantaged in promotion and/or tenure.
Faculty respondents who are not U.S. Citizens (n < 5) were significantly more likely to “strongly
agree” that faculty members in their department who use family accommodation (FMLA)
policies are disadvantaged in promotion and/or tenure than Faculty respondents who are U.S.
Citizens (3%, n = 6).
187
Neither
Burdened by service
responsibilities beyond those of
my colleagues with similar
performance expectations. 62 22.4 63 22.7 64 23.1 62 22.4 26 9.4
I perform more work to help

students than do my colleagues. 50 18.1 74 26.7 84 30.3 52 18.8 17 6.1
Faculty members in my
department who use family
accommodation (FMLA) policies
are disadvantaged in promotion
and/or tenure. 10 3.6 12 4.4 142 51.8 67 24.5 43 15.7
Citizenshiplxxvii
U.S. Citizen 6 2.6 11 4.7 118 50.2 60 25.5 40 17.0
Not-U.S. Citizen <5 --- <5 --- 21 61.8 5 14.7 <5 ---
Only 6% (n = 45) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that faculty opinions were taken seriously by senior administrators, and 18% (n = 50)
thought that faculty opinions were sought out by senior administrators. More than one-third
(38%, n = 104) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
that faculty opinions are valued within Ithaca College committees (Table 68). There were no
statistical differences.
Only 20% (n = 56) of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or
“agreed” that they wanted more opportunities to participate in substantive committee
assignments. Sixty-one percent (n = 169) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they had
opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. There were no statistical
differences.
188
Neither
n % n % n % n % n %
Faculty opinions are taken

seriously by senior
President, VP, AVP, Dean). 13 4.7 32 1.6 60 21.7 98 35.4 74 26.7
Faculty opinions are sought

out by senior administrators
(e.g., President, VP, AVP,
Dean). 10 3.6 40 14.4 57 20.5 93 33.5 78 28.1
Faculty opinions are valued

within Ithaca College
committees. 19 6.9 85 30.7 89 32.1 57 20.6 27 9.7
I would like more

opportunities to participate in
substantive committee
assignments. 13 4.7 43 15.6 113 41.1 76 27.6 30 10.9
I have opportunities to
participate in substantive
committee assignments. 43 15.6 126 45.7 71 25.7 20 7.2 16 5.8
Ninety-eight Faculty Tenure-Track respondents elaborated on their workplace climate. Three

themes emerged: distrust of administration, issues with tenure/promotion, and increased
committee work.
Distrust of Administration: Respondents were largely distrustful of the current administration

(with comments mostly focused on the President and Provost) and felt that the administration did
not value their work. As one respondent stated, “I feel very valued by my dean, by the AVP, but
less so by the Provost and not at all by the president.” Similar responses included “While I feel
strongly supported by the Dean, I feel less so about the upper-level administration.” “The upper
administration (i.e., administration beyond the school level) is usually indifferent, if not outright
hostile towards faculty opinion. On more than one occasion, I have heard the president openly
dismiss the concerns of faculty members, belittle them for speaking up, and attack them for
189
expressing different opinions.” “For example, I would have answered ‘Strongly Agree’ for both
the ‘faculty opinions are taken seriously’ and ‘sought out’ in regards to my Dean, in that this
person creates a workplace climate that is outstanding and is excellent and taking faculty
opinions seriously and seeking them out. On the contrary, I would have answered Strongly
Disagree for this question in regards to the President.” Other respondents also reported being
distrustful of administration at the Dean’s level, as written by the following respondent. “Faculty
opinions I do think were valued by the prior dean; the interim dean had no real power to consider
faculty opinion; the current dean is untested. College-wide administration has and continues to
give lip service to listening to faculty opinion, and then proceeding in other directions
regardless.”
Overall, the Faculty Tenure-Track respondents felt that the administration were not hearing
“faculty voices,” as stated by the following respondent. “It should come as no surprise to anyone
that the current IC administration is notable for its lack of inclusion and responsiveness to faculty
voices, opinions and even legitimate governance responsibilities. To be frank, it appears that the
administration believes it can run an educational institutional without the input of faculty at all.”
Similar responses included, “Decisions from administration are made at the top and filter down
to faculty, then if faculty voice a strong enough resistance, the policies are remanded. Why
doesn't the administration talk to faculty first?” and “The college leadership really needs to learn
to listen more effectively.”
Issues with Tenure/Promotion: Faculty Tenure-Track respondents also elaborated on the tenure
and promotion process. The tenure process was often thought of as “vague.” As one respondent
stated, “The criteria for tenure are and were not clear. The Faculty Handbook does not provide
sufficient information about tenure criteria and standards. I was able to gain tenure but I know of
several cases where people did not get tenure because the criteria were not made clear to them
and they were inadequately mentored by members of their departments, department chairs, and
deans.” Similar responses included, “My department is not clear with its tenure policies and
individual members (tenured) have tried to change the policies (enforce higher standards) with
regards to some faculty members than others on the tenure track,” and “Tenure criteria are vague
(which may be an unfixable problem), but no one seems to be able to offer any concept of
reassurance as to whether tenure is likely or not. The answers always seem to be of the ilk ‘if
190
you're good enough when compared to the criteria, you should be fine.’ This leaves those of us
on the tenure track feeling extremely unsure and tense about the decision, and about the
appropriate steps to take to best increase chances of getting tenure.”
Respondents also believed that the post-tenure review/promotion process was vague. “The
standards for post-tenure evaluation are not applied equally. I just witnessed my dept chair
covering for a tenured faculty member, who has been below expectations for service and
scholarship for the last 6 years (because of outside employment). This faculty member does not
advise students, and has not contributed equally, but I feel burdened to make up for this
colleague because otherwise, students would not have their needs met. I see this happening
throughout my dept, where certain male colleagues can have their way, but female colleagues are
burdened with additional service work.” “The tenure and promotion criteria can be easily twisted
based on who is going up for tenure and promotion based on who is evaluating the file.”
Beyond the vagueness of the tenure and promotion process, Faculty Tenure-Track respondents
also elaborated on how they felt unsupported during the tenure process. As one respondent
stated, “Scholarship is stressed as a requirement for tenure at IC yet there is little support for
faculty to engage in it - i.e., statistical analysis support, release time, etc. It is untenable to have a
work/life balance and also be expected to maintain a full teaching load, service on committees
AND engage in meaningful scholarship. I have spoken with several Cornell faculty and they say
that, by comparison, the Ithaca College work load is excessive, particularly for faculty going
through tenure and promotion.” Another respondent wrote, “The tenure clock delay policies are
restrictive and cannot be used by all faculty. Some have been allowed to continue when they
have not met the minimum expectations. There is not quality mentoring available, but there is
good support. Specific kinds of research are valued higher than other kinds. I feel I have been
pressured to change my research area for just that reason. If teaching were valued, there would
be better support for teachers and tenure lines for those that want to teach more than 90% of their
workload.” Overall, Faculty Tenure-Track respondents felt that “the support system is almost
non-existent” for tenure.
Increased Committee Work: Faculty Tenure-Track respondents reported feeling “over-burdened

by meaningless committee assignments” and an “exercise in futility.” More broadly, the
191
committee work was seen as a part of service and that the service was burdensome, as
summarized by the following respondent, who wrote, “The service expectations are several times
higher at Ithaca College than those at the schools where I have connections. When I was hired, I
was told that my responsibilities would be 60% teaching, 30% research and 10% service. In
practice, I think it's closer to 50%, 20% 30%. The amount of school service required of me
actively limits my ability to conduct research and to participate in professional organizations at
the national level.” Those Faculty Tenure-Track respondents interested in committee work
explained that it was difficult to get on committees. As one respondent stated, “As a relatively
new faculty member at IC, I have tried multiple times to serve on campus-wide committees but
the process of being selected is unnecessarily political.” Finally, another respondent wrote,
“Always interested in participate in college level committees but no opportunities available in
general, mostly occupied by some permanent members of the committee.”
192
Survey Question 35 queried Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents on their perceptions as
faculty with non-tenure-track appointments. Differences were explored across gender identities,
racial identities, and sexual identities.
Table 69 indicates that 49% (n = 50) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” that the criteria used for contract renewal were clear. Twenty-four percent (n
= 25) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the criteria
used for contract renewal was applied equally to positions. Seventy-two percent (n = 74) of Non-
Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they believed that
expectations of their responsibilities were clear. There were no statistical differences.
Table 69. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Neither
n % n % n % n % n %
The criteria for contract

renewal are clear. 14 13.6 36 35.0 13 12.6 23 22.3 17 16.5
The criteria used for contract

renewal are applied equally to
positions. 10 9.7 15 14.6 36 35.0 23 22.3 19 18.4
There are clear expectations

of my responsibilities. 19 18.4 55 53.4 9 8.7 15 14.6 5 4.9
Note: Table reports only Non-Tenure-Track Faculty responses (n = 103).
Table 70 illustrates that 69% (n = 70) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” that research was valued by Ithaca College, 85% (n = 88) of Non-Tenure-
Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that teaching was valued by Ithaca
College, and 72% (n = 74) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or
“agreed” that service contributions were valued by Ithaca College. There were no statistical
differences.
193
Neither
Research is valued by Ithaca

College. 18 17.6 52 51.0 20 19.6 7 6.9 5 4.9
Teaching is valued by Ithaca

College. 50 48.5 38 36.9 6 5.8 7 6.8 <5 ---
Service contributions are
valued by Ithaca College. 28 27.5 46 45.1 17 16.7 8 7.8 <5 ---
Twenty-nine percent (n = 30) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that they felt burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with
similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental/program work
assignments) (Table 71).
Thirty-eight percent (n = 39) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that they performed more work to help students (e.g., formal and informal advising,
thesis advising, helping with student groups and activities) than did their colleagues.
Thirty-six percent (n = 36) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that they felt pressured to do extra work that was uncompensated.
Thirty percent (n = 31) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”

that they felt that their opinions were taken seriously by senior administrators, and 24% (n = 25)
felt that their opinions were sought out by senior administrators. Thirty-nine percent (n = 40) of
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents believed they have job security. There were no statistical
differences.
194
Neither
Burdened by service
responsibilities beyond those
of my colleagues with similar
performance expectations
(e.g., committee
memberships,
departmental/program work
assignments). 13 12.7 17 16.7 29 28.4 29 28.4 14 13.7
I perform more work to help

students than do my
colleagues (e.g., formal and
informal advising, thesis
advising, helping with
student groups and
activities). 18 17.5 21 20.4 31 30.1 21 20.4 12 11.7
Pressured to do extra work

that is uncompensated. 13 13.0 23 23.0 23 23.0 25 25.0 16 16.0
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty,
opinions are taken seriously
by senior administrators
(e.g., President, VP, AVP,
Dean). 8 7.8 23 22.3 37 35.9 19 18.4 16 15.5
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty,
opinions are sought out by
senior administrators (e.g.,

Feeling Valued at Ithaca: Forty-eight Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents elaborated on the

workplace climate at Ithaca with not feeling valued by the community being the predominant
theme. Some Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents felt valued at Ithaca (“I feel valued by my
department and school.”), but also acknowledged that this feeling does not necessarily extend to
the entire non-tenure-track community, as illustrated by the following comment. “As an NTEN
within the PT department, I do feel secure in my job and do indeed feel valued. My experiences
may be very different from NTENs in other departments/schools.” One respondent explained
195
how the feelings of value were different depending on the specific area on campus. “I feel that
my department treats tenure-track and NTEN faculty equitably and that the NTEN faculty's
clinical work is valued. At the school and college levels, I do not feel that I am valued as an
NTEN in the same way. When I speak with colleagues from other schools, I immediately feel the
need to defend my position and value as an NTEN faculty member.” Other respondents wrote, “I
feel shunned by the simple fact that the TT faculty are aware that the non-TT faculty are
precarious labor, so of course they don't bother investing in us. They know the institution is
going to cycle us out in 1-3 years,” and “After 24+ years of commitment to IC the policies and
culture clearly communicate to me that there is minimal commitment of IC to me.” Overall, their
status as non-tenure-track faculty left them feeling unsure about their job stability, as
summarized by the following respondents. “Advocating for myself to stay and not having job
stability is not at all parity with other tenured faculty. I have and always will be ‘expendable’ in
their eyes.” “I live contract to contract, never knowing until June, July or sometimes August if it
will be renewed. How would you like to live like that?”
196
Additionally, Faculty respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with a
series of 14 statements related to faculty workplace climate (Table 72). Chi-square analyses were
conducted by gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, religious/spiritual identity,
disability status, and citizenship status; only significant differences are reported.
Twenty-eight percent (n = 127) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that

salaries for tenure-track faculty positions were competitive. Only 15% (n = 68) of Faculty
respondents thought that salaries for adjunct faculty were competitive. Thirteen percent (n = 63)
believed that part-time faculty salaries were competitive. Twenty-four percent (n = 112) believed
that NTEN Continuing faculty salaries were competitive. There were no statistical differences.
Table 72. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Salary and Benefits

Neither
Salaries for tenure track

faculty are competitive. 19 4.1 108 23.4 153 33.2 137 29.7 44 9.5
Salaries for adjunct faculty

are competitive. 11 2.4 57 12.4 147 32.1 117 25.5 126 27.5
Salaries for part-time faculty

are competitive. 11 2.4 52 11.4 145 31.7 108 23.6 141 30.9
Salaries for NTEN

Continuing faculty are
competitive. 17 3.7 95 20.7 195 42.6 95 20.7 56 12.2
Regarding benefits, 47 percent (n = 213) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”

that Ithaca College provided competitive health insurance benefits (Table 73). Eleven percent (n
= 50) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca College provided
competitive child care benefits. Thirty-nine percent (n = 178) of Faculty respondents “strongly
agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca College provided competitive retirement/supplemental benefits.
Thirty-nine percent (n = 178) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca
College provides adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance (e.g., child care,
197
wellness services, elder care, housing location assistance, transportation). There were no
Table 73. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Work-Life Balance

Neither
Health insurance benefits are

competitive. 28 6.2 185 40.7 119 26.2 74 16.3 49 10.8
Child care benefits are

competitive. 10 2.3 40 9.0 244 55.0 63 14.2 87 19.6
Retirement/supplemental
benefits are competitive. 31 6.9 147 32.6 183 40.6 59 13.1 31 6.9
ITHACA COLLEGE
PROVIDES ADEQUATE
RESOURCES TO HELP
ME MANAGE WORK-
LIFE BALANCE (E.G.,
WELLNESS SERVICES,
ELDERCARE, HOUSING
LOCATION
ASSISTANCE,
TRANSPORTATION,
ETC.).
31 6.8 147 32.5 157 34.7 74 16.3 44 9.7
As noted in Table 74, 54% (n = 246) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that
they believed that their colleagues included them in opportunities that will help their career as
much as they do others in their position. There were significant differences across citizenship.
Faculty respondents who are not U.S. Citizens (16%, n = 8) were significantly more likely to
“strongly disagree” that that their colleagues include them in opportunities that will help their
career as much as they do others in their position than Faculty respondents who are U.S. Citizens
(5%, n = 21).
Forty-seven percent (n = 215) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
believed that the performance evaluation process was clear. Seventy percent (n = 318) of Faculty
respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca College provided them with resources to
198
pursue professional development (e.g., conferences, materials, research and course design, and
traveling). Fifty-three percent (n = 241) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
positive about their career opportunities at Ithaca College. There were no statistical differences.
Fifty-seven percent (n = 259) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
would recommend Ithaca College as a good place to work. Sixty-two percent (n = 283) of
Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they had job security. There were no
Table 74. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Neither
My colleagues include me in
opportunities that will help
my career as much as they
do others in my position. 69 15.2 177 39.1 128 28.3 50 11.0 29 6.4
Citizenship Statuslxxviii
U.S. Citizen 64 16.1 161 40.6 109 27.5 42 10.6 21 5.3
Not-U.S. Citizen 5 9.8 16 31.4 17 33.3 5 9.8 8 15.7
The performance evaluation

process is clear. 52 11.4 163 35.7 105 23.0 85 18.6 52 11.4
Ithaca College provides me

with resources to pursue
professional development
(e.g., conferences, materials,
research and course design,
traveling). 104 22.9 214 47.0 57 12.5 51 11.2 29 6.4
Positive about my career

opportunities at Ithaca
College. 66 14.6 175 38.7 114 25.2 56 12.4 41 9.1
I would recommend Ithaca

College as good place to
work. 66 14.4 193 42.1 122 26.6 46 10.0 31 6.8
199
A total of 134 Faculty respondents elaborated on work/life balance. Two themes emerged from
the data: low salary and lack of childcare benefits.
Low Salaries for Faculty: Faculty Tenure-Track, Non-Tenure-Track, and Part-Time/Adjunct

Faculty respondents all elaborated on the low salary associated with their position. Among
Faculty Tenure-Track respondents, some believed that their salary was below others in the
market, as illustrated by the following comments. “Salaries are not competitive with the world
external to academia. I would make more as a clinician than a faculty member.” “I'm looking at
assistant professor positions that are offering salaries and benefits only $6,000 or so less than I'm
currently making as a high-performing full professor at Ithaca College. I see no financial growth
at IC and would give up my position to improve my outlook.” “One of the factors that I think
affects IC as a workplace is the reduced compensation compared to comparable institutions
across the country, especially considering the cost of living here.” “Salary not competitive given
local costs of living.” Other Faculty Tenure-Track respondents believed that there were
discrepancies based on gender. “Also, several national reports reveal that women's salaries are
lower than men's at Ithaca College at the associate and full professor levels.” “My salary is lower
than my colleagues at the same rank. This is partially due to the year that I was hired, partially
due to what I perceive as gender bias.”
Faculty respondents across all ranks elaborated on the low salaries for part-time/adjunct faculty
members. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent stated, “Part time salaries are vastly
insufficient. The full-time rate of part-time faculty salaries is lower than my spouse makes in a
clerical/support job at another employer in this city. The part-time salaries make it difficult to
attract qualified faculty.” Another Part-time/Adjunct respondent wrote, “And while part-time
faculty pay may be technically defined to be "competitive" according to this survey's provided
definition, I would argue that no wage that falls below the local county's living wage (as the
current IC part-time salary does) can reasonably be construed to be ‘competitive’ in the real
world, by which I mean everywhere outside of an Ayn Rand novel.” Other Faculty respondents
felt that these low wages for Part-time/Adjunct faculty were particularly unfair, given the salaries
of administrators. As one Part-time/Adjunct Faculty respondent stated, “IC should not simply be
on the bandwagon of blaming low adjunct pay on the market. The market is based on taking
advantage of employee fear and a lack of a unified voice. It is appalling that we do not pay staff
200
and faculty what they deserve while administrators make lavish salaries for pushing paper.”
While acknowledging that Part-time/Adjunct salaries are low nationally, the sentiment was the
Ithaca should “be ahead of the pack in creating fair conditions, and should take advantage of it
rather than exploiting part-time, contractual labor just because ‘everyone else does it.’”
Lack of Childcare Resources: Another theme among the Faculty respondents was the lack of
childcare benefits. As one Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent stated, “Why is there no child
care?!?!?!” Offering childcare was seen as a way to help retain employees, as one Non-Tenure-
Track Faculty respondent wrote, “A daycare on campus is necessary in order to keep faculty and
staff, particularly women, on campus.” Childcare was also seen as a way to promote work/life
balance. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “Ithaca college does not offer child care,
which is a standard feature of so many colleges and universities now. I think it is hard for the
college to promote the idea of being work/life balance when a major aspect of work/life balance
for those with children is finding affordable care for their children while they are working FOR
the college.” Childcare was also seen as a significant financial support, as the following Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent stated, “The local community has limited child care resources, and the
daycare centers in the area are quite expensive. I would like IC to consider the possibility of an
on campus day care, or short of that, subsidize childcare costs for faculty and staff.” As one
Senior Administrator with Faculty Rank respondent pointed out, “This issue will continue to
grow as our aging personnel retire and are replaced by younger faculty and staff.”
201
Seventy-eight percent (n = 358) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
felt valued by faculty in their department/program (Table 75). Seventy-nine percent (n = 357) of
Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt valued by their
department/program chairs. Sixty-eight percent (n = 308) of Faculty respondents felt valued by
other faculty at Ithaca College. Ninety percent (n = 407) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
felt valued by students in the classroom. There were no statistical differences.
Only 29% (n = 132) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt valued
by Ithaca College senior administrators (e.g., president, dean, vice president, provost). Faculty
respondents with No Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (26%, n = 56) were significantly more likely
to “strongly disagree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators than
Christian Faculty respondents (12%, n = 17).
Table 75. Faculty Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Neither
I feel valued by faculty in
my department/program. 172 37.4 186 40.4 45 9.8 39 8.5 18 3.9
I feel valued by my
department/program
chair. 213 47.2 144 31.9 41 9.1 40 8.9 13 2.9
I feel valued by other

faculty at Ithaca College. 118 26.2 190 42.2 107 23.8 27 6.0 8 1.8
I feel valued by students in

the classroom. 197 43.4 210 46.3 38 8.4 7 1.5 <5 ---
College senior
associate dean, vice
president, provost). 54 11.8 78 17.0 130 28.3 108 23.5 89 19.4
Religious/Spiritual
Affiliationlxxix
Another Faith-Based
Affiliation 7 12.3 10 17.5 11 19.3 20 35.1 9 15.8
No Affiliation 21 9.9 31 14.6 62 29.2 42 19.8 56 26.4
Multiple Affiliations <5 --- 8 27.6 9 31.0 7 24.1 <5 ---
202
Table 76 depicts Faculty respondents’ attitudes about certain aspects of the climate in their
departments/programs and at Ithaca College. Subsequent analyses were conducted to identify
significant differences in responses by gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity,
religious/spiritual identity, disability status, and citizenship status.
Twenty-one percent (n = 96) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that faculty in
their departments/programs pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their
identity/background. There were no statistical differences.
Fourteen percent (n = 64) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
departments/program chairs pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their
identity/background. Faculty respondents who are not U.S. Citizens (12%, n = 6) were
significantly more likely to “strongly agree” that their department/program chair pre-judges their
abilities based on their perception of their identity/background than Faculty respondents who are
U.S. Citizens (4%, n = 15).
Forty-five percent (n = 207) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Ithaca
College encouraged free and open discussion of difficult topics.
Table 76. Faculty Respondents’ Perception of Climate

Neither
I think that faculty in my

department/program
pre-judge my abilities
based on their perception
of my identity/
background. 30 6.6 66 14.4 117 25.6 146 31.9 98 21.4
203
Table 76. Faculty Respondents’ Perception of Climate
Neither
I think that my
department/program chair
pre-judges my abilities
based on their perception
of my identity/
background. 21 4.6 43 9.5 101 22.3 163 36.0 125 27.6
Citizenshiplxxx
U.S. Citizen 15 3.8 34 8.5 88 22.1 147 36.9 114 28.6
Not-U.S. Citizen 6 11.8 7 13.7 13 25.5 15 29.4 10 19.6
I believe that Ithaca

College encourages free
and open discussion of
difficult topics. 50 11.0 157 34.4 112 24.6 94 20.6 43 9.4
Forty-seven percent (n = 212) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
research/scholarship activity was valued (Table 77).
Seventy-six percent (n = 347) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their
teaching was valued. Faculty respondents who are U.S. Citizens (8%, n = 31) were significantly
more likely to “disagree” that their teaching is valued than Faculty respondents who are not U.S.
Citizens (0%, n = 0).
Slightly more than half (56%, n = 257) of Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that
their service contributions were valued.

Neither
I feel that my
research/scholarship activity
is valued. 63 13.8 149 32.7 136 29.8 74 16.2 34 7.5
204
Neither
I feel that my teaching is

valued. 147 32.2 200 43.9 61 13.4 32 7.0 16 3.5
Citizenshiplxxxi
U.S. Citizen 136 33.9 171 42.6 49 12.2 31 7.7 14 3.5
Not-U.S. Citizen 11 21.6 27 52.9 11 21.6 <5 --- <5 ---
I feel that my service

contributions are valued. 91 19.9 166 36.3 110 24.1 54 11.8 36 7.9
lxxvi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty respondents who
indicated on the survey that they were supported and mentored during the tenure-track years by citizenship: 2 (4, N
= 269) = 13.961, p < .01.
lxxvii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty respondents who
indicated on the survey that faculty members in their department who used family accommodation (FMLA) policies
were disadvantaged in promotion and/or tenure by citizenship: 2 (4, N = 269) = 10.438, p < .05.
lxxviii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty respondents who indicated on the survey
that their colleagues include them in opportunities that will help their career as much as they do others in their
position by citizenship status: 2 (4, N = 448) = 10.263, p < .05.
lxxix
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty respondents who indicated on the survey that
they feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (12, N = 440) = 23.355,
p < .05.
lxxx
their department/program chair pre-judges their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by
citizenship status: 2 (4, N = 449) = 9.784, p < .05.
lxxxi
they feel that their teaching is valued by citizenship status: 2 (4, N = 452) = 10.162, p < .05.
205
Faculty and Staff Respondents Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving Ithaca College
Thirty-six percent (n = 1,387) of respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College
(Figure 49). With regard to employee position status, 49% (n = 230) of Faculty respondents and
57% (n = 303) of Staff respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College in the past
year.
57
49
36
31
19
All Respondents Graduate Students Undergraduate Staff Faculty

(n = 3,819) (n = 157) Students (n = 528) (n = 466)
(n = 2,668)
Figure 49. Respondents Who Had Seriously Considered Leaving Ithaca College (%)
206
Subsequent analyses found significant differences by faculty status, racial identity, and disability
status:
• By faculty status: 54% (n = 157) of Tenure-Track Faculty, 37% (n = 38) of Non-Tenure

Track Faculty, and 50% (n = 34) of Adjunct/Part-Time Faculty seriously considered
leaving Ithaca College.lxxxii
• By racial identity: 35% (n = 8) of Asian/Asian American Employee respondents, 64% (n
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ Employee respondents, 57% (n = 25) of Multiracial
Employee respondents, 88% Employee respondents who are Additional People of Color,
and 53% (n = 432) of White Employee respondents seriously considered leaving Ithaca
College. lxxxiii
• By disability status: 53% (n = 39) of employee respondents with a Single Disability,
79% (n = 30) of employee respondents with Multiple Disabilities, and 52% (n = 455) of
Employee respondents with No Disabilities seriously considered leaving Ithaca College.
lxxxiv
Fifty-one percent (n = 270) of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously considered
leaving did so for financial reasons (e.g., salary, pay rate) (Table 78). Forty-six percent (n = 244)
of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously considered leaving indicated that they did
so because of limited opportunities for advancement. Other reasons included increased workload
(45%, n = 237) and lack of sense of belonging (36%, n = 192). “Other” responses submitted by
respondents included “anti intellectual environment,” “bored with my job,” “bullying by chair,”
“feeling a lack of hope that things will change,” “heavy workload,” “homophobic senior
administration,” “inadequate maternity/paternity leave,” “lack of organizational stability,”
“middle management,” “poor divisional leadership,” “tension with faculty/students on campus,”
and “workload greater than at other colleges.”
207
Table 78. Reasons Why Faculty and Staff Respondents Considered Leaving Ithaca College
Reason n %
Low salary/pay rate 270 50.7
Limited opportunities for advancement 244 45.8
Increased workload 237 44.5
Lack of a sense of belonging 192 36.0
Interested in a position at another institution 161 30.2
Lack of institutional support (e.g., tech support, lab space/equipment) 155 29.1
Campus climate was unwelcoming 148 27.8
Lack of professional development opportunities 138 25.9
Tension with supervisor/manager 133 25.0
Tension with co-workers 129 24.2
Tension with senior administrator (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean) 95 17.8
Recruited or offered a position at another institution/organization 83 15.6
Lack of benefits 67 12.6
Family responsibilities 51 9.6
Local community did not meet my (my family) needs 33 6.2
Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.) 31 5.8
Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment 31 5.8
Local community climate was not welcoming 22 4.1
Relocation 18 3.4
Spouse or partner relocated 10 1.9

Note: Table reports only responses from Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that they had seriously
considered leaving Ithaca College in the past year (n = 533).
Eight hundred twenty respondents elaborated on why they seriously considered leaving Ithaca
College. Among those respondents, 461 were Undergraduate and Graduate Student respondents,
148 were Faculty (including Tenure-Track, Non-Tenure-Track, Part-time/Adjunct, Pre-
208
doctoral/Post-doctoral, and Senior Administrators with Faculty Rank) respondents, and 211 were
Staff (including Staff and Senior Administrators without Faculty Rank) respondents.
Faculty respondents – Concerns about Administration: One theme that emerged among the
Faculty respondents was concerns about the administration, and in particular not feeling that the
administration was supportive of their work as faculty. The sentiment was that “administrators
are increasingly out of touch with faculty concerns,” and “the upper level academic
administration is utterly isolated and unwilling to communicate with faculty.” The perceived lack
of leadership left Faculty respondents feeling as though their work was not valued, as stated by
the following Faculty Tenure-Track respondent, “In general, the current atmosphere at IC is very
grim. There is a lack of leadership at the top, or rather, poor leadership at the top, which has
affected interactions across the college. There is a general sense that our work is not valued.”
Faculty respondents also felt that administrative decisions conveyed this lack of value, as
explained by the following Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent, who wrote, “I am now in a
position where I am NOT eligible for PAID medical leave (when tenured track faculty AND part
time faculty are) because I am term faculty and therefore apparently expendable. I do not feel
appreciated by the higher administration due to this; I feel the administration is unorganized and
using me on a year to year basis until they feel they do not need me anymore; meanwhile I pour
my heart and soul into my job.” Overall, the feeling was that “the top administration does not
respond to the needs of the faculty and students.”
Faculty respondents – Increased Workload and Workload Value: Faculty respondents across all
levels expressed concerns about their workload and how the work was being valued by Ithaca.
For Faculty Tenure-Track respondents, the teaching load impacted their research, as stated by the
following respondents, who wrote, “The teaching load is too heavy for me to carry out the
research program that I prefer,” “I considered leaving because the workload I experienced has
grown with every year, and I am finding it nearly impossible to keep up with the administrative
responsibilities that are pushed to the department chair level instead of being centralized at the
college level. I spend very, very little time with my spouse/family, and I have lost touch with my
research,” and “I wanted a job that had a lower teaching load so that I could engage in a
reasonable amount of scholarship.” Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents focused more on the
teaching workload as best summarized by the following respondent, who wrote, “As a ‘Term’
209
contingent full-time faculty member, I teach all of my department's large courses. I have 250
students this semester, and I am likely to have over 300 students next semester. Because of this
student load, I work 4 nights per work-week, about 4 hours on Saturday, and about 8 hours on
Sunday, in addition to working all day every week day. This is unsustainable. I've talked to my
department about it, and I've been told that 1) my teaching 7 large-enrollment courses (60-99
students per course) per year enables the rest of the department's faculty to teach small courses,
and 2) the rest of them work hard during the day, which implies that this complete lack of work-
life balance is the norm. I have spent many, many years working toward becoming a professor at
a liberal arts school, and now I'm planning to leave the profession and work in industry. This is a
direct result of my experience teaching at IC for 4 years.” Finally, Part-time/Adjunct Faculty
respondents expressed concern that their work was not being valued. As one respondent wrote, “I
have devoted an enormous amount of work and dedication to teaching at Ithaca College, but
since I am a part-time faculty member, this work has not been acknowledged or rewarded in any
way. On the contrary, IC treats the contributions of its part-time faculty with indifference and
contempt, as the failure of the administration to negotiate a fair contract with the part-time
faculty union indicates in no uncertain terms.” Another Part-time/Adjunct Faculty respondent
explained, “I have no office or workspace. I come in, teach my classes, then leave. I don't feel
that my skills and areas of expertise are being used to the maximum benefit of the school. I
would love to be able to use my skills to help improve the school, and to actually feel like I am
an active member of the faculty, even if it is only part time. I have a terminal degree in my field,
with many specific areas of expertise which would enrich the school, but no opportunity to use
these skills to their full potential.”
Faculty respondents – Pay: Faculty respondents expressed concerns about their pay. For Part-
time/Adjunct respondents, the pay was not considered to be a “livable wage” as explained by the
following, “I love this institution and I love teaching here, but the pay and lack of benefits are a
serious detriment to my well-being as an employee. My pay as an adjunct is not a living wage,
especially considering the cost of living in Ithaca. I have 2 other jobs that I work in order to
make ends meet and raise my family.” Other Part-time/Adjunct respondents explained, “It is
hard to justify the effort for the remuneration” and “The lack of benefits, job stability, and pay
raises are very discouraging. I've received excellent reviews for my teaching and have even
presented at conferences on behalf of the college, but my extra and quality work goes
210
unrewarded.” Non-Tenure-Track respondents explained a similar situation, writing, “lack of fair
compensation- overload pay is poor, benefits keep increasing, raises are low. Promotion pay
rates have stayed the same for MANY years and haven't increased with inflation so those
bonuses are worth much less then they were 20 years ago.” For Faculty Tenure-Track
respondents, the pay was perceived to be their worth, as summarized by the following
respondents. “I recently applied for a starting assistant professor position that has comparable
pay to what I make now at Ithaca College as a full professor. I would give up tenure and start
over just so I could reach an appropriate pay rate. At IC I'm stuck where I'm at for the
foreseeable future,” and “Ithaca college needs to increase salary and benefits, not subtly cut
benefits and provide minimum annual salary increases.”
Faculty respondents – Diversity and Inclusion: The Faculty respondents discussed diversity and
inclusion from a variety of perspectives. Some focused on the experiences of students of color on
campus. As one Faculty Tenure-Track respondent stated, “I believe the institution is rife with
white liberal racists, at all levels. I also believe the college is wholly unethical in the way it treats
students of color--it's as if those students are here to "educate" the 80% of the student population,
thereby giving the white students a ‘diverse’ (what a laughable term) experience, while
simultaneously ignoring the climate among students that gets created with such reckless
‘integration/assimilation’ tactics.” Others discussed how “racism is still vibrant in this
community, inside and outside of the College.” However, a majority of the faculty respondents
discussed the lack of diversity within the faculty population at Ithaca and the perceived
discrimination experienced by some individuals. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “I
experienced sexism and racism within my department, particularly by my former-chair. The on-
going and persistent issues and challenges relate to how my colleagues claim to understand
diversity, but do not in practice inclusion nor do they seek out knowledge to change things.”
Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote how they did not feel connected to the LGBT
community, “My other reason for considering leaving has been how isolating it has been to be a
new faculty member, and member of the LGBT community on campus and in the town of Ithaca.
It has been very challenging to develop a social network since arriving here. While we love
Ithaca, the natural lands, and the culture. The community is a lot of talk but not a lot of action.”
Other Faculty respondents found it difficult to connect with individuals of color, as stated by the
following Faculty Tenure-Track respondent, “In addition, Ithaca itself is not the most welcoming
211
space for people of color of my background, who are often transplants from the Pacific Coast.
We generally have a hard time adapting to the food options at Ithaca, the cold climate, and the
general isolation.” Finally, one Faculty Tenure-Track respondent pointed out how connecting
with individuals from these underrepresented groups has helped to keep them at the institution.
“My sense of belonging increased by creating a network with other Hispanic and Black
professors within the institution with whom I could share (and they could understand) my
situation, without needing to explain or people telling me ‘it was all in my mind.’”
Staff respondents – Lack of Advancement Opportunities: A theme that emerged among the 200
Staff respondents and 11 Senior Administrators without Faculty Rank respondents was the lack
of advancement opportunities at Ithaca. As one Staff respondent succinctly stated, “This is not an
institution where ambition is rewarded. In the best of cases, it is prohibitively difficult to move
up within the organization. It's generally agreed upon that in order to further your career, you
need to do it at a different institution.” Others felt that the administration was limiting their
opportunities for advancement, as stated by the following Staff respondent, who wrote,
“Promotion opportunities are few and far between. While we have a talent management
department, it's a bit of a misnomer. We were lead to believe that we could advance in our own
positions by simply taking on more responsibility and becoming experts. That's not true. I was
informed by the compensation department that I could never advance in my current position
because of my immediate supervisor's title. Also, I have applied for internal positions, but was
told by HR that my current salary is above the new positions hiring range so there would be no
additional compensation. If that doesn't tell you to stay put - what does?” Another Staff
respondent explained, “Credit is often times given to the supervisors instead of the staff actually
doing the work/research which is not only frustrating but malicious as the supervisors take the
credit instead of stating who actually did the work.” The sentiment was that the administration
loyalty was not rewarded through advancement (“loyalty in, no loyalty out). This was reiterated
by the following Staff respondent who wrote, “Overall the college does not reward hard work,
strong performance, and years of service. I've worked for the college for over 13 years with
stellar above average reviews every year and I don't have anything to show for it. The college has
a no promotion policy, so I can't even be rewarded for my success.”
212
Staff respondents – Increased Workload: Another theme among the Staff respondents who had
seriously considered leaving Ithaca was the increased workload. As one Staff respondent stated,
“I work on average 60 hours a week, some weeks seven days a week. I have two children at
home so it the workload is very challenging.” Some felt that recent decreases in the number of
staff contributed to this increased workload, as stated by the following Staff respondent, who
wrote “The College is not replacing the staff support from employees leaving or the positions
that were cut. Instead, they are adding responsibilities to other staff support with the rationale
that the support staff doesn't have a full workload! Well, some of us have been in our positions
for decades and WE do have a full workload.” Other responses from Staff respondents included,
“Working at Ithaca College, I felt pulled in a million directions - asked to do a job that requires a
ridiculous amount of hours, on top of supporting our students (in particular students of color)
who felt a serious lack of support - which often occurred after hours or pushed work to after
hours. This is mentally and physically exhausting and was under appreciated and under
recognized,” and “The position of many years was entwined with another position that was
discontinued. magnitude of work load and responsibility was heaped on me and was not valued
of importance and for minimal compensation reasons.”
Staff respondents – Poor pay: Another theme among the Staff respondents was the poor pay.
Some respondents felt that they were not being fairly compensated in spite of having an
increased workload, as stated by the following Staff respondents. “I work an average of 60 hours
a week and yet am still compensated the same as those who work the bare minimum as an
exempt employee.” “I'm performing at a level higher than my current position details, and have
been for years, yet there is no financial compensation to match the level of responsibilities I've
taken on.” Other respondents felt that their pay was not in line with cost of living or other peer
institutions, as stated by the following Staff respondents. “Ithaca is a great place to live but the
pay at the college is lower than peer institutions and the cost of living is much higher.” “Salaries
are NOT competitive! Why does Cornell pay more for same jobs - the cost of living is the same
at both schools?” A Senior Administrator without Faculty Rank respondent wrote, “IC is a
wonderful place, but the pay is not always commensurate with the experience.”
Staff respondents – Unpleasant Climate: Staff respondents who seriously considered leaving also
felt that the environment within their job was “toxic work environment.” As one Staff respondent
213
explained, “The office climate/culture is not fun or exciting, ultimately not making me want to
come to work every day.” Staff respondents had several explanations for this climate. One Staff
respondent explained “At one point my co-workers and I had a manager who was a bully. Her
behavior impacted our entire team. I dreaded coming to work every day and it affected my health
and home life.” “We had a director who was disconnected and inconsistent with their staff. The
morale was very bad and we were treated punitively if we tried to address any issues.” “Bosses
lie, bully and intimidate us. Not a very welcoming place.” “I am feeling extremely disrespected
by my supervisor, and have not been able to resolve the conflict. This person's behavior has
significantly affected our office culture, and it is no longer a place where I can see myself being
long-term if nothing changes.” Staff respondents noted the climate shift and explained, “It's a
different climate than it was 10 years ago.... more motivation before with friendlier and happier
people” and “IC used to be a much more welcoming and supportive environment to work when I
started here. With the mismanagement of the current leadership, a lot of the things which made
IC a great place to work are going by the wayside.”
lxxxii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who indicated that they seriously
considered leaving Ithaca College by faculty status: 2 (2, N = 461) = 9.045, p = .01.
lxxxiii
considered leaving Ithaca College by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 949) = 12.134, p = .05.
lxxxiv
considered leaving Ithaca College by disability status: 2 (2, N = 982) = 10.437, p = .01.
214
Summary
The results from this section suggest that most Faculty and Staff respondents generally hold
positive attitudes about Ithaca College policies and processes. Few Ithaca College employees had
observed unfair or unjust hiring (20%, n = 198), unfair or unjust disciplinary actions (14%, n =
137), or unfair or unjust promotion, tenure, and/or reclassification (28%, n = 276).
Gender/gender identity, nepotism/cronyism, and position were the top perceived bases for many
of the reported discriminatory employment practices.
Several survey items queried Staff respondents about their opinions regarding work-life issues,
support, and resources available at Ithaca College. Staff with a Single or Multiple Disabilities
experienced poorer perceptions of workplace climate than respondents with No Disability. Other
social identities related to perception, support, and resources, including racial identity, gender
identity, and sexual identity.
Frequencies and significant differences based on position status (Exempt Staff or Non-Exempt
Staff) and sexual identity are provided in Tables 55 through 58. Similarly, faculty perceptions of
workplace climate and work-life balance were influenced by citizenship.
215
Student Perceptions of Campus Climate
This section of the report is dedicated to survey items that were specific to Ithaca College
students. Several survey items queried Student respondents about their academic experiences,
their general perceptions of the campus climate, and their comfort with their classes.
Students’ Perceived Academic Success
Factor Analysis Methodology
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on one scale embedded in Question 11 of the
survey. The scale, termed “Perceived Academic Success” for the purposes of this project, was
developed using Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) Academic and Intellectual Development
Scale. This scale has been used in a variety of studies examining student persistence. The first
seven sub-questions of Question 11 of the survey reflect the questions on this scale.
The questions on the scale were answered on a Likert metric from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree” (scored 1 for “strongly agree” and 5 for “strongly disagree”). For the purposes of
analysis, Student respondents who did not answer all scale sub-questions were not included in
the analysis. Approximately four percent (3.5%) of all potential Student respondents were
removed from the analysis due to one or more missing responses.
A factor analysis was conducted on the Perceived Academic Success scale utilizing principal axis
factoring. The factor loading of each item was examined to test whether the intended questions
combined to represent the underlying construct of the scale. 57 One question from the scale
(Q11_2) did not hold with the construct and was removed; the scale used for analyses had six
questions rather than seven. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale
was 0.842 (after removing the question noted above), which is high, meaning that the scale
produces consistent results. With Q11_2 included, Cronbach’s alpha was only 0.763.
57
Factor analysis is a particularly useful technique for scale construction. It is used to determine how well a set of
survey questions combine to measure a latent construct by measuring how similarly respondents answer those
questions.
216
Table 79. Survey Items Included in the Perceived Academic Success Factor Analyses
Survey item
Scale number Academic experience
Q11_1 I am performing up to my full academic potential.
Q11_3 I am satisfied with my academic experience at Ithaca College.
I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since
Perceived Q11_4 enrolling at Ithaca College.
Academic
Success Q11_5 I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would.
My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual
Q11_6 growth and interest in ideas.
My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to

Q11_7 Ithaca College.
The factor score for Perceived Academic Success was created by taking the average of the scores
for the six sub-questions in the factor. Each respondent who answered all of the questions
included in the given factor was given a score on a five-point scale. A lower score on Perceived
Academic Success factor suggests a student or constituent group is more academically
successful.
Means Testing Methodology

After creating the factor scores for respondents based on the factor analysis, means were
calculated and the means for Student respondents were analyzed using a t-test for difference of
means.
Additionally, where n’s were of sufficient size, separate analyses were conducted to determine
whether the means for the Perceived Academic Success factor were different for first level
categories in the following demographic areas: (Due to lower numbers, graduate students had a
reduced number of categories for several demographic areas, where noted.)
• Gender identity (undergraduate - Woman, Man, Transspectrum; graduate – Woman,

Man)
• Racial identity (People of Color, Multiracial Respondents, White People)
• Sexual identity (LGBQ, Heterosexual)
• Disability status (Single Disability, No Disability, Multiple Disability)
• Income status (Low-Income, Not-Low-Income)
217
When there were only two categories for the specified demographic variable (e.g., sexual
identity) a t-test for difference of means was used. If the difference in means was significant,
effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d. Any moderate-to-large effects are noted. When the
specific variable of interest had more than two categories (e.g., disability status), ANOVAs were
run to determine whether there were any differences. If the ANOVA was significant, post-hoc
tests were run to determine which differences between pairs of means were significant.
Additionally, if the difference in means was significant, effect size was calculated using Eta2 and
any moderate to large effects were noted.
Means Testing Results

The following sections offer analyses to determine differences for the demographic
characteristics mentioned above for Undergraduate and Graduate Student respondents (where
possible).
Gender Identity
No significant difference existed (p > .05) in the overall test for means for Undergraduate
Student respondents by gender identity on Perceived Academic Success.
Table 80. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Gender Identity
Gender identity n Mean Std. dev.
Woman 1,700 1.955 0.625
Man 804 2.013 0.648
Transspectrum 34 1.966 0.558
No subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic Success for Undergraduate Student respondents

by gender identity were completed because the overall test was not significant.
No significant difference existed (p > .05) in the overall test for means for Graduate Student
respondents by gender identity on Perceived Academic Success.
218
Table 81. Graduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Gender Identity
Graduate Student Respondents
Gender identity n Mean Std. dev.
Woman 110 1.682 0.480
Man 34 1.735 0.572
Mean difference -0.053
Racial Identity
A significant difference existed (p < .001) in the overall test for means for Undergraduate
Student respondents by racial identity on Perceived Academic Success.
Table 82. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Racial Identity
Racial identity n Mean Std. dev.
People of Color 402 2.037 0.662
White People 1,871 1.945 0.610
Multiracial 247 2.069 0.678
Subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic Success for Undergraduate Student respondents

were significant for two comparisons: People of Color vs. White People and Multiracial vs.
White People. These findings suggest that White People Undergraduate Student respondents
have greater Perceived Academic Success than People of Color and Multiracial Undergraduate
Student respondents.
Table 83. Difference between Means for Undergraduate Student Respondents for Perceived Academic
Success by Racial Identity
Groups compared Mean Difference
People of Color vs. White People 0.093*
People of Color vs. Multiracial -0.032
White People vs. Multiracial -0.124**

*p < .05; **p < .01
respondents by gender identity on Perceived Academic Success.
219
Table 84. Graduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Racial Identity
Racial identity n Mean Std. dev.
People of Color 11 1.848 0.656
White People 120 1.674 0.495
Multiracial 14 1.714 0.450
Sexual Identity
A significant difference (p < .05) existed in the test for means for Undergraduate Student
respondents by sexual identity on Perceived Academic Success. This finding suggests that LGBQ
Undergraduate Student respondents have less Perceived Academic Success than Heterosexual
Undergraduate Student respondents.
No significant difference existed (p > .05) in the test for means for Graduate Student respondents
by sexual identity on Perceived Academic Success.
Table 85. Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Sexual Identity

Undergraduate Student
respondents Graduate student respondents
Sexual identity n Mean Std. dev. n Mean Std. dev.
LGBQ 483 2.033 0.653 17 1.804 0.482
Heterosexual 2,025 1.961 0.626 123 1.671 0.509
Mean difference 0.072* 0.133
*p < .05
Disability Status
A significant difference existed (p < .001) in the overall test for means for Undergraduate
Student respondents by disability status on Perceived Academic Success.
220
Table 86. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Disability Status
Disability status n Mean Std. dev.
Single Disability 297 2.167 0.681
No Disability 2,114 1.937 0.613
Multiple Disability 153 2.212 0.684
Subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic Success for Undergraduate Student respondents

were significant for two comparisons: No Disability vs. Single Disability and No Disability vs.
Multiple Disabilities. These findings suggests that Undergraduate Student respondents with no
disabilities have greater Perceived Academic Success than Undergraduate Student respondents
with single or multiple disabilities.
Table 87. Differences Between Means for Undergraduate Student Respondents for Perceived Academic
Success by Disability Status
Groups compared Mean difference

Single Disability vs. No Disability 0.230***
Single Disability vs. Multiple Disability -0.045
No Disability vs. Multiple Disability -0.275***

***p < .001
respondents by disability status on Perceived Academic Success.
Table 88. Graduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Disability Status
Disability status n Mean Std. dev.
Single Disability 9 1.778 0.534
No Disability 129 1.664 0.500

Multiple Disability 7 2.071 0.429
No subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic Success for Graduate Student respondents were
completed because the overall test was not significant.
221
Income Status
A significant difference (p < .001) existed in the test for means for Undergraduate Student
respondents by income status. This finding suggests that Not-Low-Income Undergraduate
Student respondents have greater Perceived Academic Success than Low-Income Undergraduate
Student Respondents.
respondents by income status on Perceived Academic Success.
Table 89. Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Income Status

Undergraduate Student
Respondents Graduate Student Respondents
Income status N Mean Std. dev. n Mean Std. dev.
Low-Income 239 2.105 0.639 29 1.690 0.511
Not-Low-Income 2,252 1.961 0.629 115 1.683 0.509
Mean difference 0.145*** 0.007
***p < .001
222
Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate
One of the survey items asked Student respondents the degree to which they agreed with ten
statements about their interactions with faculty, students, staff members, and senior
administrators at Ithaca College. Eighty-one percent (n = 2,289) of Student respondents felt
valued by Ithaca College faculty. Men Student respondents (35%, n = 296) were significantly
more likely than Women Student respondents (26%, n = 478) to “strongly agree” that they feel
valued by Ithaca College faculty. Student respondents with Multiple Religious/Spiritual
Affiliations (9%, n = 13) and with Additional Faith-Based Affiliation (7%, n = 22) were
significantly more likely than Christian Student respondents (4%, n = 39) to “strongly disagree”
that they feel valued by Ithaca College faculty. Students with a Single Disability (19%, n = 59)
were significantly more likely than Students with No Disability (13%, n = 295) to “neither agree
nor disagree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College faculty. Finally, Student respondents who
are Not-Low-Income (29%, n = 709) were significantly more likely than Student respondents
who are Low-Income (23%, n = 66) to feel valued by Ithaca College faculty.
Seventy-three percent (n = 2,048) felt valued by Ithaca College staff. Men Student respondents
(27%, n = 232) were significantly more likely than Women Student respondents (23%, n = 419)
to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College staff. Christian Student respondents
(27%, n = 301) were significantly more likely than students with No Religious/Spiritual
Affiliation (21%, n = 254) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College staff.
Students with Multiple Disabilities (8%, n = 14) were significantly more likely than Students
with No Disability (4%, n = 88) to “disagree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College staff.
Finally, Student respondents who are Not-Low-Income (25%, n = 579) were significantly more
likely than Student respondents who are Low-Income (17%, n = 47) to feel valued by Ithaca
College staff.
Thirty-six percent (n = 997) felt valued by Ithaca College senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice
president, provost). Men Student respondents (16%, n = 139) were significantly more likely than
Women Student respondents (10%, n = 179) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by Ithaca
College senior administrators. Heterosexual Student respondents (12%, n = 274) were
significantly more likely than LGBQ Student respondents (9%, n = 44) to “strongly agree” that
223
they feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators. Christian Student respondents (14%, n
= 156) were significantly more likely than students with No Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (10%,
n = 121) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators.
Students with a Single Disability (16%, n = 51) and with Multiple Disabilities (19%, n = 33)
were significantly more likely than Students with No Disability (9%, n = 198) to “strongly
disagree” that they feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators. Finally, Student
respondents who are Not-Low-Income (12%, n = 299) were significantly more likely than
Student respondents who are Low-Income (7%, n = 19) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued
by Ithaca College senior administrators.
Table 90. Student Respondents’ Feelings of Value Inside and Outside the Classroom
Neither
agree
I feel valued by Ithaca College faculty. 799 28.2 1490 52.7 383 13.5 126 4.5 14 0.5
Gender identitylxxxv
Transspectrum 25 32.1 35 44.9 14 17.9 <5 --- <5 ---
Women 478 25.5 1053 56.3 255 13.6 77 4.1 8 0.4
Men 296 34.5 400 46.6 111 12.9 46 5.4 5 0.6
Religious/Spiritual Identitylxxxvi
Christian Affiliation 345 30.7 587 52.2 151 13.4 39 3.5 <5 ---
Another Faith-Based Affiliation 78 25.0 172 55.1 34 10.9 22 7.1 6 1.9
No Affiliation 327 27.5 641 53.8 171 14.4 48 4.0 <5 ---
Multiple Affiliations 39 26.0 73 48.7 24 16.0 13 8.7 <5 ---
Disability statuslxxxvii
Multiple Disabilities 44 25.7 87 50.9 28 16.4 9 5.3 <5 ---
Single Disability 79 24.9 161 50.8 59 18.6 15 4.7 <5 ---
No Disability 670 29.1 1228 53.3 295 12.8 102 4.4 8 0.3
Income statuslxxxviii
Low-Income 66 23.4 150 53.2 45 16.0 16 5.7 5 1.8
Not Low-Income 709 29.1 1290 53.0 321 13.2 106 4.4 8 0.3
I feel valued by Ithaca College staff. 667 23.6 1381 48.8 613 21.7 119 4.2 22 0.8
Gender identitylxxxix
Transspectrum 16 20.3 33 41.8 23 29.1 <5 --- <5 ---
Women 419 22.5 946 50.8 413 22.2 76 4.1 10 0.5
Men 232 27.2 401 47.0 173 20.3 39 4.6 9 1.1
Religious/Spiritual Identityxc
Christian Affiliation 301 26.9 555 49.5 223 19.9 39 3.5 <5 ---
No Affiliation 254 21.4 594 50.1 273 23.0 54 4.6 10 9.4
224
Table 90. Student Respondents’ Feelings of Value Inside and Outside the Classroom
Neither
agree
Disability statusxci
No Disability 563 24.5 1156 50.4 493 20.6 88 3.8 15 0.7
Income statusxcii
Low-Income 47 16.8 135 48.2 76 27.1 16 5.7 6 2.1
Not Low-Income 597 24.6 1203 49.6 513 21.1 99 4.1 15 0.6
I feel valued by Ithaca College senior

administrators. 327 11.6 670 23.7 981 34.7 539 19.1 285 10.1
Gender identityxciii
Transspectrum 9 11.7 5 6.5 25 32.5 19 24.7 19 24.7
Women 179 9.6 445 23.9 703 37.7 366 19.6 171 9.2
Men 139 16.2 219 25.6 249 29.1 154 18.0 95 11.1
Sexual identityxciv
LGBQ 44 8.5 79 15.3 172 33.3 134 25.9 88 17.0
Heterosexual 274 12.4 571 25.9 781 35.4 391 17.7 188 8.5
Asexual <5 --- <5 --- 12 37.5 8 25.0 6 18.8
Religious/Spiritual Identityxcv
No Affiliation 121 10.2 247 20.8 410 34.6 257 21.7 150 12.7
Multiple Affiliations 10 6.7 25 16.7 50 33.3 37 24.7 28 18.7
Disability statusxcvi
Multiple Disabilities 13 7.6 23 13.5 59 34.5 43 25.1 33 19.3
Single Disability 27 8.5 58 18.3 107 33.8 74 23.3 51 16.1
No Disability 284 12.4 583 25.4 810 35.3 418 18.2 198 8.6
Income statusxcvii
Low-Income 19 6.8 62 22.1 101 36.1 61 21.8 37 13.2
Not Low-Income 299 12.3 589 24.3 841 34.7 459 18.9 238 9.8
225
Eighty-four percent (n = 2,368) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
feel valued by faculty in the classroom. Students with No Disability (0%, n = 8) were
significantly less likely than Students with Multiple Disabilities (n < 5) to “strongly disagree”
that they feel valued by faculty in the classroom. Student respondents who are Low-Income (5%,
n = 14) were significantly more likely than Student respondents who are Not-Low-Income (3%,
n = 60) to “disagree” that they feel valued by faculty in the classroom. Students who are U.S.
Citizens (32%, n = 817) were significantly more likely than Students who are Not U.S. Citizens
(22%, n = 42) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by faculty in the classroom.
Seventy-two percent (n = 2,043) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
feel valued by other students in the classroom. Men Student respondents (27%, n = 230) were
significantly more likely than Women Student respondents (20%, n = 372) to “strongly agree”
that they feel valued by other students in the classroom. LGBQ Student respondents (7%, n = 34)
were significantly more likely than Heterosexual Student respondents (4%, n = 83) to “disagree”
that they feel valued by other students in the classroom. Students with Multiple
Religious/Spiritual Affiliations (32%, n = 48) were significantly more likely than Christian
students (20%, n = 219) and Student respondents with Additional Faith-Based Affiliations (18%,
n = 55) to “neither agree nor disagree” that they feel valued by other students in the classroom.
Students with No Disability (53%, n = 1,205) were significantly more likely than Students with a
Single Disability (44%, n = 138) and with Multiple Disabilities (42%, n = 71) to “agree” that
they feel valued by other students in the classroom. Student respondents who are Not-Low-
Income (23%, n = 567) were significantly more likely than Student respondents who are Low-
Income (12%, n = 34) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by other students in the
classroom. Student respondents who are Not-First-Generation (23%, n = 584) were significantly
more likely than Student respondents who are First-Generation (16%, n = 34) to “strongly agree”
that they feel valued by other students in the classroom. Students who are U.S. Citizens (23%, n
= 585) were significantly more likely than Students who are Not U.S. Citizens (15%, n = 28) to
“strongly agree” that they feel valued by other students in the classroom.
Seventy percent (n = 1,967) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they feel
valued by other students outside of the classroom. Men Student respondents (28%, n = 239) were
226
significantly more likely than Women Student respondents (21%, n = 396) to “strongly agree”
that they feel valued by other students in the classroom. Heterosexual Student respondents (49%,
n = 1,064) were significantly more likely than LGBQ Student respondents (42%, n = 215) to
“agree” that they feel valued by other students in the classroom. Christian Students (25%, n =
281) were significantly more likely than Students with Multiple Religious/Spiritual Affiliations
(15%, n = 22) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by other students in the classroom.
Students with No Disability (24%, n = 554) were significantly more likely than Students with
Multiple Disabilities (15%, n = 24) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by other students in
the classroom. Student respondents who are Not-Low-Income (25%, n = 593) were significantly
more likely than Student respondents who are Low-Income (13%, n = 37) to “strongly agree”
that they feel valued by other students in the classroom. Student respondents who are First-
Generation (8%, n = 17) were significantly more likely than Student respondents who are Not-
First-Generation (5%, n = 122) to “disagree” that they feel valued by other students in the
classroom. Students who are U.S. Citizens (24%, n = 614) were significantly more likely than
Students who are Not U.S. Citizens (16%, n = 31) to “strongly agree” that they feel valued by
other students in the classroom.
Thirty-three percent (n = 940) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
think that faculty pre-judge their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background.
Men Student respondents (11%, n = 96) were significantly more likely than Women Student
respondents (8%, n = 151) to “strongly agree” that they think faculty pre-judge their abilities
based on their perception of their identity/background. Asian/Asian American Student
respondents (36%, n = 53) were significantly more likely than White Student respondents (23%,
n = 467) to “agree” that they think faculty pre-judge their abilities based on their perception of
their identity/background. Heterosexual Student respondents (10%, n = 227) were significantly
more likely than LGBQ Student respondents (6%, n = 32) to “strongly disagree” that they think
faculty pre-judge their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. Christian
Students (31%, n = 348) and Students with No Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (29%, n = 348)
were significantly more likely than Students with Additional Faith-Based Affiliations (21%, n =
66) to “disagree” that they think faculty pre-judge their abilities based on their perception of their
identity/background. Students with No Disability (10%, n = 228) were significantly more likely
227
than Students with Multiple Disabilities (4%, n = 7) to “strongly disagree” that they think faculty
pre-judge their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. Student
respondents who are Low-Income (31%, n = 87) were significantly more likely than Student
respondents who are Not-Low-Income (24%, n = 579) to “agree” that they think faculty pre-
judge their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. Student respondents
who are Not-First-Generation (10%, n = 251) were significantly more likely than Student
respondents who are First-Generation (5%, n = 12) to “strongly disagree” that they think faculty
pre-judge their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. Students who are
U.S. Citizens (36%, n = 70) were significantly more likely than Students who are Not U.S.
Citizens (23%, n = 605) to “agree” that they think faculty pre-judge their abilities based on their
perception of their identity/background.
Sixty-five percent (n = 1,838) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
believe that the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. Men
Student respondents (23%, n = 194) were significantly more likely than Women Student
respondents (18%, n = 338) to “strongly agree” that they think the campus climate encourages
free and open discussion of difficult topics. Multiracial Student respondents (8%, n = 22) were
significantly more likely than White Student respondents (3%, n = 59) to “strongly disagree” that
they think the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. LGBQ
Student respondents (15%, n = 77) were significantly more likely than Heterosexual Student
respondents (10%, n = 211) to “disagree” that they think the campus climate encourages free and
open discussion of difficult topics. Christian Student respondents (22%, n = 249) were
significantly more likely than Students with Multiple Affiliations (11%, n = 17) to “strongly
agree” that they think the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics.
Students with a Single Disability (8%, n = 24) were significantly more likely than Students with
No Disability (3%, n = 73) to “strongly disagree” that they think the campus climate encourages
free and open discussion of difficult topics. Student respondents who are Not-Low-Income (21%,
n = 498) were significantly more likely than Student respondents who are Low-Income (14%, n
= 40) to “strongly agree” that they think the campus climate encourages free and open discussion
of difficult topics. Student respondents who are First-Generation (6%, n = 14) were significantly
more likely than Student respondents who are Not-First-Generation (4%, n = 94) to “strongly
228
disagree” that they think the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult
topics.
Table 91. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Campus Climate

Neither
agree
I feel valued by faculty in the

classroom. 867 30.6 1,501 53.1 352 12.4 74 2.6 13 0.5
Disability statusxcviii
No Disability 728 31.7 1,235 53.7 272 11.8 57 2.5 8 0.3
xcix
Income status
Low-Income 73 25.9 142 50.4 47 16.7 14 5.0 6 2.1
Not Low-Income 767 31.6 1,307 53.8 291 12.0 60 2.5 6 0.2
Citizenshipc
U.S. Citizen 817 31.5 1,384 53.3 319 12.3 64 2.5 12 0.5
Not U.S. Citizen 42 21.8 109 56.5 31 16.1 10 5.2 <5 ---
I feel valued by other students in the

classroom. 618 21.8 1,425 50.4 605 21.4 122 4.3 31 1.1
Gender identityci
Transspectrum 15 19.2 30 38.5 25 32.1 6 7.7 <5 ---
Women 372 20.0 974 52.3 418 22.4 78 4.2 20 1.1
Men 230 26.9 420 49.1 160 18.7 37 4.3 9 1.1
Sexual identitycii
LGBQ 113 21.9 233 45.2 128 24.9 34 6.6 7 1.4
Heterosexual 492 22.3 1,159 52.5 450 20.4 83 3.8 22 1.0
Asexual <5 --- 10 32.3 14 45.2 <5 --- <5 ---
Religious/Spiritual Identityciii
Another Faith-Based Affiliation 61 19.8 174 56.5 55 17.9 14 4.5 <5 ---
No Affiliation 261 22.0 575 48.5 276 23.3 57 4.8 16 1.4
Disability statusciv
No Disability 528 23.0 1,205 52.5 458 19.9 84 3.7 21 0.9
Income statuscv
Low-Income 34 12.3 137 49.5 71 25.6 24 8.7 11 4.0
Not Low-Income 567 23.3 1,239 51.0 510 21.0 95 3.9 18 0.7
First-Generationcvi
First-Generation 34 15.5 106 48.4 57 26.0 18 8.2 <5 ---
Not-First-Generation 584 22.6 1,319 51.1 548 21.2 104 4.0 27 1.0
Citizenshipcvii
U.S. Citizen 585 22.6 1,326 51.2 552 21.3 103 4.0 26 1.0
Not U.S. Citizen 28 14.7 90 47.1 50 26.2 18 9.4 5 2.6
229
Neither
agree
I feel valued by other students outside

of the classroom. 648 22.9 1,319 46.6 644 22.8 139 4.9 31 1.1
Gender identitycviii
Transspectrum 13 17.1 27 35.5 28 36.8 6 7.9 <5 ---
Women 396 21.4 904 48.9 434 23.5 98 5.3 18 1.0
Men 239 28.1 386 45.4 180 21.2 34 4.0 11 1.3
cix
Sexual identity
LGBQ 114 22.3 215 42.1 147 28.8 28 5.5 7 1.4
Heterosexual 519 23.7 1,064 48.6 478 21.8 105 4.8 23 1.1
Asexual <5 --- 15 46.9 11 34.4 <5 --- <5 ---
Religious/Spiritual Identitycx
No Affiliation 270 23.0 542 46.1 290 24.7 60 5.1 14 1.2
Disability statuscxi
Multiple Disabilities 24 14.5 72 43.4 50 30.1 15 90. 5 3.0
No Disability 554 24.3 1,101 48.0 512 22.4 96 4.2 19 0.8
Income statuscxii
Low-Income 37 13.4 127 46.0 71 25.7 27 9.8 14 5.1
Not Low-Income 593 24.6 1,149 47.7 545 22.6 109 4.5 14 0.6
Citizenshipcxiii
U.S. Citizen 39 18.1 98 45.6 58 27.0 17 7.9 <5 ---
Not U.S. Citizen 609 23.7 1,221 47.6 586 22.8 122 4.8 28 1.1
I think that faculty pre-judge my

abilities based on their perception of
Gender identitycxiv
Transspectrum 9 11.4 26 32.9 23 29.1 17 21.5 <5 ---
Women 151 8.1 430 23.1 523 28.1 591 31.7 169 9.1
Men 96 11.3 227 26.6 232 27.2 209 24.5 88 10.3
Racial identitycxv
Asian/Asian American 20 13.5 53 35.8 41 27.7 29 19.6 5 3.4
Black/African American 18 13.8 37 28.5 34 26.2 34 26.2 7 5.4
Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 16 13.9 36 31.3 31 27.0 23 20.0 9 7.8
Multiracial 28 10.4 67 24.9 80 29.7 8 29.0 16 5.9
Additional People of Color <5 --- 9 30.0 9 30.0 6 20.0 <5 ---
White 159 7.8 467 22.8 562 27.5 636 31.1 220 10.8
cxvi
Sexual identity
LGBQ 54 10.4 137 26.5 153 29.6 141 27.3 32 6.2
Heterosexual 198 9.0 522 23.7 592 26.9 664 30.1 227 10.3
Asexual <5 --- 9 28.1 14 43.8 6 18.8 <5 ---
230
Neither
agree
Religious/Spiritual Identitycxvii
Another Faith-Based Affiliation 38 12.2 87 27.9 99 31.7 66 212 22 7.1
No Affiliation 102 8.6 296 25.0 335 28.3 348 29.4 102 8.6
Disability statuscxviii
No Disability 204 8.9 555 24.2 619 27.0 689 30.0 228 9.9
Income statuscxix
Low-Income 18 6.5 87 31.2 85 3.5 71 25.4 18 6.5
Not Low-Income 234 9.6 579 23.9 660 27.2 714 29.4 238 9.8
Citizenshipcxx
U.S. Citizen 25 11.3 64 29.0 63 28.5 57 25.8 12 5.4
Not U.S. Citizen 231 9.0 620 24.0 716 27.8 761 29.5 251 9.7
I believe that the campus climate

encourages free and open discussion of
difficult topics. 547 19.3 1,291 45.6 560 19.8 296 10.5 108 3.8
Gender identitycxxi
Transspectrum 15 19.5 27 35.1 15 19.5 16 20.8 <5 ---
Women 338 18.1 907 48.7 381 20.4 183 9.8 55 3.0
Men 194 22.7 355 41.5 162 18.9 97 11.3 48 32.7
Racial identitycxxii
Asian/Asian American 18 12.2 76 51.4 30 20.3 19 12.8 5 3.4
Black/African American 19 14.5 54 41.2 28 21.4 22 16.8 8 6.1
Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 20 17.2 50 43.1 24 20.7 14 12.1 8 6.9
Multiracial 46 17.7 111 41.3 53 19.7 37 13.8 22 8.2
Additional People of Color 6 20.0 12 40.0 5 16.7 <5 --- <5 ---
White 420 20.6 963 47.1 406 19.9 195 9.5 59 2.9
Sexual identitycxxiii
LGBQ 92 17.9 226 44.0 97 18.9 77 15.0 22 4.3
Heterosexual 438 19.8 1,026 46.5 450 20.4 211 9.6 83 3.8
Asexual <5 --- 18 56.3 6 18.8 <5 --- <5 ---
Religious/Spiritual Identitycxxiv
No Affiliation 210 17.8 536 45.3 248 21.0 146 12.3 43 3.6
Disability statuscxxv
No Disability 465 20.3 1,063 46.3 467 20.3 228 99 73 3.2
Income statuscxxvi
Low-Income 40 14.3 122 43.6 62 22.1 36 12.9 20 7.1
Not Low-Income 498 20.5 1,121 46.2 44 19.5 249 10.3 84 3.5
231
Eighty percent (n = 2,271) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they have
faculty whom they perceive as role models. Asexual Student respondents (28%, n = 9) were
significantly more likely than LGBQ Student respondents (12%, n = 60) to “neither agree nor
disagree” that they have faculty whom they perceive as role models. Student respondents who
are Not-Low-Income (37%, n = 908) were significantly more likely than Student respondents
who are Low-Income (28%, n = 78) to “strongly agree” that they have faculty whom they
perceive as role models. Student respondents who are Not-First-Generation (37%, n = 951) were
significantly more likely than Student respondents who are First-Generation (30%, n = 66) to
“strongly agree” that they have faculty whom they perceive as role models.
Sixty-one percent (n = 1,720) of Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they
have staff whom they perceive as role models. Christian Student respondents (28%, n = 312)
were significantly more likely than Students with No Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (21%, n =
245) to “strongly agree” that they have staff whom they perceive as role models. Student
respondents who are Not-Low-Income (25%, n = 606) were significantly more likely than
Student respondents who are Low-Income (17%, n = 47) to “strongly agree” that they have staff
whom they perceive as role models.
Table 92. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Faculty and Staff as Role Models
Neither
agree
I have faculty whom I perceive as role

models. 1017 35.9 1254 44.3 401 14.2 103 3.6 33 1.2
Sexual identitycxxvii
LGBQ 212 40.8 218 42.0 60 11.6 24 4.6 5 1.0
Heterosexual 779 35.3 1003 45.4 325 14.7 75 3.4 27 1.2
Asexual 8 25.0 12 37.5 9 28.1 <5 --- <5 ---
cxxviii
Income status
Low-Income 78 27.8 140 49.8 43 15.3 14 5.0 6 2.1
Not Low-Income 908 37.4 1074 44.2 339 13.9 85 3.5 25 1.0
First-Generationcxxix
First-Generation 66 29.7 101 45.5 48 21.6 6 2.7 <5 ---
Not-First-Generation 951 36.8 1153 44.6 353 13.7 97 3.8 32 1.2
I have staff whom I perceive as role

models. 674 23.8 1046 37.0 796 28.1 240 8.5 49 1.7
232
Table 92. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Faculty and Staff as Role Models
Neither
agree
Religious/Spiritual Identitycxxx
Another Faith-Based Affiliation 75 24.0 116 37.2 93 29.8 25 8.0 <5 ---
No Affiliation 245 20.6 451 38.0 341 28.7 126 10.6 25 2.1
Income statuscxxxi
Low-Income 47 16.7 110 39.1 82 29.2 31 11.0 11 3.9
Not Low-Income 606 25.0 910 37.5 674 27.8 202 8.3 36 1.5
lxxxv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt valued by Ithaca
College faculty by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,807) = 33.018, p < .001.
lxxxvi
College faculty by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (12, N = 2,778) = 36.171, p < .001.
lxxxvii
College faculty by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,791) = 18.436, p < .05.
lxxxviii
College faculty by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,716) = 16.336, p < .01.
lxxxix
College staff by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,797) = 23.291, p < .01.
xc
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt valued by Ithaca College
staff by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (12, N = 2,768) = 30.775, p < .01.
xci
staff by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,781) = 28.536, p < .001.
xcii
staff by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,707) = 19.799, p < .001.
xciii
College senior administrators by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,797) = 65.954, p < .001.
xciv
College senior administrators by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 2,754) = 75.378, p < .001.
xcv
senior administrators by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (12, N = 2,768) = 74.113, p < .001.
xcvi
College senior administrators by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,781) = 57.997, p < .001.
xcvii
College senior administrators by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,706) = 11.107, p < .05.
xcviii
College faculty in the classroom by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,786) = 17.663, p < .05.
xcix
College faculty in the classroom by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,713) = 33.625, p < .001.
c
faculty in the classroom by citizenship: 2 (4, N = 2,789) = 12.881, p < .05.
ci
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt valued by other students
in the classroom by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,796) = 28.159, p < .001.
cii
in the classroom by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 2,752) = 32.295, p < .001.
233
ciii
in the classroom by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (12, N = 2,767) = 26.041, p < .05.
civ
in the classroom by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,780) = 48.002, p < .001.
cv
in the classroom by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,706) = 53.302, p < .001.
cvi
in the classroom by first generation status: 2 (4, N = 2,801) = 16.300, p < .01.
cvii
in the classroom by citizenship status: 2 (4, N = 2,783) = 23.901, p < .001.
cviii
outside the classroom by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,776) = 29.473, p < .001.
cix
outside the classroom by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 2,732) = 23.109, p < .01.
cx
outside the classroom by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (12, N = 2,747) = 22.117, p < .05.
cxi
outside the classroom by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,763) = 40.548, p < .001.
cxii
outside the classroom by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,686) = 75.888, p < .001.
cxiii
outside the classroom by citizenship status: 2 (4, N = 2,763) = 9.589, p < .05.
cxiv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who thought that faculty pre-
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,795) =
27.025, p < .001.
cxv
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by racial identity: 2 (20, N = 2,736) =
56.057, p < .001.
cxvi
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 2,752) =
18.275, p < .05.
cxvii
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (12,
N = 2,767) = 29.945, p < .01.
cxviii
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,780) =
28.262, p < .001.
cxix
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by income status: 2 (4, N = 2.704) =
13.492, p < .01.
cxx
judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by citizenship status: 2 (4, N = 2,782) =
27.339, p < .001.
cxxi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who believed that the campus
climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,796) = 28.159, p <
.001.
cxxii
.001.
cxxiii
.001.
cxxiv
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt valued by other
students in the classroom by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (12, N = 2,767) = 26.041, p < .05.
234
cxxv
students in the classroom by disability status: 2 (8, N = 2,780) = 48.002, p < .001.
cxxvi
students in the classroom by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,706) = 53.302, p < .001.
cxxvii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt they have faculty
whom they perceive as role models by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 2,760) = 17.048, p < .05.
cxxviii
whom they perceive as role models by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,712) = 12.719, p < .05.
cxxix
whom they perceive as role models by first generation status: 2 (4, N = 2,808) = 13.626, p < .01.
cxxx
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt they have staff whom
they perceive as role models by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (12, N = 2,772) = 29.804, p < .01.
cxxxi
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt they have staff whom
they perceive as role models by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,709) = 18.189, p < .01.
235
Students Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving Ithaca College
Thirty-six percent (n = 1,387) of respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College.
With regard to student status, 31% (n = 824) of Undergraduate Student respondents and 19% (n
= 30) of Graduate Student respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College. Of the
Student respondents who considered leaving, 75% (n = 636) considered leaving in their first year
as a student, 43% (n = 368) in their second year, 14% (n = 118) in their third year, and 5% (n =
42) in their fourth year.
Subsequent analyses were run for both Undergraduate Student respondents and Graduate Student
respondents who had considered leaving Ithaca College by gender identity, racial identity, sexual
identity, religious/spiritual identity, disability status, citizenship, income status, and first-
generation status.
Significant results for Undergraduate Student respondents indicated that:

• By gender identity, 49% (n = 37) of Transspectrum Student respondents, 32% (n = 262)
of Men Student respondents, and 30% (n = 524) of Women Student respondents
considered leaving the institution. cxxxii
• By racial identity, 34% (n = 49) of Asian/Asian American Undergraduate Student
respondents, 44% (n = 57) of Black/African American Student respondents, 40% (n = 45)
of Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ Undergraduate Students, 38% (n = 97) of Multiracial
Undergraduate Student respondents, 37% (n = 11) of Undergraduate Student respondents
who are Additional People of Color, and 28% (n = 537) White Undergraduate Students
considered leaving the institution. cxxxiii
• By sexual identity, 37% (n = 187) of LGBQ Undergraduate Student respondents, 28% (n
= 9) of Asexual Undergraduate Student respondents, and 30% (n = 616) of Heterosexual
Undergraduate Student respondents considered leaving the institution.cxxxiv
• By religious/spiritual identity, 26% (n = 277) of Christian Affiliated Student respondents,
29% (n = 86) of Student respondents from an Additional Faith Base, 35% (n = 397) of
Student respondents with No Affiliation, and 37% (n = 54) of Student respondents from
Multiple Affiliations considered leaving the institution. cxxxv
236
• By disability status, 44% (n = 73) of Undergraduate Student respondents with Multiple

Disabilities, 40% (n = 124) of Undergraduate Student respondents with a Single
Disability, and 29% (n = 623) of Undergraduate Student respondents with No Disability
considered leaving the institution. cxxxvi
• By first-generation status, 41% (n = 87) of First-Generation Student respondents and 30%
(n = 737) of Not First-Generation Student respondents considered leaving the institution.
cxxxvii
Fifty-two percent (n = 447) of Student respondents who considered leaving suggested that they
lacked a sense of belonging at Ithaca College (Table 93). Others considered leaving for financial
reasons (37%, n = 314), lack of social life (36%, n = 303), and/or for lack of support group
(26%, n = 221).
Table 93. Reasons Why Student Respondents Considered Leaving Ithaca College
Reason n %
Financial reasons 314 36.8
Lack of social life 303 35.5
Lack of support group 221 25.9
Climate was not welcoming 219 25.6
Homesick 204 23.9
Didn’t like major 159 18.6
Coursework not challenging enough 120 14.1
Lack of support services 119 13.9
Didn’t have my major 60 7.0
Coursework was too difficult 55 6.4
My marital/relationship status 30 3.5
Didn’t meet the selection criteria for a major 17 2.0

Note: Table reports only Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving Ithaca College (n = 854).
237
Figure 50 illustrates that 7% (n = 191) of Undergraduate Student respondents thought that it was
likely that they would leave Ithaca College. Subsequent analyses were run for Undergraduate
Student respondents who thought that they would likely leave Ithaca College by gender
identity,cxxxviii racial identity,cxxxix sexual identity,cxl religious/spiritual identity, disability status,
income status,cxli first-generation status,cxlii and citizenship.cxliii The analyses yielded significant
results for all demographic groups except sexual identity and disability status.
Not-First-Generation (n = 2,447) 7
First-Generation (n = 214) 9
Not-Low-Income (n = 2,318) 7
Low-Income (n = 250) 9
Asexual (n = 32) 13
Heterosexual (n = 2,084) 12
LGBQ (n = 499) 5
White (n = 1,150) 6
Additional Person of Color (n = 30) 7
Multiracial (n = 256) 7
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (n = 112) 12
Black/African American (n = 132) 8
Asian/Asian American (n = 142) 8
Transgender (n = 76) 3
Man (n = 829) 8
Woman (n = 1,751) 7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 50. Undergraduate Student Respondents Who “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed” That It Is
Likely That They Will Leave Ithaca College (%)
Eight hundred twenty respondents elaborated on why they seriously considered Ithaca College.
Among those respondents, 461 were Undergraduate and Graduate Student respondents, 148 were
Faculty (including Tenure-Track, Non-Tenure-Track, Part-time/Adjunct, Pre-doctoral/Post-
238
doctoral, and Senior Administrators with Faculty Rank) respondents, and 211 were Staff
(including Staff and Senior Administrators without Faculty Rank) respondents.
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Concerns about Academics: One theme
that emerged among the 445 Undergraduate and 16 Graduate Student respondents was concerns
about their academics and major. Some respondents questioned their choice of major or stated
that their intended major was not offered at Ithaca. As one Undergraduate Student respondent
stated, “I was struggling to find a degree program that I fit into well.” Other responses from
Undergraduate students included, “I came into college thinking I wanted to do business but I
found out I hate business and there is not anything else here that fits my interests,” “I wanted to
switch my major and I wasn't sure if I could switch into the major I wanted here,” and “Prior to
majoring in Exercise Science, I had wanted to pursue Linguistics, which is not offered here but at
other schools such as SUNY Binghamton.” Another Graduate student respondent stated, “I felt
that I was in the wrong major and having a hard time connecting to students in my classes. Once
I switched to a major I liked I felt I fit in much better with more welcoming staff and
classmates.”
Other Student respondents felt unhappy with the quality of academics at Ithaca. One aspect of
academics that Undergraduate Student respondents pointed out was the ICC program. The
respondents felt that the ICC was “absurd” and that they were “being forced to take classes that
do not pertain to my major.” Undergraduate Student respondents elaborated and stated, “If I had
known about the ICC prior to coming to Ithaca College, I would simply not be attending. A 28-
credit requirement is absolutely absurd and does not prepare students to be successful in life,”
“You can pretty much talk to any student and they'll tell you how much of a pain the ICC is and
how restrictive it is, keeping me from taking classes that matter to me,” and “Instead of taking
class for ICC, I should be able to explore classes for my major and have minor as my interest.”
Finally, Student respondents reported feeling that their environment was “enormously
pretentious” and “a hostile environment,” which led them to feeling as though the quality of their
education was “significantly worse” than other institutions. As one Undergraduate Student
respondent stated, “The Journalism department is not what it was advertised as. There is no
academic rigor involved in it and it was extremely disappointing.” Another Undergraduate
239
Student respondent wrote, “The academic environment here is enormously pretentious. A good
portion of my faculty think far too highly of themselves and see their opinion as the only correct
one.” Other responses included, “The coursework that I took freshman year was not challenging
enough,” “In the classroom, professors do not challenge their students,” and “I didn't think the
people on campus was academically challenging me and didn't provide the support I wanted.”
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Issues within the Community: When asked
to elaborate on why they considered leaving, another theme that emerged was having concerns or
issues with various individuals within the institution. These included roommates, other students,
professors, advisors, and staff. As one Undergraduate Student respondent stated, “I didn’t like
my advisor” while others wrote “My roommate was racist,” and “I didn’t have any friends.”
Many Student respondents reported feeling ostracized by individuals within the community due
to being a person of color. As one Undergraduate Student respondent elaborated and wrote, “I
felt like the community was not ready to deal with someone with my identity. I felt like 90% of
my professors treated me weirdly and spoke to me like I was stupid because I’m an international
student. I felt unsafe - no professor really created a safe space.” Another Undergraduate Student
respondent explained how being a person of color impacted their ability to make friends and
wrote, “I also felt like my color was getting in the way of my ability to make friends. I'm already
an odd individual, to be black on top of that. I felt like if I wasn't black it would've been easier
because maybe people wouldn't have been as afraid of me or afraid of offending me.” Another
Undergraduate Student respondent explained in the following, “The campus is beautiful, but the
people here are terrible. Especially if you don't come from a high social class and aren't white.
As a biracial woman, I feel I do not fit in based on how I was raised and the lack of money I
possess. For my major, most of the teachers are terrible and the rubric for any class in IC is
‘Let’s throw a ton of work on them and make it super difficult, and just act like we are actually
giving them a good education.’” Overall, the Student respondents felt that they could not connect
with people on campus, and therefore felt that “Ithaca seems to not care about me at all.”
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Sense of Belonging: The Student

respondents also explained how Ithaca “didn’t feel like the right place” and that Ithaca was “not
a supported or inclusive environment.” Many Student respondents felt isolated as a person of
color, as explained by the following responses. “Coming from a poor background as well being a
240
person of color, I began to feel isolated in predominantly white upper-class atmospheres.” I
“didn’t feel like I belonged. Not many people like me or from low income inner city
communities like me,” and “I felt like I did not fit into the Ithaca College atmosphere as a Latino
student.” Beyond race, the Student respondents felt that they had trouble “finding my place” and
therefore felt that the campus was “unwelcoming.” As one Undergraduate Student respondent
explained, “I didn't feel like 100% welcomed on campus and couldn't be my authentic self. I feel
as if I'm being watched and I don't believe people agree with my choices. I also didn't feel a
sense of welcoming in the town of Ithaca as well and I'm more interested in a metropolitan
college town.” Finally, a Graduate Student respondent explained, “I never truly felt a part of
anything on Ithaca's campus. I had no problems making friends and was happy with the friends
and extracurriculars I did however, I never felt a sense of true belonging to Ithaca.”
Undergraduate and Graduate Student Respondents – Financial Cost of Attending: Another

theme that emerged that led Student respondents to seriously consider leaving was the high cost
of attending Ithaca. The respondents explained how the cost to attend and lack of financial aid
made it difficult to continue their education at Ithaca. As one Undergraduate Student respondent
explained, “There have been times where I question the price tag of the Ithaca College education.
I have felt that I am not getting a $50,000+ education.” Other Undergraduate Student
respondents wrote, “I am going into debt trying to stay at a private institution when I could have
and can still go to a public and receive the same if not better educational experience at a much
more affordable cost,” “I literally cannot afford to pay the tuition that I owe, and if I do not
receive the Park Scholarship (which I am applying to later in the year), then I cannot return to
Ithaca College for my junior and senior years,” and “I absolutely love Ithaca, but I'm unsure if
financially I am able to stay here for the next four years.” An Undergraduate Student respondent
explained the difficulty in securing financial aid combined with the high cost of attending, and
wrote, “I am a female student from a middle-class background. I can only afford to be here for
the first two years of college. The rest, I will be in debt for. My family has only one working
parent (who is disabled) but she brings in just enough income that FAFSA doesn't give us money
but doesn't bring in enough money to pay for school fully. My grades are great but they aren't
great enough to get me any stellar scholarships. I have been applying for scholarships ever since
I came here in 2015 and I have only received the standard help. We are to rich to be poor but to
poor to be rich. I cannot put this burden on my parents or myself either for I am a film major and
241
that is not a secure job.” Overall, the cost of attending Ithaca left Student respondents
questioning whether or not “it was worth all that money.”
cxxxii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who had
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College by gender identity: 2 (2, N = 2,663) = 12.333, p < .01.
cxxxiii
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College by racial identity: 2 (5, N = 2,603) = 29.861, p < .001.
cxxxiv
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College by sexual identity: 2 (2, N = 2,622) = 11.490, p < .01.
cxxxv
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College by religious/spiritual identity: 2 (3, N = 2,635) = 21.407, p < .001.
cxxxvi
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College by disability status: 2 (2, N = 2,650) = 32.057, p < .001.
cxxxvii
seriously considered leaving Ithaca College by first-generation status: 2 (1, N = 2,668) = 10.055, p < .001.
cxxxviii
A chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who thought it
was likely they will leave Ithaca College by gender identity: 2 (8, N = 2,656) = 20.061, p < .01.
cxxxix
was likely they will leave Ithaca College by racial identity: 2 (20, N = 2,596) = 66.295, p < .001.
cxl
was likely they will leave Ithaca College by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 2,615) = 17.589, p < .05.
cxli
was likely they will leave Ithaca College by income status: 2 (4, N = 2,568) = 18.685, p < .001.
cxlii
was likely they will leave Ithaca College by first-generation status: 2 (4, N = 2,661) = 13.258, p < .01.
cxliii
was likely they will leave Ithaca College by citizenship: 2 (4, N = 2,645) = 31.858, p < .001.
242
Summary
Seventy-percent (n = 2,659) of the survey respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable”

with the climate at Ithaca College. Sixty-eight percent (n = 672) of Faculty and Staff respondents
were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units.
Eighty-three percent (n = 2,733) of Student respondents and Faculty respondents were “very
comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes.
unwanted sexual conduct, with 2% (n = 57) experiencing relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed,
controlling, hitting), 2% (n = 88) experiencing stalking (e.g., following me, on social media,
texting, phone calls), 8% (n = 285) experiencing unwanted sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling,
repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment), and 3% (n = 125) experiencing unwanted sexual
contact (e.g. fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent, or gang rape) while a
member of the Ithaca College community. Of note, the largest percentage of occurrences of any
unwanted sexual assault happened each fall semester or first term. Unwanted sexual contact
largely went unreported to authorities.
Thirty-six percent (n = 1,387) of respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College.
With regard to employee position status, 49.4% (n = 230) of Faculty respondents and 57.4% (n =
303) of Staff respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College in the past year. By
student status, 31% (n = 824) of Undergraduate Student respondents and 19% (n = 30) of
Graduate Student respondents had seriously considered leaving Ithaca College. Of the Student
respondents who considered leaving, 75% (n = 636) considered leaving in their first year as a
student, 43% (n = 368) in their second year, 14% (n = 118) in their third year, and 5% (n = 42) in
their fourth year.
243
Institutional Actions
In addition to campus constituents’ personal experiences and perceptions of the campus climate,
the number and quality of the institutions’ diversity-related actions may be perceived either as
promoting a positive campus climate or impeding it. As the following data suggest, respondents
hold divergent opinions about the degree to which Ithaca College does, and should, promote
diversity to shape campus climate.
The survey asked Faculty respondents to indicate how they thought that various initiatives
influenced the climate at Ithaca College if they were currently available and how, if they were
not currently available, those initiatives would influence the climate if they were available (Table
94). Respondents were asked to decide whether the institutional actions positively or negatively
influenced the climate, or if they have no influence on the climate.
Sixty-six percent (n = 266) of the Faculty respondents thought that flexibility for calculating the
tenure clock was available and 35% (n = 140) of Faculty respondents thought that flexibility for
calculating the tenure clock was not available. Seventy-one percent (n = 189) of the Faculty
respondents who thought that such flexibility was available believed it positively influenced the
climate and 78% (n = 109) of Faculty respondents who did not think it was available thought it
would positively influence the climate if it were available.
Fifty-five percent (n = 141) of the Faculty respondents thought that recognition and rewards for
including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum were available and 45% (n = 184) of
Faculty respondents thought that they were not available. Sixty-two percent (n = 141) of the
Faculty respondents who thought that recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in
courses across the curriculum were available believed that they positively influenced the climate
and 59% (n = 108) of Faculty respondents who thought they were not available thought
recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum would
positively influence the climate if they were available.
Eighty percent (n = 336) of the Faculty respondents thought that diversity, inclusivity, and equity
training for faculty was available and 20% (n = 84) of Faculty respondents thought that such
244
training for faculty was not available. Sixty-nine percent (n = 232) of the Faculty respondents
who thought that diversity, inclusivity, and equity training for faculty was available believed it
positively influenced the climate and 77% (n = 65) of Faculty respondents who did not think it
was available thought it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
Sixty percent (n = 253) of the Faculty respondents thought that tool kits for faculty to create an
inclusive classroom environment were available and 40% (n = 171) of Faculty respondents
thought that such tool kits were not available. Sixty-eight percent (n = 171) of the Faculty
respondents who thought that tool kits for faculty to create an inclusive classroom environment
were available believed they positively influenced the climate and 78% (n = 134) of Faculty
respondents who did not think they were available thought they would positively influence the
climate if they were available.
Fifty-nine percent (n = 238) of the Faculty respondents thought that supervisory training for
faculty was available and 41% (n = 168) of Faculty respondents thought that it was not available.
Sixty-two percent (n = 147) of the Faculty respondents who thought that supervisory training for
faculty was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 61% (n = 103) of Faculty
respondents who did not think supervisory training for faculty was available thought it would
positively influence the climate if it were available.
Eighty percent (n = 329) of the Faculty respondents thought that access to counseling for people
who had experienced harassment was available and 20% (n = 80) of Faculty respondents thought
that such counseling was not available. Ninety-two percent (n = 301) of the Faculty respondents
who thought that access to counseling for people who had experienced harassment was available
believed it positively influenced the climate and 89% (n = 71) of Faculty respondents who did
not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
Seventy-one percent (n = 301) of the Faculty respondents thought that mentorship for new
faculty was available and 29% (n = 122) of Faculty respondents thought that faculty mentorship
was not available. Ninety-one percent (n = 276) of the Faculty respondents who thought that
mentorship for new faculty was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 92%
245
(n = 112) of Faculty respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively
influence the climate if it were available.
Sixty percent (n = 244) of the Faculty respondents thought that a clear process to resolve
conflicts was available and 40% (n = 163) of Faculty respondents thought that such a process
was not available. Eighty-four percent (n = 206) of the Faculty respondents who thought that a
clear process to resolve conflicts was available believed it positively influenced the climate and
90% (n = 146) of Faculty respondents who did not think it was available thought it would
Sixty-one percent (n = 247) of the Faculty respondents thought that a fair process to resolve
conflicts was available and 40% (n = 161) of Faculty respondents thought that such a process
was not available. Eighty-six percent (n = 212) of the Faculty respondents who thought that a fair
process to resolve conflicts was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 91%
(n = 148) of Faculty respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively
Sixty percent (n = 243) of the Faculty respondents thought that including diversity-related
professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available and 40%
(n = 165) of Faculty respondents thought that it was not available at Ithaca College. Fifty-three
percent (n = 129) of the Faculty respondents who thought that including diversity-related
professional experiences as both one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available
believed it positively influenced the climate and 50% (n = 82) of Faculty respondents who did
Seventy-two percent (n = 295) of the Faculty respondents thought that equity and diversity
training for search, promotion, and tenure committees was available at Ithaca College and 28%
(n = 117) of Faculty respondents thought that it was not available. Sixty-eight percent (n = 199)
of the Faculty respondents who thought that equity and diversity training for search, promotion,
and tenure committees was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 71% (n =
246
83) of Faculty respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively
Fifty-nine percent (n = 243) of the Faculty respondents thought that career-span development
opportunities for faculty were available and 41% (n = 168) of Faculty respondents thought that
they were not available. Eighty-two percent (n = 200) of the Faculty respondents who thought
that career-span development opportunities for faculty were available believed they positively
influenced the climate and 92% (n = 154) of Faculty respondents who did not think they
available thought they would positively influence the climate if they were available.
Forty-two percent (n = 174) of the Faculty respondents thought that affordable child care was
available at Ithaca College and 54% (n = 237) of Faculty respondents thought that it was not
available. Eighty-three percent (n = 144) of the Faculty respondents who thought that affordable
child care was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 93% (n = 220) of
Faculty respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the
climate if it were available.
Forty-six percent (n = 187) of the Faculty respondents thought that support/resources for
spouse/partner employment were available and 54% (n = 221) of Faculty respondents thought
that they were not available. Eighty-one percent (n = 151) of the Faculty respondents who
thought that support/resources for spouse/partner employment were available believed they
positively influenced the climate and 89% (n = 197) of Faculty respondents who did not think
they was available thought they would positively influence the climate if they were available.
247
Table 94. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Initiative available at Ithaca College Initiative NOT available at Ithaca College
Total Total
respondents Would Would respondents
Positively Has no Negatively who believe positively Would have negatively who believe
influences influence influences initiative is influence no influence influence initiative is
climate on climate climate available climate on climate climate not available
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Providing flexibility for
calculating the tenure clock. 189 71.1 68 25.6 9 3.4 266 65.5 109 77.9 20 14.3 11 7.9 140 34.5
Providing recognition and
rewards for including diversity
issues in courses across the
curriculum. 141 62.4 53 23.5 32 14.2 226 55.1 108 58.7 56 30.4 20 10.9 184 44.9
Providing diversity, inclusivity,
equity training for faculty. 232 69.0 85 25.3 19 5.7 336 80.0 65 77.4 13 15.5 6 7.1 84 20.0
Providing faculty with tool-kits
to create an inclusive
classroom environment. 171 67.6 75 29.6 7 2.8 253 59.7 134 78.4 30 17.5 7 4.1 171 40.3
Providing faculty with
supervisory training. 147 61.8 76 31.9 15 6.3 238 58.6 103 61.3 52 31.0 13 7.7 168 41.4
Providing access to counseling
for people who have
experienced harassment. 301 91.5 27 8.2 <5 --- 329 80.4 71 88.8 5 6.3 <5 --- 80 19.6
Providing mentorship for new
faculty. 276 90.8 27 8.9 <5 --- 304 71.4 112 91.8 7 5.7 <5 --- 122 28.6
Providing a clear process to
resolve conflicts. 206 84.4 38 15.6 0 0.0 244 60.0 146 89.6 13 8.0 <5 --- 163 40.0
Providing a fair process to
resolve conflicts. 212 85.8 34 13.8 <5 --- 247 60.5 148 91.9 10 6.2 <5 --- 161 39.5
248
Table 94. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives
Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Including diversity-related
professional experiences as one
of the criteria for hiring of
staff/faculty. 129 53.1 64 26.3 50 20.6 243 59.6 82 49.7 35 21.2 48 29.1 165 40.4
Providing equity and diversity
training to search, promotion,
and tenure committees. 199 67.5 77 26.1 19 6.4 295 71.6 83 70.9 21 17.9 13 11.1 117 28.4
Providing career span
development opportunities for
faculty at all ranks. 200 82.3 41 16.9 <5 --- 243 59.1 154 91.7 12 7.1 <5 --- 168 40.9
Providing affordable childcare. 144 82.8 27 15.5 <5 --- 174 42.3 220 92.8 10 4.2 7 3.0 237 57.7
Providing support/resources for
spouse/partner employment. 151 80.7 32 17.1 <5 --- 187 45.8 197 89.1 18 8.1 6 2.7 221 54.2
249
A total of 82 Faculty respondents elaborated on institutional actions. The major theme that
emerged was the need for more diversity initiatives.
Diversity Initiatives: Respondents had a wide range of opinions about diversity initiatives on
campus. Some expressed that “you are beating diversity to death and not focusing on the quality
of the education we are providing.” As one Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent wrote,
“Forcing diversity down the throats of faculty, staff, and students will not make for a more
diverse campus. People on campus will become immune to the words ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’
and they will not carry any clout or meaning.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent stated,
“I think we are going overboard with the diversity initiatives. They are all cosmetic and do not
have an effect on the underlying climate which is a result of WHO is on campus -- namely, we
are an enclave of rich kids (mostly white, mostly American). No amount of training and
recognition events will solve diversity issues. These have to be resolved by changing the
demographics of our population. Also, no one admits it, but most diversity initiatives are geared
towards having more African American people on campus. We are giving very short thrift to
other ‘classes’ including: foreigners (we are very ethnocentric), and poor people. In some cases,
(especially in hiring), diversity initiatives are actually hurting us in terms of selecting for best
performance (academic excellence). We end up selecting for who people are (i.e. black) rather
than for being the best at what they're here to do. An additional downside all these new
initiatives is administrative overreach and micromanagement of the educational enterprise.
Administration should not abet the tendency of some academics to blow this issue out of
proportion (as is currently happening).” On the other hand, respondents also felt Ithaca could do
more to provide “support for students who are underprivileged and for students whose first
language is not English” and believed that “the college is taking positive steps to improve
diversity issues.”
Respondents had a variety of opinions about diversity training and its effectiveness. Some
respondents felt that Ithaca could do more, as the following Faculty Tenure-Track respondent
stated, “requiring diversity related training for departments chairs every semester would help.
Also, adding in diversity related training as criteria for hiring, and ensuring thorough and
detailed training in diversity training in hiring and tenure committees would help.” Other
respondents thought that they were overloaded with diversity training. One Faculty Tenure-Track
250
respondent wrote, “While I think diversity training can have a positive influence on the campus’
climate, it has felt like overload over the past 8-10 months. I am saturated with diversity
training!” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent stated that diversity training was “well
intended but mostly for show.” Further the respondent wrote “I heard we were going to get some
diversity training, but then heard it was only required for staff. The students are right, faculty
need it too.” Faculty respondents also felt that the trainings were ineffective, as illustrated by the
following Non-Tenure-Track respondent. “I have attended the diversity trainings in many
different places. In many cases, it seems that it pushes feelings down deeper but does not solve
anything, creating underlying hostility and then resentment by the participants for having to
spend the time ‘learning how to work with other groups. My fear is that those main groups resent
the minority groups who are the ‘cause’ of the trainings. Further, everyone is so hyper vigilant at
those trainings that sometimes it feels it just makes people hyper-sensitive rather than informed
and aware. The training that took place in the school of music with the group from Cornell was
quite good, one of the best I've seen. If trainings could be more like that I would be less wary of
them.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “The equity and diversity training to
search, promotion, and tenure committees and the mentorship provided to new faculty are not
very good, in my experience.” Other Faculty respondent comments that illustrated the sentiment
that the diversity training was ineffective included “Diversity and inclusion training for faculty
discusses issues in an abstract way. We sit in these sessions and talk about "what ifs" but these
discussions don't include students, and we aren't discussing the day-to-day issues such as how
asking a student (of any race, ability, gender, etc) to complete a task in class ISN'T an -ism, but
an expectation of performance unrelated to diversity or inclusion,” and “Forcing diversity
training, or giving special privilege to those with diversity classes, only serves to create more
walls.”
251
The survey asked Staff respondents (n = 528) to respond regarding similar initiatives, which are
listed in Table 95. Ninety-five percent (n = 483) of the Staff respondents thought that diversity,
inclusivity, and equity training for students was available at Ithaca College and 5% (n = 24) of
Staff respondents thought that it was not available. Seventy-three percent (n = 353) of the Staff
respondents who thought that diversity, inclusivity, and equity training for students was available
believed that it positively influenced the climate and 50% (n = 12) of Staff respondents who did
Eighty-five percent (n = 420) of the Staff respondents thought that access to counseling for
people who had experienced harassment was available at Ithaca College and 16% (n = 77) of
Staff respondents thought that such access to counseling was not available. Ninety percent (n =
378) of the Staff respondents who thought that access to counseling for people who had
experienced harassment was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 77% (n =
59) of Staff respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence
the climate if it were available.
Eighty-four percent (n = 414) of the Staff respondents thought that supervisory training for
supervisors/managers was available and 16% (n = 81) of Staff respondents thought that such
training was not available. Eighty-three percent (n = 342) of the Staff respondents who thought
that supervisory training for supervisors/managers was available believed it positively influenced
the climate and 78% (n = 63) of Staff respondents who did not think it was available thought it
Seventy percent (n = 327) of the Staff respondents thought that supervisory training for faculty
was available and 30% (n = 138) of Staff respondents thought that such training was not
available. Eighty percent (n = 260) of the Staff respondents who thought that supervisory
training for faculty was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 82% (n = 113)
of Staff respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the
climate if it were available.
252
Fifty-three percent (n = 263) of the Staff respondents thought that mentorship for new staff was
available and 47% (n = 231) of Staff respondents thought that staff mentorship was not available.
Eighty-eight percent (n = 232) of the Staff respondents who thought that mentorship for new
staff was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 89% (n = 205) of Staff
respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate
if it were available.
Fifty-seven percent (n = 275) of the Staff respondents thought that a clear process to resolve
conflicts was available at Ithaca College and 43% (n = 205) of Staff respondents thought that
such a process was not available. Eighty-seven percent (n = 238) of the Staff respondents who
thought that a clear process to resolve conflicts was available believed it positively influenced
the climate and 87% (n = 179) of Staff respondents who did not think it was available thought it
Fifty-eight percent (n = 274) of the Staff respondents thought that a fair process to resolve
conflicts was available at Ithaca College and 42% (n = 201) of Staff respondents thought that
such a process was not available. Eighty-seven percent (n = 237) of the Staff respondents who
thought that a fair process to resolve conflicts was available believed it positively influenced the
climate and 89% (n = 178) of Staff respondents who did not think it was available thought it
Sixty-three percent (n = 302) of the Staff respondents thought that including diversity-related
professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available and 37%
(n = 176) of Staff respondents thought that it was not available. Sixty-three percent (n = 189) of
the Staff respondents who thought that including diversity-related professional experiences as
one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available believed it positively influenced the
climate and 59% (n = 104) of Staff respondents who did not think it was available thought it
Seventy-five percent (n = 375) of the Staff respondents thought that career development
opportunities for staff were available and 25% (n = 125) of Staff respondents thought that they
253
were not available. Eighty-nine percent (n = 333) of the Staff respondents who thought that
career development opportunities for staff were available believed it positively influenced the
climate and 89% (n = 111) of Staff respondents who did not think such opportunities were
available thought it would positively influence the climate if they were available.
Forty percent (n = 190) of the Staff respondents thought that affordable child care was available
at Ithaca College and 60% (n = 289) of Staff respondents thought that it was not available.
Eighty percent (n = 152) of the Staff respondents who thought that affordable child care was
available believed it positively influenced the climate and 83% (n = 241) of Staff respondents
who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate if it were
available.
Forty-eight percent (n = 223) of the Staff respondents thought that support/resources for
spouse/partner employment were available and 52% (n = 245) of Staff respondents thought that
they were not available. Seventy-four percent (n = 165) of the Staff respondents who thought that
support/resources for spouse/partner employment was available believed it positively influenced
the climate and 76% (n = 185) of Staff respondents who did not think they were available
thought they would positively influence the climate if they were available.
254
Table 95. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Providing diversity and equity
training for staff. 353 73.1 110 22.8 20 4.1 483 95.3 12 50.0 6 25.0 6 25.0 24 4.7
Providing access to counseling
for people who have
experienced harassment. 378 90.0 39 9.3 <5 --- 420 84.5 59 76.6 6 7.8 12 15.6 77 15.5
Providing
supervisors/managers with
supervisory training. 342 82.6 68 16.4 <5 --- 414 83.6 63 77.8 12 14.8 6 7.4 81 16.4
Providing faculty supervisors
with supervisory training. 260 79.5 63 19.3 <5 --- 327 70.3 113 81.9 16 11.6 9 6.5 138 29.7
staff. 232 88.2 27 10.3 <5 --- 263 53.2 205 88.7 17 7.4 9 3.9 231 46.8
resolve conflicts. 238 86.5 32 11.6 5 1.8 275 57.3 179 87.3 11 5.4 15 7.3 205 42.7
Providing a fair process to
resolve conflicts. 237 86.5 33 12.0 <5 --- 274 57.7 178 88.6 7 3.5 16 8.0 201 42.3
Considering diversity-related
professional experiences as one
of the criteria for hiring of
staff/faculty. 189 62.6 79 26.2 34 11.3 302 63.2 104 59.1 52 29.5 20 11.4 176 36.8
Providing career development
opportunities for staff. 333 88.8 37 9.9 5 1.3 375 75.0 111 88.8 5 4.0 9 7.2 125 25.0
Providing affordable childcare. 152 80.0 32 16.8 6 3.2 190 39.7 241 83.4 36 12.5 12 4.2 289 60.3
255
Table 95. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives
Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
spouse/partner employment. 165 74.0 51 22.9 7 3.1 223 47.6 185 75.5 44 18.0 16 6.5 245 52.4
256
A total of 86 Staff respondents elaborated the impact of institutional actions on campus climate.
The major theme that emerged was the impact of diversity initiatives with a secondary theme of
needed childcare.
Impact of Diversity Initiatives: Staff respondents had a variety of opinions about the
effectiveness of diversity initiatives on campus, ranging from those who felt that they were not
effective (“Diversity training has turned into checking the box to make sure you have done it and
not really moving the campus culture to change practices.”) to those who thought they had a
positive impact (“I thought the diversity training workshops offered last year were excellent.”) In
addition, Staff respondents felt that diversity training should not only be required for staff but
also for faculty. Staff respondents commented, “Need more diversity and cultural competency
ongoing training for FACULTY at all levels, new faculty and tenured faculty. They should not
be exempted from this training since many of them could use basic training and then on-going
annual training. Not just a one and done training.” “The diversity training has provided me with
insight of other's feelings, but I think that since it is mandatory for staff to take the training and
elective for faculty is silly. Faculty have far more interaction with the student body and should be
aware of problems they are facing both inside and outside the classroom.” “Faculty seriously
need diversity/inclusion/sensitivity training. They are never required to attend the training that
staff/administrators do and yet they have the biggest influence over the climate due to their time
with the students. The Senior Administration needs to stop assuming that the faculty's level of
education has somehow removed their personal prejudices is ridiculous. Faculty need mandated
diversity/inclusion training.” “Why on earth do you not have a category for providing diversity
and equity training for FACULTY?! This is where the students say they encounter racist/classist,
etc. behavior the most? I'm appalled.” “I find it odd that diversity training is required for staff,
but not faculty; yet faculty issues related to diversity and inclusion seem to be at the top of the
complaint pile. We don’t mandate training for faculty because they don't respond well to
mandates. This has been stated by HR, CDO and others. Training should be required for ALL
that work at Ithaca College.”
Staff respondents also elaborated on how diversity initiatives were impacting HR and hiring.
Staff respondents felt that diversity should not be used in hiring, as illustrated by the following
comment. “I considered this to be a ‘discriminatory’ criteria for hiring: Considering diversity-
257
related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty.” Similar
commented included, “I am all for considering diversity related profession experiences as a
hiring criteria as long as candidates have an appropriate skill set and background to do the job on
a daily basis.” “I feel diversity related criteria being pushed so much from HR is hurting the
quality of hires. If a person is more qualified they are passed over for a less qualified diverse
candidate it's not right and it will effect a quality of our students education in the long run. The
most qualified skilled person should be who we want to hire at our institution PERIOD,” and
“While it's very important to eliminate bias in hiring, for the sake of our students we need to
ensure that we are hiring the most capable individuals regardless of their demographics. I have
not seen cases where we've hired poor candidates for demographic reasons, but have felt some
pressure to do so.”
Finally, several Staff respondents felt that diversity training should not be required. “Diversity
requirements/training is ridiculous to be mandatory. If there's an issue with somebody, they
should be required. Taking away valuable time for something so common sense is VERY
annoying to me and makes me feel like I don't treat people fairly, which I know I do.”
“Providing diversity and equity training for faculty/staff is fine but should not be made
mandatory.”
Childcare: Staff respondents felt that on campus childcare would improve the climate. One Staff
respondent explained the impact of childcare and wrote, “I think helping the employees with
their childcare needs and other immediate daily concerns will have the greatest impact, it
improves their quality of life, mood improves, investment in the employer.” Another Staff
respondent explained, “Ithaca College's campus is isolated. This makes going to work with
children very difficult, particularly if you are a single parent, or have lower income, do not live
within close distance to the campus, do not have a car, or who has job with irregular weekday
hours and weekend shifts. I have heard the on-campus childcare has been suggested by
innumerous faculty and staff over the past 30 years and that it still remains an issue. As a young
professional considering parenting in my future, this lack of opportunity or resolution is a major
factor in my hesitance to remain at the college. My partner works at Cornell in a similar position
with a better salary, better benefits, better working atmosphere, and more opportunities for
advancement.” Finally, one Staff respondent explained the impact of providing childcare.
258
“Providing affordable childcare would benefit everyone even those without children so parents
can be allowed to work without putting any additional pressure on their childless colleagues.
Also, most parents of lower social economic status and people of color are disproportionately
disadvantaged when childcare is an issue in their lives. It would create a friendlier attitude on
campus and allow for more diversity in the workplace if IC is seen as a family friendly place that
takes care of their workers and understands single mothers and people of color may need more
child care assistance.”
259
Student respondents (n = 2,829) also were asked in the survey to respond regarding a similar list
of initiatives, provided in Table 96. Seventy-two percent (n = 1,930) of the Student respondents
thought that that diversity, inclusivity, and equity training for students was available at Ithaca
College and 28% (n = 744) of Student respondents thought that it was not available. Seventy-
eight percent (n = 1,495) of the Student respondents who thought that that diversity, inclusivity,
and equity training for students was available believed it positively influenced the climate and
80% (n = 594) of Student respondents who did not think it was available thought it would
Seventy-six percent (n = 2,018) of the Student respondents thought that that diversity,
inclusivity, and equity training for staff was available at Ithaca College and 24% (n = 631) of
Student respondents thought that it was not available. Eighty-one percent (n = 1,638) of the
Student respondents who thought that that diversity, inclusivity, and equity training for staff was
available believed it positively influenced the climate and 86% (n = 543) of Student respondents
available.
Seventy-six percent (n = 1,989) of the Student respondents thought that that diversity,
inclusivity, and equity training for faculty was available at Ithaca College and 24% (n = 625) of
Student respondents thought that it was not available. Eighty-one percent (n = 1,614) of the
Student respondents who thought that that diversity, inclusivity, and equity training for faculty
was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 87% (n = 541) of Student
respondents who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate
if it were available.
Sixty-seven percent (n = 1,749) of the Student respondents thought that a person to address
student complaints of bias by faculty/staff in learning environments (e.g., classrooms, labs) was
available and 33% (n = 854) of Student respondents thought that such a person was not available.
Eighty percent (n = 1,395) of the Student respondents who thought that a person to address
student complaints of bias by faculty/staff in learning environments was available believed such
a resource positively influenced the climate and 85% (n = 725) of Student respondents who did
260
not think such a person was available thought one would positively influence the climate if one
were available.
Sixty-six percent (n = 1,716) of the Student respondents thought that a person to address student
complaints of bias other students in learning environments was available and 34% (n = 888) of
Student respondents thought that such a resource was not available. Seventy-seven percent (n =
1,320) of the Student respondents who thought that a person to address student complaints of
bias other students in learning environments was available believed that resource positively
influenced the climate and 80% (n = 714) of Student respondents who did not think such a
person was available thought one would positively influence the climate if one were available.
Sixty-two percent (n = 1,613) of the Student respondents thought that a person to address student
complaints of bias by supervisors in off-campus learning environments was available and 38%
(n = 977) of Student respondents thought that such a resource was not available. Seventy-five
percent (n = 1,213) of the Student respondents who thought that a person to address student
complaints of bias by supervisors in off-campus learning environments was available believed
that resource positively influenced the climate and 77% (n = 755) of Student respondents who
did not think such a person was available thought one would positively influence the climate if
one were available.
Sixty-two percent (n = 1,588) of the Student respondents thought that a person to address student
complaints of bias by other students in off-campus learning environments was available and 39%
(n = 995) of Student respondents thought that such a resource was not available. Seventy-four
percent (n = 1,180) of the Student respondents who thought that a person to address student
complaints of bias by other students in off-campus learning environments was available believed
that resource positively influenced the climate and 73% (n = 726) of Student respondents who
did not think such a person was available thought one would positively influence the climate if
one were available.
Seventy-one percent (n = 1,839) of the Student respondents thought that increasing opportunities
for cross-cultural dialogue among students were available and 29% (n = 751) of Student
261
respondents thought that increasing opportunities for dialogue were not available. Eighty percent
(n = 1,476) of the Student respondents who thought that increasing opportunities for cross-
cultural dialogue among students were available believed they positively influenced the climate
and 87% (n = 651) of Student respondents who did not think they were available thought they
would positively influence the climate if they were available.
Similarly, 69% (n = 1,789) of the Student respondents thought that increasing opportunities for
cross-cultural dialogue between faculty, staff, and students were available at Ithaca College and
31% (n = 795) of Student respondents thought that increasing opportunities for dialogue were
not available. Eighty percent (n = 1,437) of the Student respondents who thought that increasing
opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue between faculty, staff, and students were available
believed they positively influenced the climate and 88% (n = 696) of Student respondents who
did not think they were available thought they would positively influence the climate if they
were available.
Seventy-one percent (n = 1,831) of the Student respondents thought that incorporating issues of
diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum was available at
Ithaca College and 29% (n = 761) of Student respondents thought that it was not available.
Seventy-seven percent (n = 1,404) of the Student respondents who thought that incorporating
issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum was
available.
Seventy-seven percent (n = 2,018) of the Student respondents thought that effective faculty
mentorship of students was available and 23% (n = 607) of Student respondents thought that it
was not available. Eighty-five percent (n = 1,713) of the Student respondents who thought that
effective faculty mentorship of students was available believed it positively influenced the
climate and 84% (n = 508) of Student respondents who did not think it was available thought
faculty mentorship of students would positively influence the climate if it were available.
262
Eighty-four percent (n = 2,156) of the Student respondents thought that effective academic
advising was available at Ithaca College and 16% (n = 423) of Student respondents thought that
it was not available. Eighty-five percent (n = 1,839) of the Student respondents who thought that
effective academic advising was available believed it positively influenced the climate and 89%
(n = 376) of Student respondents who did not think it was available thought effective academic
advising would positively influence the climate if it were available.
Seventy-five percent (n = 1,931) of the Student respondents thought that diversity/inclusivity

training for student staff (e.g., teaching assistants, lab assistants) was available and 25% (n =
650) of Student respondents thought that it was not available. Eighty percent (n = 1,536) of the
Student respondents who thought that diversity/inclusivity training for student staff was available
believed it positively influenced the climate and 83% (n = 542) of Student respondents who did
Fifty-one percent (n = 1,310) of the Student respondents thought that affordable child care was
available and 49% (n = 1,258) of Student respondents thought that it was not available. Sixty-
seven percent (n = 881) of the Student respondents who thought that affordable child care was
who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate at Ithaca
College if it were available.
Fifty-two percent (n = 1,3116) of the Student respondents thought that adequate child care was
available and 48% (n = 1,234) of Student respondents thought that it was not available. Sixty-
eight percent (n = 893) of the Student respondents who thought that adequate child care was
who did not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate at Ithaca
College if it were available.
Fifty-two percent (n = 1,316) of the Student respondents thought that support/resources for
spouse/partner employment were available and 48% (n = 1,234) of Student respondents thought
that they were not available. Sixty-eight percent (n = 893) of the Student respondents who
263
thought that support/resources for spouse/partner employment were available believed it
positively influenced the climate and 77% (n = 944) of Student respondents who did not think
they were available thought they would positively influence the climate if they were available.
Seventy-one percent (n = 1,823) of the Student respondents thought that social space was
available and 29% (n = 759) of Student respondents thought that it was not available. Eighty-four
percent (n = 1,528) of the Student respondents who thought that social space was available
believed it positively influenced the climate and 86% (n = 654) of Student respondents who did
not think it was available thought it would positively influence the climate at Ithaca College if it
were available.
264
Table 96. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
training for students. 1,495 77.5 393 20.4 42 2.2 1,930 72.2 594 79.8 120 16.1 30 4.0 744 27.8
training for staff. 1,638 81.2 347 17.2 33 1.6 2,018 76.2 543 86.1 56 8.9 32 5.1 631 23.8
training for faculty. 1,614 81.1 340 17.1 35 1.8 1,989 76.1 541 86.6 56 9.0 28 4.5 625 23.9
Providing a person to address
student complaints of bias by
faculty/staff in on campus
learning environments (e.g.
classrooms, labs). 1,395 79.8 310 17.7 44 2.5 1,749 67.2 725 84.9 102 11.9 27 3.2 854 32.8
other students in on campus
learning environments (e.g.
classrooms, labs). 1,320 76.9 339 19.8 57 3.3 1,716 65.9 714 80.4 132 14.9 42 4.7 888 34.1
supervisors in off-campus
learning environments (e.g.,
field experience, internships,
clinical rotations). 1,213 75.2 350 21.7 50 3.1 1,613 62.3 755 77.3 181 18.5 41 4.2 977 37.7
265
Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
other students in off-campus
learning environments (e.g.,
field experience, internships,
clinical rotations). 1,180 74.3 354 22.3 54 3.4 1,588 61.5 726 73.0 220 22.1 49 4.9 995 38.5
Increasing opportunities for
cross-cultural dialogue among
students. 1,476 80.3 324 17.6 39 2.1 1,839 71.0 651 86.7 84 11.2 16 2.1 751 29.0
Increasing opportunities for
cross-cultural dialogue
between faculty, staff and
students. 1,437 80.3 317 17.7 35 2.0 1,789 69.2 696 87.5 83 10.4 16 2.0 795 30.8
Incorporating issues of
diversity and cross-cultural
competence more effectively
into the curriculum. 1,404 76.7 367 20.0 60 3.3 1,831 70.6 639 84.0 94 12.4 28 3.7 761 29.4
Providing effective faculty
mentorship of students. 1,713 84.9 273 13.5 32 1.6 2,018 76.9 508 83.7 82 13.5 17 2.8 607 23.1
Providing effective academic
advising. 1,839 85.3 278 12.9 39 1.8 2,156 83.6 376 88.9 33 7.8 14 3.3 423 16.4
Providing diversity training for
student staff (e.g., student
union, resident assistants). 1,536 79.5 351 18.2 44 2.3 1,931 74.8 542 83.4 87 13.4 21 3.2 650 25.2
Providing affordable childcare. 881 67.3 397 30.3 32 2.4 1,310 51.0 955 75.9 271 21.5 32 2.5 1,258 49.0
Providing adequate childcare
resources. 893 67.9 385 29.3 38 2.9 1,316 51.6 944 76.5 261 21.2 29 2.4 1,234 48.4
266
Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
spouse/partner employment. 958 69.3 388 28.1 36 2.6 1,382 54.1 837 71.3 309 26.3 28 2.4 1,174 45.9
Providing adequate social

space. 1,528 83.8 263 14.4 32 1.8 1,823 70.6 654 86.2 81 10.7 24 3.2 759 29.4
267
Ithaca College Draft Report DATE 2017
A total of 291 Student respondents elaborated on the impact of institutional actions on campus
climate. The three themes that emerged were impact of diversity initiatives, improved resources,
and unsure of institutional actions offered.
Impact of Diversity Initiatives: Student respondents had a wide range of opinions about the
impact of diversity initiatives had on campus. Some Student respondents felt that initiatives were
not effective or necessary. One Undergraduate Student respondent stated, “If you continue to
make a big deal about race and the interactions between races here you are only going to get a
reaction that leads to even more stigmatization between the groups. People will coexist on their
own. You can't force it on them no matter how hard you try. People just make fun of the
inclusion things.” Another Undergraduate Student had a strong opinion, writing in all caps, “This
institution is not doing enough to provide safe and inclusive spaces for all cultures and social
identities you guys need to get yourselves together and stop perpetuating your awful white and
consumerist culture.” Another Undergraduate Student respondent explained how they believed
that diversity should include different populations, including those who were conservative or
Republican. “I think Ithaca College does a great job of creating a sense of community. I think
that most people feel welcome no matter what their background is. The only area I have not felt
welcome is dealing with my political beliefs. Being a Republican on a campus like Ithaca is
extremely uncomfortable.” Similar comments about the lack of inclusion for conservative
included, “We often value ideas of extreme political, gender, class views but do not value
differing opinions. Most, like myself are uncomfortable voicing my opinions about my
conservative political stance for example because people are too judgmental and unaccepting of
different views here that aren't liberal.” “I feel unsafe discussing my political opinion as a
conservative/libertarian on campus due to the mostly liberal views on campus.” Overall, as one
Graduate Student respondent wrote, “Ithaca needs to work more, we all need to work more.”
Student respondents also had a variety of opinions about the impact of diversity training on
campus climate. Some Student respondents wanted to see diversity training better planned. One
Undergraduate Student wrote, “In order for diversity training to be effective, it has to be
informed and well thought out. It is not an easy task and should not be looked at simply. It needs
to be comprehensive and sensitive, while still addressing difficult to discuss issues.” Other
Student respondents thought it would not be effective unless everyone was required to
268
participate. One Undergraduate Student wrote, “Not enough diversity trainings in the world will
change everyone's hatred. A diversity training will not change 20, 30, 40, 50+ years of racism,
sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and more. You can implement all of the diversity
trainings you want, but if they are not one mandatory for all members of Ithaca College
(administration, faculty, staff, students, etc...) then this is pointless.” Another Undergraduate
Student respondent wrote, “Maybe it's the IMC major in me, but diversity training needs to be
marketed more positively. They have the connotation for some reason and I feel is often not
taken seriously by people. I have been to many SLI sessions on diversity and microaggressions,
and while I am interested in the topic and the conversation is good at the time, I don't feel like
these conversations are as widespread as they should be. I have surrounded myself with
likeminded people who engage actively in social change on campus, but I know firsthand that
there are many students who definitely don't.” Student respondents also commented on the
impact of these trainings, as one Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “It is exponentially
important that the privileged, mostly white students coming into this school understand the
perspectives and experiences of others, whether they have a different race, religion, sexuality,
etc. It should be mandatory that ICSMs cover diversity and sexuality differences, not just when
the professor feels like it. Even if students are biased/bigoted and some don't come away from it
any differently, there will always be students whose eyes will be opened to others' experiences
and who will benefit greatly from it. It really can make IC and the world a better place simply to
show everyone others' perspectives so that we can understand one another's struggles.” Another
Undergraduate Student commented, “There needs to be more of an initiative to inform students
on what resources they have to make it feel more comfortable for everyone. We did diversity
training for my job where we all wrote down traits and found similarities between each other
rather than looking at differences. Although it was not very long, it was a very effective exercise
that should be incorporated in more places and could have a positive effect on the people at IC.”
Overall, the feeling was that “sensitivity training is always a positive influence on the general
atmosphere.”
Finally, Student respondents felt that the administration needed to take greater responsibility for
improving the campus climate, particularly for students of color. As one Undergraduate Student
respondent wrote, “I don't think the administration is doing a good job taking institutional
actions. One action in particular is the college's Diversity Action Plan which I think has not had
269
an impact on the campus climate since it was put in place. Deadlines within the plan's timeline
are not being met, and now with major administrators leaving, I don't think they ever will be. My
criticism is if the administration is going to make a plan, they need to be making sure they make
the deadlines they create. I think a good idea would be creating a student committee that makes
sure the administration is on track with the deadlines because the students are the ones who
realize when change is being made or not.” Other comments included, “I think that Higher up
administration needs to be more aware of the social climate of the campus. Some students feel
that our campus is not inclusive to students of color.” “In addition, the administration of the
college needs to destroy institutional barriers to minority groups on campus. Also, the college
needs to take issues of racism, sexism, and all other forms of bias seriously in every situation so
that the college can be more inclusive to people of all different backgrounds.” “The lack of a
response to the POC movement was rather disconcerting. To an extent the only thing the
administration needed to do was do something, anything, and nothing was done.”
Improved Resources: Students respondents also expressed a desire to see improved resources on
campus. Student respondents wrote that they wanted to see an improved health center. One
Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “The health center should be staffed on Sundays, so
student have a place to go when they need help on the weekends.” Another Undergraduate
Student respondent wrote, “Longer hours of doctors at the Health Center” In addition, the need
for improved mental health services was also mentioned. One Undergraduate Student respondent
wrote, “I think that the lack of resources made available to students for mental health help is
appalling. Students should be able to go to a nice space where they can meet with people right
away. Instead people who go there have to wait weeks and even months and are told they ‘aren't
serious enough’ to be seen right away. We are attending a private university where people pay a
lot of money to be here - these are not the kinds of resources anyone should expect here at Ithaca
College. I've seen many public school's health systems perform much better for my other friends
and they pay a percentage of the tuition that I do.” Other comments included, “More funding for
Mental Health/ CAPS is absolutely required moving forward, in my opinion. There are simply
too few therapists available here, and mental health is often prohibitively expensive, even for
those with decent financial means.” “Hire more CAPS psychologists.”
270
Parking was another resource that Student respondents wanted to see improved. Some Student
respondents wanted to see more parking on campus. “NEED more parking,” “more parking
would allow students to have a more positive experience on this campus,” and “more parking”
were the types of comments made. Other resources that Student respondents wanted to see
improved included academic advising from faculty (“Academic Advisement coming from
Faculty Advisors is generally poor.”), more communal activities (“It would be extremely helpful
if there were more spaces on campus that students could collaborate in and create community
in.”), and improved food in the dining hall (“everything is good but the dining hall food is not”).
Unsure of Institutional Actions Offered: Another theme that emerged was Student respondents
being unsure of what institutional actions were offered at Ithaca. Comments such as “I am
unaware if these services are offered/ available on campus” were frequently made. Some of the
respondents indicated that this was because they were first year students (“I am a first year so I
don't really know what is and what isn't available on campus yet.”), while others felt that if they
were offered institutional actions, “these all would positively benefit the school.” The impact that
these initiatives could have on the campus climate was best summarized by the following
respondent, who wrote, “Look, I'm sure a lot of these things exist on campus but they're not
known about, at least by me who tries to keep up to date on campus going-ons. And if the
resources are there they might make an impact but it's not a big enough impact where I am
comfortable. Anything the school can do for its students would improve the campus climate.”
Summary
Perceptions of Ithaca College’s actions and initiatives contribute to the way individuals think and
feel about the climate in which they work and learn. The findings in this section suggest that
respondents generally agreed that the actions cited in the survey have, or would have, a positive
influence on the campus climate. Notably, some Faculty, Staff, and Student respondents
indicated that many of the initiatives were not available on Ithaca College's campus. If, in fact,
these initiatives are available, Ithaca College would benefit from better publicizing all that the
institution offers to positively influence the campus climate.
271
Next Steps
Embarking on this campus-wide assessment is further evidence of Ithaca College's commitment

to ensuring that all members of the community live in an environment that nurtures a culture of
inclusiveness and respect. The primary purpose of this report was to assess the climate within
Ithaca College, including how members of the community felt about issues related to inclusion
and work-life issues. At a minimum, the results add empirical data to the current knowledge base
and provide more information on the experiences and perceptions for several sub-populations
within the Ithaca College community. However, assessments and reports are not enough. A
projected plan to develop strategic actions and a subsequent implementation plan are critical to
improving the campus climate. Failure to use the assessment data to build on the successes and
address the challenges uncovered in the report will undermine the commitment offered by Ithaca
College community members at the outset of this project. Also, as recommended by Ithaca
College's senior leadership, the assessment process should be repeated regularly to respond to an
ever-changing climate and to assess the influence of the actions initiated as a result of the current
assessment.
272
References
Aguirre, A., & Messineo, M. (1997). Racially motivated incidents in higher education: What do
they say about the campus climate for minority students? Equity & Excellence in
Education, 30(2), 26–30.
Ahmed, S. (2009). Embodying diversity: Problems and paradoxes for black feminists. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 12(1), 41-52.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (1995). The drama of diversity
and democracy. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Barnhardt, C. L. (2014). Campus-based organizing: Tactical repertoires of contemporary student
movements: Campus-based organizing. New Directions for Higher Education,
2014(167), 43-58.
Barnhardt, C. L. & Reyes, K. (2016). Embracing Student Activism. Higher Education Today:
American Council on Education.
Bartz, A. E. (1988). Basic statistical concepts. New York: Macmillan.
Bilimoria, D., & Stewart, A.J. (2009). "Don't ask, don't tell": The academic climate for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. National Women’s
Studies Association Journal, 21(2), 85-103.
Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and
Teaching. San Diego, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chang, M.J. (2003). Racial differences in viewpoints about contemporary issues among entering
college students: Fact or fiction? NASPA Journal, 40(5), 55-71.
Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Sáenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of sustaining
cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 430–
455.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd. ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a
predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus climate.
273
Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 67–81.
Flowers, L., & Pascarella, E. (1999). Cognitive effects of college racial composition on African
American students after 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40,
669–677.
Gardner, S. K. (2013). Women and faculty departures from a striving institution: Between a rock
and a hard place. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 349-370.
Griffin, K.A., Bennett, J.C., & Harris, J. (2011). Analyzing gender differences in Black faculty
marginalization through a sequential mixed methods design. In S. Museus & K. Griffin,
(Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 151, (pp. 45-61). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guiffrida, D., Gouveia, A., Wall, A., & Seward, D. (2008). Development and validation of the
Need for Relatedness at College Questionnaire (nRC-Q). Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 1(4), 251–261.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–365.
Hale, F. W. (2004). What makes racial diversity work in higher education: Academic leaders
present successful policies and strategies: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Harper, S., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2004). Taking seriously the evidence regarding the effects of
diversity on student learning in the college classroom: A call for faculty accountability.
UrbanEd, 2(2), 43–47.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539-569.
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251.
Ingle, G. (2005). Will your campus diversity initiative work? Academe, 91(5), 6–10.
Johnson, A. (2005). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan, K. H., &
Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates
274
from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–
542.
Johnsrud, L. K., & Sadao, K. C. (1998). The common experience of “otherness”: Ethnic and
racial minority faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 315-342.
Kingkade, T., Workneh, L., & Grenoble, R. (2015, Nov. 16). Campus racism protests didn’t
come out of nowhere, and they aren’t going away quickly. The Huffington Post: College.
Retreived from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campus-racism-protests-didnt-
come-out-of-nowhere_us_56464a87e4b08cda3488bfb4.
Maramba, D.C. & Museus, S.D. (2011). The utility of using mixed-methods and
intersectionality approaches in conducting research on Filipino American students’
experiences with the campus climate and on sense of belonging. In S. Museus & K.
Griffin, (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 151, (pp. 93-101). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research
based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Navarro, R.L., Worthington, R.L., Hart, J., & Khairallah, T. (2009). Liberal and conservative
ideology, experiences with harassment, and perceptions of campus climate. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 2(2), 78-90.
Nelson-Laird, T. & Niskodé-Dossett, A.S. (2010). How gender and race moderate the effect of
interaction across difference on student perceptions of the campus environment. The
Review of Higher Education, 33(3), 333-356.
Norris, W. P. (1992). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: the paradoxes of homosexual
experience in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3), 81–120.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60–
75.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). San Diego: Jossey-Bass.
Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in
higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 30-40.
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher
275
education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315.
Patton, L.D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment among
African American gay and bisexual men at one historically Black college. Journal of
College Student Development, 52(1), 77-100.
Patton, L. D., & Catching, C. (2009). Teaching while Black: Narratives of African American
student affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6),
713-728.
Pittman, C.T. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom. The experiences of women
faculty of color with White male students. Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 183-196.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer
interactions, and perceptions of the campus environment. Review of Higher Education,
29(4), 425–450.
Rankin & Associates Consulting. (2016, January 5). Recent Clients. Retrieved from
http://www.rankin-consulting.com/clients
Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for LGBT people: A national perspective. New York:
NGLTF Policy Institute.
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white
students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of Student
College Development, 46(1), 43–61.
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach
to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–
274.
Sáenz, V. B., Nagi, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across
race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students.”
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1–38.
Sears, J. T. (2002). The institutional climate for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual education faculty.
Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 11–37.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in
academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30(1), 47–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x.
Sharpe, D. (2015). Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical
276
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(8).
Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L., Konik, J., & Magley, V. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes:
Incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles, 58(3–4), 179–
191.
Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press.
Smith, D. G., Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore, L. C.,
Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Smith, E., & Witt, S. L. (1993). A comparative study of occupational stress among African
American and White faculty: A research note. Research in Higher Education, 34(2),
229–241.
Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,
and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students.
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60-73.
Stodden, R. A. (2015). Supporting students with disabilities in higher education in the USA: 30
years of advocacy. Center on Disability Studies: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Strayhorn, T.L. (2013). Measuring race and gender difference in undergraduate perceptions of
campus climate and intentions to leave college: An analysis in Black and White. Journal
of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2), 115-132.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
The Demands. (2016). Retreived from www.thedemands.org
Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic
Dog.
Tynes, B.M., Rose, C.A., & Markoe, S.L. (2013). Extending campus life to the internet: Social
media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 6(2), 102-114.
Turner, C. S. V. (2002). "Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality." The
Journal of Higher Education, 73(1): 74-93.
277
Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The
case of faculty of color in the Midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27–59.
Villalpando, O., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). A critical race theory analysis of barriers that
impede the success of faculty of color. In W. A. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lomotey
(Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education: Continuing challenges for the
twenty-first century. (pp. 243–270). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Weiner, D. (2016, November 21). Intersectional Politics and Accessibility. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-r-wiener-phd-
lmsw/intersectionality-not-jus_b_12934036.html
Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of
students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 21, 116-125.
Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on
students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college.
The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 172–204.
Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Loewy, M., & Hart, J. L. (2008). Color-blind racial attitudes,
social dominance orientation, racial-ethnic group membership and college students’
perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1(1), 8–19.
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690, 781, 785–786.
278
Appendices
Appendix A – Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics
Appendix B – Data Tables
Appendix C – Comment Analyses (Questions #106, #107, and #108)
Appendix D – Survey: Ithaca College Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working
279
Appendix A
Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics
Crosstabs of Level 1 Demographic Categories by Primary Status
Undergraduate
Student Graduate Student Faculty Staff Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Unknown/Missing/Other 5 0.19% 0 0.00% 10 2.15% 9 1.70% 24 0.63%
Woman 1759 65.83% 119 75.80% 232 49.79% 336 63.64% 2446 63.98%
Gender
identity Man 832 31.14% 35 22.29% 213 45.71% 177 33.52% 1257 32.88%
Transspectrum 36 1.35% 0 0.00% 6 1.29% 3 0.57% 45 1.18%
Other or Multiple 40 1.50% 3 1.91% 5 1.07% 3 0.57% 51 1.33%

Missing/Unknown/Other
65 2.43% 2 1.27% 24 5.15% 21 3.98% 112 2.93%
Other Person of Color
30 1.12% 0 0.00% 5 1.07% 3 0.57% 38 0.99%
Asian/Asian American
144 5.39% 5 3.18% 15 3.22% 8 1.52% 172 4.50%
Racial Black/African American
identity 132 4.94% 3 1.91% 10 2.15% 15 2.84% 160 4.19%
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@
112 4.19% 4 2.55% 17 3.65% 11 2.08% 144 3.77%
White
1933 72.34% 129 82.17% 378 81.12% 443 83.90% 2883 75.41%
Multiracial
256 9.58% 14 8.92% 17 3.65% 27 5.11% 314 8.21%
Missing/Unknown/Asexual 78 2.92% 4 2.55% 28 6.01% 23 4.36% 133 3.48%

Sexual
identity LGBQ including Demisexual 502 18.79% 18 11.46% 71 15.24% 61 11.55% 652 17.05%
Heterosexual 2092 78.29% 135 85.99% 367 78.76% 444 84.09% 3038 79.47%
280
Crosstabs of Level 1 Demographic Categories by Primary Status (cont.)
Faculty (including
Undergraduate Postdoc/
Student Graduate Student Research Asst) Staff Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Missing/Unknown 16 0.60% 3 1.91% 5 1.07% 4 0.76% 28 0.73%

Citizenship
status U.S. Citizen 2471 92.48% 144 91.72% 408 87.55% 509 96.40% 3532 92.39%
Not U.S. Citizen 185 6.92% 10 6.37% 53 11.37% 15 2.84% 263 6.88%
Unknown/Missing/Other 19 0.71% 2 1.27% 3 0.64% 9 1.70% 33 0.86%
Disability Single Disability 307 11.49% 10 6.37% 33 7.08% 40 7.58% 390 10.20%
status
No Disability 2181 81.62% 138 87.90% 411 88.20% 460 87.12% 3190 83.44%
Multiple Disability 165 6.18% 7 4.46% 19 4.08% 19 3.60% 210 5.49%
Missing/Unknown 33 1.24% 1 0.64% 22 4.72% 27 5.11% 83 2.17%
Christian Affiliation 1054 39.45% 78 49.68% 144 30.90% 224 42.42% 1500 39.24%
Faith-based
affiliation Other Faith-based 297 11.12% 17 10.83% 57 12.23% 28 5.30% 399 10.44%
No Affiliation including Not
Listed 1143 42.78% 53 33.76% 214 45.92% 219 41.48% 1629 42.61%
Multiple Affiliations 145 5.43% 8 5.10% 29 6.22% 30 5.68% 212 5.55%

Note: % is the percent of each column for that demographic category (e.g., percent of Faculty who are male)
281
Appendix B – Data Tables
PART I: Demographics
The demographic information tables contain actual percentages except where noted.
Table B1. What is your primary position at Ithaca College? (Question 1)
Position n %
Undergraduate student 2,672 69.9
Started at Ithaca College as a new first time student 2,546 95.3
Transferred from another institution 126 4.7
Graduate student 157 4.1
Master’s student 103 65.6
Doctoral student 54 34.4
Pre-doctoral/Post-doctoral 5 0.1
Faculty Tenure Track 279 7.3
Assistant Professor 75 26.9
Associate Professor 122 43.7
Professor 81 29.0
Emeritus 1 0.4
Non-Tenure Track 103 2.7
Part-time/Adjunct 68 1.8
Senior Administrator with faculty rank 11 0.3
Senior Administrator without faculty rank 22 0.6
Staff 506 13.2
Non-Exempt (hourly) 209 41.3
Exempt (salary) 297 58.7

Note: There are no missing data for the primary categories in this question; all respondents were required to select an answer.
282
Table B2. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary position? (Question 2)
Status n %
Full-time 3,711 97.1
Part-time 104 2.7
Missing 8 0.2
Table B3. What is your birth sex (assigned)? (Question 43)
Birth sex n %
Female 2,515 65.8
Male 1,287 33.7
Intersex 2 0.1
Missing 19 0.5
Table B4. What is your gender/gender identity? (Question 44)
Gender identity n %
Woman 2,468 64.6
Man 1,267 33.1
Non-binary 45 1.2
Genderqueer 43 1.1
Transgender 12 0.3
A gender not listed here 18 0.5
283
Table B5. What is your current gender expression? (Question 46)
Gender expression n %
Feminine 2,397 62.7
Masculine 1,248 32.6
Androgynous 94 2.5
A gender expression not listed here 45 1.2
Missing 39 1.0
Table B6. What is your citizenship/immigration status in the U.S.? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 47)
Citizenship status n %
U.S. citizen, birth 3,532 92.4
U.S. citizen, naturalized 137 3.6
A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) 77 2.0
Permanent resident 45 1.2
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) 2 0.1
DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) 1 0.0
Undocumented resident 1 0.0
Refugee status 0 0.0
Other legally documented status 0 0.0
Currently under a withholding of removal status 0 0.0
Missing 28 0.7
297
Table B7. Although the categories listed below may not represent your full identity or use the language you
prefer, for the purpose of this survey, please indicate which group below most accurately describes your
racial/ethnic identification. If you are of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-cultural identity, mark all that
apply. (Question 47)
Racial/ethnic identity n %
White/European American 3,150 82.4
Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ 268 7.0
Black/African American 248 6.5
Asian/Asian American 230 6.0
American Indian/Native 76 2.0
Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian 61 1.6
Pacific Islander 11 0.3
Alaska Native 3 0.1
Native Hawaiian 2 0.1
A racial/ethnic identity not listed here 38 1.0
Table B8. What is your age? (Question 48)
Age n %
18-19 1,333 34.9
20-21 1,092 28.6
22-24 233 6.1
25-34 159 4.2
35-44 204 5.3
45-54 271 7.1
55-64 191 5.0
65-74 53 1.4
75 and older 2 .1
Missing 285 7.5
298
Table B9. Although the categories listed below may not represent your full identity or use the language you
prefer, for the purpose of this survey, please indicate which choice below most accurately describes your
sexual identity. (Question 49)
Sexual identity n %
Heterosexual 3,038 79.5
Bisexual 240 6.3
Gay 107 2.8
Lesbian 88 2.3
Questioning 77 2.0
Queer 70 1.8
Pansexual 64 1.7
Asexual* 33 0.9
A sexual identity not

listed here 30 0.8
Demisexual* 6 0.2
Missing 70 1.8
*Asexual and Demisexual were not options offered in the original category, but sufficient numbers of
respondents wrote them in so they were identified as categories and included in the table.
299
Table B10. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 50)
Caregiving responsibility n %
No 3,326 87.0
Yes 475 12.4
Children 5 years or younger 127 26.7
Children 6-18 years 251 52.8
Children over 18 years of age, but still legally dependent

(e.g., in college, disabled) 94 19.8
Independent adult children over 18 years of age 58 12.2
Sick or disabled partner 19 4.0
Senior or other family member 120 25.3
A parenting or caregiving responsibility not listed here 25 5.3
Missing 22 0.6
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.
300
Table B11. Have you ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, Reserves, or National Guard?
(Question 51)
Military status n %
Never served in the military 3,643 95.3
On active duty in the past, but not now 44 1.2
ROTC 12 0.3
Now on active duty (including Reserves or

National Guard) 8 0.2
Missing 116 3.0
301
Table B12. What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)? (Question
52)
Parent/guardian 1 Parent/guardian 2
No high school 49 1.3 67 1.8
Some high school 111 2.9 109 2.9
Completed high school/GED 478 12.5 567 14.8
Some college 368 9.6 414 10.8
Business/technical certificate/degree 107 2.8 145 3.8
Associate’s degree 216 5.7 207 5.4
Bachelor’s degree 986 25.8 1,062 27.8
Some graduate work 75 2.0 89 2.3
Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA) 966 25.3 715 18.7
Specialist degree (EdS) 17 0.4 29 .8
Doctoral degree (PhD., EdD) 240 6.3 111 2.9
Professional degree (MD, JD) 153 4.0 108 2.8
Unknown 8 0.2 48 1.3
Not applicable 30 0.8 115 3.0
Missing 19 0.5 37 1.0
302
Table B13. Faculty/Staff only: What is your highest level of education? (Question 53)
Level of education n %
No high school 0 0.0
Some high school 2 .4
Completed high school/GED 26 5.1
Some college 56 11.1
Business/technical certificate/degree 12 2.4
Associate’s degree 53 10.5
Bachelor’s degree 123 24.3
Some graduate work 36 7.1
Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA) 176 34.8
Specialist degree (EdS) 1 .2
Doctoral degree (PhD., EdD) 11 2.2
Professional degree (MD, JD) 4 .8
Missing 6 1.2
Note: Table includes answers only from only those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n =
994).
Table B14. Faculty/Staff only: How long have you been employed at Ithaca College? (Question 54)
Year in college career n %
Less than 1 year 85 8.6
1-5 years 273 27.5
6-10 years 188 18.9
11-15 years 129 13.0
16-20 years 97 9.8
More than 20 years 210 21.1
Missing 12 1.2
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n = 994).
303
Table B15. Undergraduate Students only: What year are you in at Ithaca College? (Question 55)
Year n %
First year 786 29.4
Second year 677 25.3
Third year 565 21.1
Fourth year 626 23.4
Fifth year 15 0.6
Sixth year (or more) 1 0.0
Missing 2 0.1
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Undergraduate Students in Question 1 (n
= 2,672).
304
Table B16. Faculty only: Which academic division/college are you primarily affiliated with at this time?
(Question 56)
Academic division/college n %
School of Health Science and Human

Performance 98 21.0
Missing 16 3.4
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 466).
Table B17. Staff only: Which academic division/work unit are you primarily affiliated with at this time?
(Question 57)
Enrollment Management 56 10.6
Finance and Administration (e.g., Facilities, DIIS) 103 19.5
Human and Legal Resources 17 3.2
Institutional Advancement and Communication 71 13.4
Office of the President 1 0.2
Provost and Educational Affairs (e.g., Student Affairs, Public

Safety) 137 25.9
School of Health Science and Human Performance 26 4.9
Missing 63 11.9
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 528).
305
Table B18. Undergraduate Students only: What is your major? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 58)
Major n %
Accounting 50 1.9
Acting 16 0.6
Aging Studies 3 0.1
Anthropology 25 0.9
Applied Economics 9 0.3
Applied Psychology 24 0.9
Architectural Studies 4 0.1
Art BA 4 0.1
Art BFA 8 0.3
Art Education 5 0.2
Art History 9 0.3
Athletic Training 28 1.0
Biochemistry 19 0.7
Biology 51 1.9
Biology (Teaching) 1 0.0
Business Administration 200 7.5
Chemistry 3-2 Engineering 0 0.0
Chemistry 10 0.4
Chemistry (Teaching) 1 0.0
Cinema and Photography 119 4.5
Clinical Exercise Science 11 0.4
Clinical Health Studies 137 5.1
Communication Management and Design 87 3.3
Communication Studies 19 0.7
Community Health Education 0 0.0
Composition 3 0.1
Computer Information Systems 0 0.0
Computer Science 28 1.0
Culture and Communication 17 0.6
Documentary Studies and Production 25 0.9
Drama 2 0.1
Economics 17 0.6
Emerging Media - Computation 0 0.0
Emerging Media - Design and Production 25 0.9
Emerging Media - Entrepreneur 3 0.1
English 35 1.3
English (Teaching) 5 0.2
306
Environmental Science 19 0.7

Environmental Studies 38 1.4
Exercise Science 55 2.1
Exploratory 132 4.9
Extramural 0 0.0
Film, Photography, and Visual Arts 48 1.8
French 3 0.1
French (Teaching) 0 0.0
French and Francophone Studies 4 0.1
German (Teaching) 0 0.0
German Area Studies 0 0.0
Gerontology Certificate 0 0.0
Health Care Management 11 0.4
Health Education and Physical Education (Teaching) 7 0.3
Health Education (Teaching) 0 0.0
Health Policy Studies 0 0.0
Health Sciences 62 2.3
Health Sciences Preprofessional 43 1.6
History 9 0.3
Integrated Marketing Communications 175 6.5
Italian Studies 2 0.1
Jazz Studies 5 0.2
Journalism 99 3.7
Legal Studies 30 1.1
Mathematics 20 0.7
Mathematics (Teaching) 7 0.3
Mathematics-Computer Science 1 0.0
Mathematics-Computer Science (Teaching) 0 0.0
Mathematics-Economics 5 0.2
Mathematics-Physics 3 0.1
Music BA 6 0.2
Music BM 17 0.6
Music Education BM 61 2.3
Music Performance Education 27 1.0
Music with Outside Field 19 0.7
Music Theory 1 0.0
Musical Theatre 9 0.3
Occupational Therapy 126 4.7
Outdoor Adventure Leadership 10 0.4
Performance 17 0.6
Philosophy 4 0.1
307
Philosophy-Religion 1 0.0
Physical Education (Teaching) 2 0.1
Physics (Teaching) 0 0.0
Physics 3-2 Engineering 7 0.3
Physics 15 0.6
Planned Studies 13 0.5
Politics 51 1.9
Psychology 76 2.8
Public and Community Health 20 0.7
Recreation Management 3 0.1
Social Studies 1 0.0
Social Studies (Teaching) 2 0.1
Sociology 41 1.5
Sound Recording Technology 0 0.0
Spanish 7 0.3
Spanish (Teaching) 0 0.0
Speech Communication 0 0.0
Speech-Language Pathology BS 71 2.7
Speech-Language Pathology Integrated Program BS 0 0.0
Sport Management 32 1.2
Sport Media 20 0.7
Sport Studies 5 0.2
Television-Radio 213 8.0
Theatre Arts Management 16 0.6
Theatre Studies 45 1.7
Theatrical Production Arts 25 0.9
Therapeutic Recreation 14 0.5
Writing 59 2.2
Writing for Film, TV, Emerging Media 53 2.0
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Undergraduate Students in Question 1 (n
= 2,672).
308
Table B19. Graduate/Professional Students only: What is your academic program? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 59)
Academic program n %
Adolescence Education MAT 7 4.5
Business Administration MBA 3 1.9
Childhood Education MS 2 1.3
Communications Innovation MS 1 0.6
Communications MS 1 0.6
Composition MM 1 0.6
Conducting MM 1 0.6
Exercise and Sport Sciences MS 10 6.4
Extramural GR 0 0.0
Health Education MS 4 2.5
Music Education MM 2 1.3
Music Education MS 0 0.0
Occupational Therapy Entry Level MS 11 7.0
Occupational Therapy MS 27 17.2
Performance MM 6 3.8
Physical Education MS 0 0.0
Physical Therapy DPT 54 34.4
Professional Accountancy MBA 1 0.6
Speech-Language Pathology MS 10 6.4
Speech-Language Pathology Teaching

3.8
Integrated Program MS 6
Speech-Language Pathology Teaching MS 9 5.7
Sport Management MS 0 0.0
Suzuki Pedagogy MM 1 0.6
Teachers of Students with Speech and

0.0
Language Disabilities MS 0
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Graduate Students in Question 1 (n =
157).
309
Table B20. Do you have a condition/disability that influences your learning, working, or living activities?
(Question 60)
Condition n %
No 3,190 83.4
Yes 623 16.3
Missing 10 0.3
Table B21. Which, if any, of the conditions listed below impact your learning, working, or living activities?
(Mark all that apply.) (Question 61)
Condition n %
Mental Health/Psychological Condition

(e.g., anxiety, depression) 323 51.8
ADD/ADHD 194 31.1
Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition (e.g., Asthma,

Diabetes, Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia) 129 20.7
Learning Difference/Disability (e.g., Attention

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Cognitive/Language-based) 104 16.7
Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 34 5.5
Hard of Hearing or Deaf 26 4.2
Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 16 2.6
Autism Spectrum Disorder/Asperger’s Disorder 15 2.4
Low Vision or Blind 15 2.4
Alcohol/Substance abuse recovery 12 1.9
Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury 12 1.9
Speech/Communication Condition 8 1.3
A disability/condition not listed here 15 2.4

Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they have a condition/disability in Question 60 (n =
623). Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.
310
Table B22. What is the language spoken in your home? (Question 62)
Home language n %
English 3,439 90.0
English and other language(s) 242 6.3
A language other than English 105 2.7
Missing 37 1.0
311
Table B23. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 63)
Spiritual identity n % n %
Agnostic 470 12.3 United Methodist 102 6.2
Atheist 400 10.5 United Church of Christ 19 1.2
Baha’i 2 0.1 Christian affiliation not listed 32 2.0
Buddhist 74 1.9 Confucianist*
Christian 1,634 42.7 Druid 4 0.1
African Methodist Episcopal 1 0.1 Hindu 17 0.4
AME Zion 1 0.1 Jain 1 0.0
Assembly of God 8 0.5 Jehovah’s Witness 7 0.2
Baptist 67 4.1 Jewish 334 8.7
Catholic/Roman Catholic 831 50.9 Conservative 81 24.3
Church of Christ 12 0.7 Orthodox 8 2.4
Church of God in Christ 6 0.4 Reformed 176 52.7
Christian Orthodox 11 0.7 Muslim 26 0.7
Christian Methodist Episcopal 13 0.8 Ahmadi 3 11.5
Christian Reformed Church Shi’ite 2 7.7
(CRC) 1 0.1
Sufi 3 11.5
Episcopalian 53 3.2
Sunni 9 34.6
Evangelical 21 1.3
Native American Traditional
Greek Orthodox 20 1.2 Practitioner or Ceremonial 5 0.1
Lutheran 60 3.7 Pagan 23 0.6
Mennonite 4 0.2 Rastafarian 0 0.0
Moravian 2 0.1 Scientologist 0 0.0
Nondenominational Christian 94 5.8 Secular Humanist 22 0.6
Pentecostal 25 1.5 Shinto 1 0.0
Presbyterian 66 4.0 Sikh 2 0.1
Protestant 91 5.6 Taoist 7 0.2
Protestant Reformed Church (PR) 3 0.2 Tenrikyo 0 0.0
Quaker 9 0.6 Unitarian Universalist 35 0.9
Reformed Church of America Wiccan 18 0.5
(RCA) 2 0.1
Spiritual, but no religious
Russian Orthodox 4 0.2 affiliation 352 9.2
Seventh Day Adventist 7 0.4 No affiliation 667 17.4
The Church of Jesus Christ of A religious affiliation or spiritual
Latter-day Saints 6 0.4 identity not listed above 45 1.2
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.
*Confucianist was in the survey, but was not in the data set.
312
Table B24. Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your
living/educational expenses) or independent (you are the sole provider for your living/educational expenses)?
(Question 64)
Dependence n %
Dependent 2,599 91.9
Independent 167 5.9
Missing 63 2.2
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 2,829).
Table B25. Students only: What is your best estimate of your family’s yearly income (if dependent student,
partnered, or married) or your yearly income (if single and independent student)? (Question 65)
Income n %
Below $30,000 284 10.0
$30,000 - $49,999 245 8.7
$50,000 - $69,999 388 13.7
$70,000 - $99,999 510 18.0
$100,000 - $149,999 580 20.5
$150,000 - $199,999 279 9.9
$200,000 - $249,999 174 6.2
$250,000 - $499,999 193 6.8
$500,000 or more 79 2.8
Missing 97 3.4
313
Table B26. Students only: Where do you live? (Question 66)
Residence n %
On-campus residence hall 1,385 49.5
Terraces 350 32.0
Landon, Bogart, & Clarke 129 11.8
Hilliard, Hood, & Holmes 121 11.1
East Tower 107 9.8
Emerson 105 9.6
West Tower 105 9.6
Boothroyd, Rowland, & Tallcott 95 8.7
Eastman & Lyon 82 7.5
Living Learning Community 58 2.1
Honors Housing 25 44.6
Housing Offering a Multicultural Experience 6 10.7
La Casa Language Learning Community 6 10.7
The Sustainably Conscious Community 5 8.9
Outdoor Adventure Learning Community 5 8.9
The Interfaith Housing Community 4 7.1
Substance Free Housing Community 3 5.4
Quiet Study Housing 2 3.6
Transfer Housing Program 0 0.0
On-campus Apartment Complexes 561 20.0

Circle Apartments 326 63.5
Garden Apartments 187 36.5
Off-campus apartment/house 792 28.3
Housing insecure (e.g., couch surfing, sleeping in car, sleeping

in campus office/lab) 3 0.1
Percentages for sub-categories are valid percentages and do not include missing responses.
314
Table B27. Students only: Since having been a student at Ithaca College, have you been a member or
participated in any of the following? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 67)
Clubs/organizations n %
Academic 748 26.4
Recreational sports 612 21.6
Competitive sport club 322 53.0
Recreational sport Club 307 50.2
Performance sport club 66 10.8
Media 530 18.7
Service 428 15.1
Intercollegiate athletics 417 14.7
Music 395 14.0
Performing 344 12.2
I do not participate in any clubs or organizations

at Ithaca College 341 12.1
Special interest 334 11.8
Activism 314 11.1
Professional 311 11.0
Non-profit 290 10.3
ALANA student organizations 239 8.4
Religious 236 8.3
Personal 227 8.0
Honorary 221 7.8
Cultural 198 7.0
Event programming 193 6.8
Environmental 151 5.3
Student governance 130 4.6
Political 116 4.1

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.
315
Table B28. Students only: At the end of your last semester, what was your cumulative grade point average?
(Question 68)
GPA n %
3.75 – 4.00 920 32.5
3.50 – 3.74 762 26.9
3.25 – 3.49 534 18.9
3.00 – 3.24 307 10.9
2.75 - 2.99 115 4.1
2.50 – 2.74 46 1.6
2.25 – 2.49 29 1.0
2.00 – 2.24 16 .6
Below 2.00 8 0.3
Missing 92 3.3
Table B29. Students only: Have you experienced financial hardship while attending Ithaca College?
(Question 69)
Financial hardship n %
No 1,475 52.1
Yes 1,317 46.6
Missing 37 1.3
316
Table B30. Students only: How have you experienced the financial hardship? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 70)
Experience n %
Difficulty affording tuition 1,073 81.5
Difficulty purchasing my books/course materials 791 60.1
Difficulty in affording housing 556 42.2
Difficulty affording food 477 36.2
Difficulty participating in social events 410 31.1
Difficulty in affording other campus fees 392 29.8
Difficulty in affording unpaid internships/research

opportunities 374 28.4
Difficulty affording travel to and from Ithaca College 367 27.9
Difficulty in affording alternative spring breaks 286 21.7
Difficulty affording co-curricular events or activities 269 20.4
Difficulty in affording health care 133 10.1
Difficulty affording commuting to campus 110 8.4
Difficulty in affording child care 8 0.6
A financial hardship not listed here 47 3.6

Note: Table includes answers only from those Students who indicated that they experienced financial hardship in
Question 69 (n = 1,317). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.
317
Table B31. Students only: How are you currently paying for your education at Ithaca College? (Mark all that
apply.) (Question 71)
Family contribution 1,905 67.3
Loans 1,677 59.3
Non-need based scholarship (e.g., Merit,

ROTC) 1,478 52.2
Need-based scholarship (e.g., Gates) 1,041 36.8
Grant (e.g., Pell) 1,025 36.2
Personal contribution 708 25.0
Campus employment 655 23.2
Credit card 230 8.1
Resident assistant 112 4.0
Dependent tuition remission (e.g., family

member works at Ithaca) 87 3.1
GI Bill 34 1.2
A method of payment not listed here 50 1.8

318
Table B32. Students only: Are you employed either on campus or off-campus during the academic year?
(Question 72)
Employed n %
No 1,330 47.0
Yes, I work on campus 1,190 42.1
1-10 hours/week 732 62.9
11-20 hours/week 384 33.0
21-30 hours/week 30 2.6
31-40 hours/week 11 0.9
Yes, I work off campus 368 13.0
1-10 hours/week 156 43.6
11-20 hours/week 141 39.4
21-30 hours/week 49 13.7
31-40 hours/week 7 2.0

319
PART II: Findings
The tables in this section contain valid percentages except where noted.
Table B33. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at Ithaca College? (Question 3)
Comfort n %
Very comfortable 741 19.4
Comfortable 1,918 50.2
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable 704 18.4
Uncomfortable 406 10.6
Very uncomfortable 54 1.4
Table B34. Faculty/Staff only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your
department/program or work unit at Ithaca College? (Question 4)
Comfort n %
Comfortable 374 37.7
Neither comfortable

320
Missouri S&T College Draft Report May 2016
Table B35. Students/Faculty only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes at Ithaca
College? (Question 5)
Comfort n %
Comfortable 1,764 53.7
Neither comfortable

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students or Faculty in Question 1 (n =
3,295).
Table B36. Have you ever seriously considered leaving Ithaca College? (Question 6)
Considered leaving n %
No 2,432 63.6
Yes 1,387 36.3
Missing 4 0.1
Table B37. Students only: When did you seriously consider leaving Ithaca College? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 7)
Year n %
During my first year as a student 636 74.5
During my second year as a student 368 43.1
During my third year as a student 118 13.8
During my fourth year as a student 42 4.9
During my fifth year as a student 7 0.8
After my fifth year as a student 0 0.0

Note: Table includes answers only from those Students who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 6 (n = 854).
321
Table B38. Students only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Ithaca College? (Question 8)
Reasons n %
Financial reasons 314 36.8
Lack of social life 303 35.5
Lack of support group 221 25.9
Climate was not welcoming 219 25.6
Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family

emergencies, etc.) 214 25.1
Homesick 204 23.9
Didn’t like major 159 18.6
Coursework not challenging enough 120 14.1
Lack of support services 119 13.9
Didn’t have my major 60 7.0
Coursework was too difficult 55 6.4
My marital/relationship status 30 3.5
Didn’t meet the selection criteria for a major 17 2.0

Note: Table includes answers only from those Students who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 10 (n = 854).
322
Table 39. Faculty/Staff only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Ithaca College?
(Question 9)
Reasons n %
Low salary/pay rate 270 50.7
Limited opportunities for advancement 244 45.8
Increased workload 237 44.5
Interested in a position at another institution 161 30.2
Lack of institutional support (e.g., tech support, lab

space/equipment) 155 29.1
Campus climate was unwelcoming 148 27.8
Lack of professional development opportunities 138 25.9
Tension with supervisor/manager 133 25.0
Tension with co-workers 129 24.2
Tension with senior administrator (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean) 95 17.8
Recruited or offered a position at another institution/organization 83 15.6
Lack of benefits 67 12.6
Family responsibilities 51 9.6
Local community did not meet my (my family) needs 33 6.2
Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment 31 5.8
Local community climate was not welcoming 22 4.1
Relocation 18 3.4
Spouse or partner relocated 10 1.9

Note: Table includes answers only from those Faculty and Staff who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 6 (n =
533).
323
Table B40. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements regarding your academic experience at Ithaca
College. (Question 11)
Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
n % n % n % n % n %
I am performing up to my full academic potential. 815 28.8 1474 52.2 284 10.0 229 8.1 24 0.8
Few of my courses this year have been intellectually

stimulating. 355 12.6 816 29.0 454 16.1 923 32.8 265 9.4
I am satisfied with my academic experience at Ithaca

College. 687 24.5 1,600 57.0 344 12.3 149 5.3 27 1.0
I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual

development since enrolling at Ithaca College. 837 29.8 1,467 52.2 350 12.5 138 4.9 18 0.6
I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I

would. 689 24.4 1,358 48.2 473 16.8 262 9.3 38 1.3
My academic experience has had a positive influence on

my intellectual growth and interest in ideas. 948 33.7 1,446 51.4 316 11.2 91 3.2 10 0.4
My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has

increased since coming to Ithaca College. 1,058 37.7 1,306 46.5 326 11.6 103 3.7 13 0.5
I intend to graduate from Ithaca College. 1,921 68.6 675 24.1 157 5.6 25 0.9 24 0.9
Thinking ahead, it is likely that I will leave Ithaca

College before graduation. 80 2.8 111 3.9 256 9.1 745 26.4 1626 57.7
324
Table B41. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored),
intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (e.g., bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability to
work, learn, or live at Ithaca College? (Question 12)
Experienced conduct n %
No 3,065 80.3
Yes 753 19.7
325
Table B42. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 13)
Basis n %
Gender/Gender identity 204 27.1
Ethnicity 157 20.8
Position (e.g., staff, faculty, student) 135 17.9
Age 100 13.3
Mental health/psychological disability/condition 83 11.0
Academic performance 71 9.4
Participation in an organization 47 6.2
Educational credentials (e.g., MS, PhD) 44 5.8
Pregnancy 3 0.4
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced conduct (n = 753).
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
326
Table B43. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 14)
Form n %
I was ignored or excluded 342 45.4

I was isolated or left out 303 40.2
I was intimidated/bullied 268 35.6
I felt others staring at me 161 21.4
I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks 150 19.9
I experienced a hostile work environment 120 15.9
I experienced a hostile classroom environment 109 14.5
I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group 98 13.0
I was the target of workplace incivility 94 12.5
The conduct made me fear that I would get a poor grade 66 8.8
I received a low or unfair performance evaluation 58 7.7
Someone assumed I was admitted/hired/promoted due to
my identity group 51 6.8
I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling 51 6.8
I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email 48 6.4
I received derogatory written comments 45 6.0
I received derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) 40 5.3
I was “outed” against my wishes (e.g., gender identity,
sexuality, disability status) 36 4.8
I was denied accommodations 35 4.6
The conduct threatened my physical safety 34 4.5
I was not fairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure
process 29 3.9
I received threats of physical violence 18 2.4
Someone assumed I was not admitted/hired/promoted due
to my identity group 16 2.1
I was the target of stalking 12 1.6
I was the target of physical violence 11 1.5
I was the target of graffiti/vandalism 5 0.7
The conduct threatened my family’s safety 5 0.7
327
Table B44. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 15)
Location n %
While working at a Ithaca College job 113 15.0
Off campus 93 12.4
On social media sites (Facebook/Twitter/ Yik-Yak) 61 8.1
In an experiential learning environment (e.g., community-based

learning, retreat, externship, internship) 9 1.2
In Counseling and Psychological Services 7 0.9

Percentages may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.
328
Table B45. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 16)
Source n %
Student 335 44.5
Faculty member/Other Instructional Staff 167 22.2
Friend 132 17.5
Supervisor or manager 72 9.6
Stranger 71 9.4
Department Chair 61 8.1
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) 34 4.5
Ithaca College Public Safety Officer 24 3.2
Alumnus/a 22 2.9
Ithaca College media (posters, brochures, flyers, handouts,

web sites, etc.) 15 2.0
Academic advisor (advising center) 12 1.6
Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to me) 4 0.5
Student Teaching Assistant/Student Lab Assistant/Student

Tutor 4 0.5
Donor 2 0.3

329
Table B46. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 17)
Experience n %
I was angry. 467 62.0
I was afraid. 176 23.4

330
Table B47. What did you do in response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 18)
Response n %
I didn’t do anything 313 41.6
I didn’t know who to go to 143 19.0

LGBT Center 6 5.9
Student staff 3 2.9
Case Manager 2 2.0
Human Resources 2 2.0
(CSRE) 2 2.0
ENI Employee Assistance 1 1.0
Hammond Health Center 1 1.0
Muller Chapel 1 1.0
Center for Health Promotion 1 1.0
International Programs 0 0.0
331
I sought support from a member of the clergy or spiritual

advisor (e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest, imam) 13 1.7

confidential on-line reporting system (e.g., EthicsPoint) 3 0.4

Table B48. Did you report the conduct? (Question 19)
Reported conduct n %
Yes, I reported it 93 12.5
Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the

outcome. 7 7.5
Yes, I reported the incident, and while the outcome is not

what I had hoped for, I feel as though my complaint was
responded to appropriately. 15 16.1
Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not

Missing 30 32.3
332
Table B49. While a member of the Ithaca College community, have you experienced unwanted sexual
contact/conduct (including interpersonal violence, sexual harassment, stalking, sexual assault, sexual assault
with an object, forcible fondling, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, sodomy or gang rape)?
(Question 21)
Experienced unwanted
sexual contact/conduct n %
No 3,373 88.2
Yes – relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed,

controlling, hitting) 57 1.5
Yes – stalking (e.g., following me, on social

media, texting, phone calls) 88 2.3
Yes – sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling,

repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment) 285 7.5
Yes – sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape,

sexual assault, penetration without consent,
gang rape) 125 3.3
333
Table B50. Students only: Were alcohol and/or drugs involved in the relationship violence? (Question 22rv)
Year n %
No 40 74.1
Yes 14 25.9
Alcohol only 7 50.0
Drugs only 2 14.3
Both alcohol and drugs 2 14.3

Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced relationship violence (n = 57).
Table B51. When did the relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling, hitting) occur? (Question 23rv)
When experienced
relationship violence n %
Within the last year 30 52.6
2-4 years ago 32 56.1
5-10 years ago 1 1.8
11-20 years 1 1.8
More than 20 years ago 0 0.0

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced relationship violence (n = 57).
334
Table B52. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the relationship violence (e.g.,
ridiculed, controlling, hitting)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 24rv)
Year n %
During my time as a graduate/

professional student at Ithaca College 3 5.6

undergraduate 1 1.9
Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced relationship violence (n = 57).
335
Table B53. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 25rv)
Source n %
Current or former dating/intimate partner 31 54.4
Ithaca College student 26 45.6
Acquaintance/friend 17 29.8
Stranger 3 5.3
Ithaca College faculty member 2 3.5
Ithaca College staff member 2 3.5
Family member 0 0.0
Other role/relationship not listed above 4 7.0

Table B54. Where did the relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling, hitting) occur? (Mark all that
apply.) (Question 26rv)
Location n %
Off campus 26 45.6
On campus 40 70.2
336
Table B55. How did you feel after experiencing the relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling, hitting)?
(Mark all that apply.) (Question 27rv)
Feeling after experiencing relationship violence n %

337
Table B56. What did you do in response to experiencing the relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling,
hitting)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 28rv)
Reaction n %
I sought support from a member of the clergy or spiritual advisor (e.g.,
pastor, rabbi, priest, imam) 21 36.8
I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services. 18 31.6
Staff member 0 0.0
Case Manager 0 0.0
Muller Chapel 0 0.0
LGBT Center 0 0.0
I submitted a bias incident report through an Ithaca College confidential
on-line reporting system (e.g., EthicsPoint) 0 0.0
338
Table B57. Did you report the relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling, hitting)? (Question 29rv)
Yes, I filed an official complaint to Title IX Coordinator and/or

Ithaca College Public Safety 2 3.5
Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome 0 0.0
Yes, I reported the incident, and while the outcome is not what
I had hoped for, I feel as though my complaint was responded
to appropriately 1 50.0
appropriately 1 50.0
Yes, I reported the incident to someone other than Title IX

Coordinator and/or Ithaca College Public Safety 3 5.3
339
Table B58. Students only: Were alcohol and/or drugs involved in the stalking? (Question 22stlk)
Year n %
No 64 83.1
Yes 13 16.9
Alcohol only 7 53.8
Drugs only 0 0.0

Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced stalking (n = 88).
Table B59. When did the stalking (e.g., following me, on social media, texting, phone calls) occur? (Question
23stlk)
When experienced
stalking n %
2-4 years ago 36 40.9
11-20 years 5 5.7

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced stalking (n = 88).
340
Table B60. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the stalking (e.g., following me,
on social media, texting, phone calls)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 24stlk)
Year n %

Fall semester 0 0.0

undergraduate 0 0.0
Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced stalking (n = 88).
341
Table B61. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 25stlk)
Source n %
Stranger 20 22.7
Family member 0 0.0

342
Table B62. Where did the stalking (e.g., following me, on social media, texting, phone calls) occur? (Mark all
that apply.) (Question 26stlk)
Location n %
Off campus 42 47.7
On campus 62 70.5
Table B63. How did you feel after experiencing the stalking (e.g., following me, on social media, texting, phone
calls)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 27stlk)
Feeling after experiencing stalking n %

343
Table B64. What did you do in response to experiencing the stalking (e.g., following me, on social media,
texting, phone calls)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 28stlk)
Reaction n %
Staff member 3 27.3
LGBT Center 1 9.1
Case Manager 0 0.0
Student staff 0 0.0
Muller Chapel 0 0.0
344
Table B65. Did you report the stalking (e.g., following me, on social media, texting, phone calls)? (Question
29stlk)


345
Table B66. Students only: Were alcohol and/or drugs involved in the sexual interaction? (Question 22si)
Year n %
No 132 50.0
Yes 132 50.0
Alcohol only 99 75.0
Drugs only 0 0.0

Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced sexual interaction (n = 285).
Table B67. When did the sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment)
occur? (Question 23si)
When experienced
sexual interaction n %
2-4 years ago 99 34.7
11-20 years 5 1.8

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced sexual interaction (n = 285).
346
Table B68. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the sexual interaction (e.g., cat-
calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 24si)
Year n %

After my fourth year as an undergraduate 2 0.8

Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced sexual interaction (n = 285).
347
Table B69. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 25si)
Source n %
Stranger 137 48.1
Family member 1 0.4

348
Table B70. Where did the sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment)
occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 26si)
Location n %
Off campus 174 61.1
On campus 155 54.4

Table B71. How did you feel after experiencing the sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual
advances, sexual harassment)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 27si)
Feeling after experiencing sexual interaction n %

349
Table B72. What did you do in response to experiencing the sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated
sexual advances, sexual harassment)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 28si)
Reaction n %
Staff member 5 33.3
LGBT Center 3 20.0
Student staff 1 6.7
Case Manager 0 0.0
Muller Chapel 0 0.0
350
Table B73. Did you report the sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual
harassment)? (Question 29si)


351
Table B74. Students only: Were alcohol and/or drugs involved in the sexual contact? (Question 22sc)
Year n %
No 37 30.3
Yes 85 69.7
Alcohol only 57 67.1
Drugs only 2 2.4

Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced sexual contact (n = 125).
Table B75. When did the sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent, gang
rape) occur? (Question 23sc)
When experienced
sexual contact n %
2-4 years ago 62 49.6
11-20 years 2 1.6

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced sexual contact (n = 125).
352
Table B76. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the sexual contact (e.g., fondling,
rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent, gang rape)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 24sc)
Year n %


undergraduate 1 0.8
Note: Table includes answers only from Student respondents who indicated that they experienced sexual contact (n = 125).
353
Table B77. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 25sc)
Source n %
Stranger 26 20.8
Family member 0 0.0

354
Table B78. Where did the sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent,
gang rape)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 26sc)
Location n %
Off campus 52 41.6
On campus 80 64.0
Table B79. How did you feel after experiencing the sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape, sexual assault,
penetration without consent, gang rape)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 27sc)
Feeling after experiencing sexual contact n %

355
Table B80. What did you do in response to experiencing the sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape, sexual assault,
penetration without consent, gang rape)? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 28sc)
Reaction n %
Staff member 1 5.0
LGBT Center 1 5.0
Case Manager 0 0.0
Student staff 0 0.0
Muller Chapel 0 0.0
356
Table B81. Did you report the sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent,
gang rape)? (Question 29sc)


357
Table B82. Please offer your response to the following comments: (Question 32)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Response n % n % n % n %
I am aware of the definition of Affirmative Consent. 215 5.6 211 5.5 1,412 37.1 1,971 51.7
I am generally aware of the role of Ithaca College’s Title IX Coordinator with

regard to reporting incidents unwanted sexual contact/conduct. 290 7.6 595 15.6 1,820 47.8 1,099 28.9
I know how and where to report such incidents. 290 7.6 949 25.0 1,697 44.7 862 22.7
I am familiar with the campus policies on addressing sexual misconduct,

domestic/dating violence, and stalking. 284 7.5 949 25.1 1,726 45.6 829 21.9
I am aware of the campuses resources available for those listed unwanted sexual
contact/conduct. here: 258 6.8 875 23.0 1,832 48.2 833 21.9
I have a responsibility to report such incidents when I see them occurring on or

off campus. 170 4.5 147 3.9 1,627 43.0 1838 48.6
I understand that Ithaca College’s standard of conduct and penalties differ from
standards of conduct and penalties under the criminal law. 262 6.9 751 19.8 1,915 50.6 856 22.4
I know that information about the prevalence of sex offenses (including

domestic and dating violence) are available in Ithaca College’s Annual Security
and Fire Report. 339 8.9 1,015 26.8 1,609 42.4 828 21.8
I know that the College sends a Public Safety Alert to the campus community
when such an incident occurs. 201 5.3 218 5.7 1,697 44.7 1,678 44.2
358
Table B83. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty only: As a faculty member at Ithaca College, I feel (or felt)… (Question 33)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
The criteria for tenure are clear. 45 16.2 102 36.7 41 14.7 68 24.5 22 7.9
The tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to faculty
in my school/department. 52 18.6 70 25.1 62 22.2 64 22.9 31 11.1
Supported and mentored during the tenure-track years. 53 19.3 86 31.4 60 21.9 44 16.1 31 11.3
Ithaca College policies for delay of the tenure-clock are used by all
faculty. 7 2.6 19 7.0 140 51.7 64 23.6 41 15.1
Research/Scholarship is valued by Ithaca College. 41 14.9 138 50.0 29 10.5 43 15.6 25 9.1
Teaching is valued by Ithaca College. 142 51.4 96 34.8 16 5.8 16 5.8 6 2.2
Service contributions are valued by Ithaca College. 39 14.3 114 41.8 47 17.2 44 16.1 29 10.6
Pressured to change my research/scholarship agenda to achieve
tenure/promotion. 22 8.0 38 13.9 38 13.9 92 33.6 84 30.7
Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with
similar performance expectations 62 22.4 63 22.7 64 23.1 62 22.4 26 9.4
I perform more work to help students than do my colleagues (e.g., formal
and informal advising, thesis advising, helping with student groups). 50 18.1 74 26.7 84 30.3 52 18.8 17 6.1
Faculty members in my department/program who use family
accommodation (FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in promotion/tenure
(e.g., child care, elder care). 10 3.6 12 4.4 142 51.8 67 24.5 43 15.7
Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g.,
Faculty opinions are sought out by senior administrators (e.g., President,
VP, AVP, Dean). 10 .6 40 14.4 57 20.5 93 33.5 78 28.1
Faculty opinions are valued within Ithaca College committees. 19 6.9 85 30.7 89 32.1 57 20.6 27 9.7
I would like more opportunities to participate in substantive committee
assignments. 13 4.7 43 15.6 113 41.1 76 27.6 30 10.9
I have opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments 43 15.6 126 45.7 71 25.7 20 7.2 16 5.8
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Tenured or Tenure-Track Faculty in Question 1 (n = 279).
359
Table B84. Non-Tenure-Track Academic Appointment only: As an employee with a non-tenure-track appointment at Ithaca College, I feel (or felt)…
(Question 35)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
The criteria used for contract renewal are clear. 14 13.6 36 35.0 13 12.6 23 22.3 17 16.5
The criteria used for contract renewal are applied equally to all positions. 10 9.7 15 14.6 36 35.0 23 22.3 19 18.4
There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 19 18.4 55 53.4 9 8.7 15 14.6 5 4.9
Research/Scholarship is valued by Ithaca College. 18 17.6 52 51.0 20 19.6 7 6.9 5 4.9
Teaching is valued by Ithaca College. 50 48.5 38 36.9 6 5.8 7 6.8 2 1.9
Service contributions are valued by Ithaca College. 28 27.5 46 45.1 17 16.7 8 7.8 3 2.9

similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships,
departmental/program work assignments). 13 12.7 17 16.7 29 28.4 29 28.4 14 13.7

and informal advising, thesis advising, helping with student groups and
activities). 18 17.5 21 20.4 31 30.1 21 20.4 12 11.7
Pressured to do extra work that is uncompensated. 13 13.0 23 23.0 23 23.0 25 25.0 16 16.0
Non Tenure Track Faculty, opinions are taken seriously by senior

administrators (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean). 8 7.8 23 22.3 37 35.9 19 18.4 16 15.5
Non Tenure Track Faculty, opinions are sought out by senior

administrators (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean). 6 5.8 19 18.4 31 30.1 26 25.2 21 20.4

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they held non-tenure-track academic appointments in Question 1 (n = 103).
360
Table B85. All Faculty: As a faculty member at Ithaca College, I feel... (Question 37)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
Salaries for tenure track faculty are competitive. 19 4.1 108 23.4 153 33.2 137 29.7 44 9.5
Salaries for adjunct faculty are competitive. 11 2.4 57 12.4 147 32.1 117 25.5 126 27.5
Salaries for part-time faculty are competitive. 11 2.4 52 11.4 145 31.7 108 23.6 141 30.9
Salaries for NTEN Continuing faculty are competitive. 17 3.7 95 20.7 195 42.6 95 20.7 56 12.2
Health insurance benefits are competitive. 28 6.2 185 40.7 119 26.2 74 16.3 49 10.8
Child care benefits are competitive. 10 2.3 40 9.0 244 55.0 63 14.2 87 19.6
Retirement/supplemental benefits are competitive. 31 6.9 147 32.6 183 40.6 59 13.1 31 6.9
Ithaca College provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life

balance (e.g., wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance,
transportation, etc.). 31 6.8 147 32.5 157 34.7 74 16.3 44 9.7
My colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as

much as they do others in my position. 69 15.2 177 39.1 128 28.3 50 11.0 29 6.4
The performance evaluation process is clear. 52 11.4 163 35.7 105 23.0 85 18.6 52 11.4
Ithaca College provides me with resources to pursue professional

development (e.g., conferences, materials, research and course design
traveling). 104 22.9 214 47.0 57 12.5 51 11.2 29 6.4
Positive about my career opportunities at Ithaca College. 66 14.6 175 38.7 114 25.2 56 12.4 41 9.1
I would recommend Ithaca College as good place to work. 66 14.4 193 42.1 122 26.6 46 10.0 31 6.8
361
Table B86. All Staff: As a staff member at Ithaca College, I feel… (Question 39)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I

need it. 141 26.7 181 34.3 113 21.4 61 11.6 32 6.4
I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career advice or guidance

when I need it. 130 24.7 216 41.0 120 22.8 43 8.2 18 3.4
I am included in opportunities that will help my career as much as others

in similar positions. 117 22.3 181 34.5 126 24.0 69 13.1 32 6.1
The performance evaluation process is clear. 74 14.1 194 36.9 118 22.4 92 17.5 48 9.1
The performance evaluation process is productive. 48 9.2 104 19.9 142 27.2 132 25.3 96 18.4
My supervisor provides adequate support for me to manage work-life

balance. 165 31.4 195 37.1 84 16.0 56 10.6 26 4.9
I am able to complete my assigned duties during scheduled hours. 76 14.8 166 32.3 100 19.5 102 19.8 70 13.6
My workload was increased without additional compensation due to

other staff departures (e.g., retirement positions not filled). 145 27.7 128 24.5 114 21.8 90 17.2 46 8.8
I am pressured by departmental/program work requirements that occur

outside of my normally scheduled hours. 44 8.4 127 24.2 132 25.2 158 30.2 63 12.0
I am given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities. 74 14.1 253 48.4 125 23.9 53 10.1 18 3.4
People who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities
(e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-ends) beyond those who do
have children. 24 4.6 44 8.4 191 36.3 149 28.3 118 22.4
Burdened by work responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with

departmental/program work assignments). 24 4.6 90 17.2 196 37.5 145 27.7 68 13.0
362
I perform more work than colleagues with similar performance

expectations (e.g., formal and informal mentoring or advising, helping
with student groups and activities, providing other support). 54 10.3 138 26.3 180 34.3 115 21.9 38 7.2
There is a hierarchy within staff positions that allows some voices to be

valued more than others. 112 21.3 198 37.7 115 21.9 74 14.1 26 5.0
Ithaca College provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life

balance (e.g., wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance,
transportation, etc.). 53 10.1 213 40.5 185 35.2 48 9.1 27 5.1
363
Table B87. Staff only: As a staff member at Ithaca College, I feel… (Question 41)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
Ithaca College provides me with resources to pursue training/professional

development opportunities. 102 19.4 265 50.4 89 16.9 55 10.5 15 2.9
My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue training/professional

development opportunities. 122 23.2 233 44.3 96 18.3 59 11.2 16 3.0
I have the resources necessary to achieve my job responsibilities (e.g.,

technology, budget, space) 95 18.1 279 53.0 78 14.8 61 11.6 13 2.5
Ithaca College is supportive of taking extended leave (e.g., FMLA,

parental). 54 10.3 154 29.4 275 52.6 26 5.0 14 2.7
My supervisor is supportive of my taking leaves (e.g., vacation, parental,

personal, short-term disability). 155 29.6 226 43.2 119 22.8 14 2.7 9 1.7
Staff in my department/program who use family accommodation

(FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in promotion or evaluations. 6 1.1 28 5.4 298 57.1 122 23.4 68 13.0
Ithaca College policies (e.g., FMLA) are fairly applied across Ithaca
College. 24 4.6 71 13.6 365 69.8 37 7.1 26 5.0
Ithaca College is supportive of flexible work schedules. 64 12.1 226 42.9 142 26.9 67 12.7 28 5.3
My supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. 110 20.9 219 41.6 107 20.3 61 11.6 30 5.7
Staff salaries are competitive. 19 3.6 85 16.2 138 26.2 164 31.2 120 22.8
Vacation and personal time benefits are competitive. 98 18.7 278 53.0 96 18.3 40 7.6 13 2.5
Health insurance benefits are competitive. 60 11.4 245 46.5 133 25.2 57 10.8 32 6.1
Child care benefits are competitive. 14 2.7 72 14.0 324 62.9 55 10.7 50 9.7
Retirement benefits are competitive. 50 9.6 222 42.4 187 35.8 45 8.6 19 3.6
364
Staff opinions are valued on Ithaca College committees. 27 5.1 179 34.0 180 34.2 91 17.3 49 9.3
Staff opinions are valued by Ithaca College administration. 21 4.0 111 21.1 171 32.6 144 27.4 78 14.9
Staff opinions are valued by Ithaca College faculty. 12 2.3 58 11.0 214 40.8 143 27.2 98 18.7
Staff opinions are sought by Ithaca College administration. 23 4.4 128 24.4 171 32.6 125 23.8 78 14.9
Staff opinions are sought by Ithaca College faculty. 15 2.9 49 9.3 201 38.3 145 27.6 115 21.9
There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 82 15.6 279 53.1 82 15.6 67 12.8 15 2.9
There are clear procedures on how I can advance at Ithaca College. 26 5.0 73 14.0 158 30.4 147 28.3 116 22.3
Positive about my career opportunities at Ithaca College. 39 7.5 124 23.7 174 33.3 119 22.8 67 12.8
I would recommend Ithaca College as good place to work. 74 14.1 248 47.1 135 25.7 52 9.9 17 3.2
365
Table B88. Within the past year, have you OBSERVED any conduct, directed toward a person or group of
people on campus that you believe created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive
and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) working or learning environment at Ithaca College? (Question 73)
Observed conduct n %
No 2,567 67.3
Yes 1,245 32.7
366
Table B89. Who/what was the target of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 74)
Source n %
Student 843 67.7

Friend 288 23.1
Stranger 131 10.5
Alumnus/a 67 5.4
Don’t know target 62 5.0
Ithaca College media (e.g., posters, brochures,
flyers, handouts, web sites) 36 2.9
Donor 6 0.5
Student tutor 6 0.5
A target not listed above 37 3.0
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,245).
367
Table B90. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 75)
Source n %
Student 700 56.2

Stranger 152 12.2
Friend 98 7.9
Alumnus/a 68 5.5
Ithaca College media (e.g., posters, brochures, flyers,
handouts, web sites, etc.) 55 4.4
Student organization 35 2.8
Donor 11 0.9
Student tutor 5 0.4
368
Table B91. Which of the target’s characteristics do you believe was/were the basis for the conduct? (Mark all
that apply.) (Question 76)
Basis n %
Ethnicity 444 35.7
Age 127 10.2
Academic Performance 71 5.7
Pregnancy 8 0.6
369
Table B92. Which of the following did you observe because of the target’s identity? (Mark all that apply.)
(Question 77)
Observed n %
Derogatory verbal remarks 648 52.0
Person ignored or excluded 424 34.1
Person isolated or left out 378 30.4
Racial/ethnic profiling 340 27.3
Person intimidated/bullied 338 27.1
Person experiences a hostile classroom environment 237 19.0
Person experienced a hostile work environment 195 15.7
Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group 186 14.9
Person being stared at 182 14.6
Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/

Derogatory written comments 149 12.0
Derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line 146 11.7
Person was the target of workplace incivility 142 11.4
Derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail 98 7.9
Person received a low or unfair performance evaluation 77 6.2
Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/

Person was “outed” against their wishes (e.g., gender

identity, sexuality, disability status) 65 5.2
Person was unfairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure

process 64 5.1
Threats of physical violence 64 5.1
Person was denied accommodations 59 4.7
Graffiti/vandalism 48 3.9
Person received a poor grade 35 2.8
Derogatory phone calls 29 2.3
Physical violence 26 2.1
Person was stalked 21 1.7
Something not listed above 79 6.3

370
Table B93. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 80)
Location n %
Off campus 208 16.7
On social media (Facebook/Twitter/ Yik-Yak) 197 15.8
While working at an Ithaca College job 108 8.7
In an experiential learning environment (e.g.,

community-based learning, retreat, externship,
internship) 17 1.4
In the Counseling and Psychological Services 4 0.3

371
Table B94. What was your response to observing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 88)
Response n %
I did not do anything 437 35.1
I did not know who to go to 180 14.5
LGBT Center 9 12.5
Student staff 7 9.7
(CSRE) 3 4.2
Case Manager 1 1.4
Muller Chapel 0 0.0
I sought support from a member of the clergy or spiritual advisor
(e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest, imam) 11 0.9
372
confidential on-line reporting system (e.g., EthicsPoint) 1 0.1
Table B95. Did you report the conduct? (Question 80)
No, I didn’t report it. 1,121 93.1
Yes, I reported it. 83 6.9
Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with

the outcome. 14 16.9
Yes, I reported the incident, and while the outcome

is not what I had hoped for, I feel as though my
complaint was responded to appropriately. 17 20.5
Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not

Missing 26 31.3
373
Table B96. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed hiring practices at Ithaca College (e.g. hiring supervisor
bias, search committee bias, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) that you perceive to be unjust or
that would inhibit diversifying the community? (Question 82)
Observed hiring practices n %
No 785 79.9
Yes 198 20.1

374
Table B97. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon:
Characteristic n %
Ethnicity 60 30.3
Age 43 21.7
Nepotism/Cronyism 40 20.2
Pregnancy 0 0.0
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed discriminatory hiring practices (n =
198). Percentages may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.
375
Table B98. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed promotion/reappointment/reclassification practices at
Ithaca College that you perceive to be unjust? (Question 85)
Observed n %
No 706 71.9
Yes 276 28.1

376
Table B99. Faculty/Staff only: I believe the unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to
promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification were based upon: (Mark all that apply.) (Question 86)
Characteristic n %
Age 33 12.0
Ethnicity 30 10.9
Pregnancy 6 2.2
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed discriminatory practices (n = 276).
377
Table B100. Faculty/Staff only: Have you have observed employment-related discipline or action, up to and
including dismissal at Ithaca College that you perceive to be unjust or that would inhibit diversifying the
community? (Question 88)
Observed n %
No 846 86.1
Yes 137 13.9

378
Table B101. Faculty/Staff only: I believe the unjust employment-related disciplinary actions were based upon:
Characteristic n %
Age 26 19.0
Ethnicity 10 7.3
Pregnancy 1 0.7
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed unjust employment-related
disciplinary actions (n = 137). Percentages may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.
379
Table B102. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall campus climate at Ithaca College on the following dimensions: (Question 91)
1 2 3 4 5
Standard
Dimension n % n % n % n % n % Mean Deviation
Friendly/Hostile 1,363 35.8 1,660 43.6 615 16.2 140 3.7 25 0.7 1.9 0.8
Inclusive/Exclusive 867 22.8 1,533 40.4 984 25.9 349 9.2 64 1.7 2.3 1.0
Improving/Regressing 818 21.7 1,577 41.8 1,062 28.2 239 6.3 75 2.0 2.3 0.9
Positive for persons with
disabilities/Negative 748 19.9 1,072 28.5 1,076 28.6 606 16.1 266 7.1 2.6 1.2
Positive for people who identify as lesbian,
gay, bisexual, queer, or transgender/Negative 1,788 47.1 1,411 37.2 478 12.6 100 2.6 19 0.5 1.7 0.8
Positive for people of various religious/
spiritual backgrounds/Negative 1,101 29.1 1,473 38.9 946 25.0 213 5.6 49 1.3 2.1 0.9
Positive for People of Color/Negative 750 19.8 1,065 28.1 1,184 31.2 630 16.6 164 4.3 2.6 1.1
Positive for men/Negative 1,780 47.0 1,296 34.2 608 16.1 79 2.1 24 0.6 1.8 0.8
Positive for women/Negative 1,083 28.6 1,501 39.6 865 22.8 299 7.9 41 1.1 2.1 1.0
Positive for non-native English
speakers/Negative 612 16.2 1,011 26.8 1,479 39.2 571 15.1 98 2.6 2.6 1.0
Positive for people who are not U.S.
citizens/Negative 751 20.0 1,167 31.0 1,436 38.2 347 9.2 59 1.6 2.4 1.0
Welcoming/Not welcoming 1,337 35.3 1,719 45.4 535 14.1 165 4.4 32 0.8 1.9 0.9
Respectful/Disrespectful 1,113 29.4 1,647 43.5 693 18.3 270 7.1 59 1.6 2.1 0.9
Positive for people of high socioeconomic
status/Negative 2,076 54.9 1,087 28.8 512 13.5 70 1.9 34 0.9 1.7 0.8
Positive for people of low socioeconomic
status/Negative 572 15.1 844 22.3 1,138 30.1 875 23.2 349 9.2 2.9 1.2
Positive for people of various political
affiliations/Negative 508 13.5 869 23.0 1,321 35.0 770 20.4 304 8.1 2.9 1.1
Positive for people in active military/
veterans status/Negative 892 23.7 1,069 28.4 1,593 42.4 171 4.5 35 0.9 2.3 0.9
380
Table B103. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall campus climate at Ithaca College on the following dimensions: (Question 92)
1 2 3 4 5
Standard
Dimension n % n % n % n % n % Mean Deviation
Not racist/Racist 650 17.2 1,180 31.2 1,239 32.7 595 15.7 123 3.2 2.6 1.0
Not sexist/Sexist 710 18.8 1,281 33.9 1,182 31.3 511 13.5 92 2.4 2.5 1.0
Not homophobic/Homophobic 1,207 32.0 1,573 41.7 792 21.0 168 4.5 32 0.8 2.0 0.9
Not biphobic/Biphobic 1,143 30.5 1,460 38.9 916 24.4 199 5.3 31 0.8 2.1 0.9
Not transphobic/Transphobic 1,033 27.6 1,410 37.7 953 25.5 290 7.8 53 1.4 2.2 1.0
Not ageist/Ageist 1,062 28.2 1,295 34.4 1,027 27.3 313 8.3 63 1.7 2.2 1.0
Not classist (socioeconomic

status)/Classist 623 16.8 1,021 27.1 1,139 30.2 724 19.2 252 6.7 2.7 1.2
Not classist (position: faculty,

staff, student)/Classist 754 20.1 1,072 28.6 1,083 28.9 597 15.9 243 6.5 2.6 1.2
Disability friendly (not ableist)/

Not disability friendly (ableist) 797 21.3 1,135 30.3 1,003 26.8 546 14.6 265 7.1 2.6 1.2
Not xenophobic/Xenophobic 960 25.6 1,358 36.1 1,150 30.6 232 6.2 57 1.5 2.2 0.9
Not ethnocentric/Ethnocentric 831 22.2 1,238 33.0 1,125 30.0 427 11.4 126 3.4 2.4 1.1
381
Table B104. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 93)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
I feel valued by Ithaca College faculty. 799 28.4 1,490 53.0 383 13.6 126 4.5 14 0.5
I feel valued by Ithaca College staff. 667 23.8 1,381 49.3 613 21.9 119 4.2 22 0.8
I feel valued by Ithaca College senior

administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 327 11.7 670 23.9 981 35.0 539 19.2 285 10.2
I feel valued by faculty in the classroom. 867 30.9 1,501 53.5 352 12.5 74 2.6 13 0.5
I feel valued by other students in the classroom. 618 22.1 1,425 50.9 605 21.6 122 4.4 31 1.1
I feel valued by other students outside of the

classroom. 648 23.3 1,319 47.4 644 23.2 139 5.0 31 1.1
I think that faculty pre-judge my abilities based on

their perception of my identity/background. 256 9.1 684 24.4 779 27.8 818 29.2 263 9.4
I believe that the campus climate encourages free

and open discussion of difficult topics. 547 19.5 1,291 46.1 260 20.0 296 10.6 108 3.9
I have faculty whom I perceive as role models. 1,017 36.2 1,254 44.7 401 14.3 103 3.7 33 1.2
I have staff whom I perceive as role models. 674 24.0 1,046 37.3 795 28.4 240 8.6 49 1.7
382
Table B105. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 94)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
I feel valued by faculty in my department/program. 172 37.4 186 40.4 45 9.8 39 8.5 18 3.9
I feel valued by my department/program chair. 213 47.2 144 31.9 41 9.1 40 8.9 13 2.9
I feel valued by other faculty at Ithaca College. 118 26.2 190 42.2 107 23.8 27 6.0 8 1.8
I feel valued by students in the classroom. 197 43.4 210 46.3 38 8.4 7 1.5 2 0.4
I feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators

(e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 54 11.8 78 17.0 130 28.3 108 23.5 89 19.4
I think that faculty in my department/program pre-

judge my abilities based on their perception of my
I think that my department/ program chair pre-

judges my abilities based on their perception of my
I believe that Ithaca College encourages free and

open discussion of difficult topics. 50 11.0 157 34.4 112 24.6 94 20.6 43 9.4
I feel that my research/scholarship is valued. 63 13.8 149 32.7 136 29.8 74 16.2 34 7.5
I feel that my teaching is valued. 147 32.2 200 43.9 61 13.4 32 7.0 16 3.5
I feel that my service contributions are valued 91 19.9 166 36.3 110 24.1 54 11.8 36 7.9
383
Table B106. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: (Question 95)
Neither agree nor

n % n % n % n % n %
I feel valued by co-workers in my department. 189 36.1 235 44.8 66 12.6 30 5.7 4 0.8
I feel valued by co-workers outside my department. 119 22.7 255 48.6 107 20.4 34 6.5 10 1.9
I feel valued by my supervisor/manager. 202 38.8 193 37.0 56 10.7 53 10.2 17 3.3
I feel valued by Ithaca College students. 105 20.2 202 38.8 176 33.8 29 5.6 8 1.5
I feel valued by Ithaca College faculty. 50 9.6 125 24.1 215 41.4 103 19.8 26 5.0
I feel valued by Ithaca College senior administrators (e.g.,

dean, vice president, provost). 51 9.8 107 20.6 181 34.9 112 21.6 68 13.1
I think that co-workers in my work unit pre-judge my abilities

based on their perception of my identity/background. 18 3.4 74 14.2 154 29.5 194 37.2 82 15.7
I think that my supervisor/manager pre-judges my abilities

based on their perception of my identity/background. 17 3.3 65 12.6 126 24.4 194 37.6 114 22.1
I think that faculty pre-judges my abilities based on their

perception of my identity/background. 21 4.1 73 14.2 226 43.9 128 24.9 67 13.0
I believe that my department/program encourages free and

open discussion of difficult topics. 106 20.3 198 37.9 114 21.8 78 14.9 26 5.0
I feel that my skills are valued. 123 23.5 232 44.4 80 15.3 61 11.7 27 5.2
I feel that my work is valued. 125 23.9 238 45.5 84 16.1 53 10.1 23 4.4
384
Table B107. Respondents with disabilities only: Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in any of the following
areas at Ithaca College? (Question 96)

n % n % n %
Facilities
Classroom buildings 75 12.6 284 47.7 236 39.7
Classrooms, labs (including computer labs) 60 10.2 294 49.7 237 40.1
College housing 92 15.6 252 42.8 245 41.6
Dining facilities 81 13.8 276 46.9 231 39.3
Doors 31 5.3 316 53.7 241 41.0
Elevators/lifts 47 8.0 305 52.0 234 39.9
Emergency preparedness 27 4.6 32 53.7 242 41.7
Health Center 86 14.7 277 47.4 222 37.9
Office furniture (e.g., chair, desk) 34 5.9 310 53.4 237 40.8
Campus transportation/parking 78 13.4 278 47.8 226 38.8
Other campus buildings 39 6.7 304 52.4 237 40.9
Podium 17 2.9 307 52.7 259 44.4
Restrooms 34 5.8 315 53.9 235 40.2
Signage 20 3.4 310 53.4 251 43.2
Studios/performing arts spaces 15 2.6 297 51.1 269 46.3
Temporary barriers due to construction or
maintenance 58 9.9 285 48.7 242 41.4
Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks 57 9.9 283 49.3 234 40.8
Technology/Online Environment
Accessible electronic format 47 8.1 312 54.1 218 37.8
Clickers 21 3.7 303 52.9 249 43.5
Computer equipment
(e.g., screens, mouse, keyboard) 33 5.7 330 57.2 214 37.1
Electronic forms 28 4.9 331 57.6 216 37.6
Electronic signage 17 3.0 335 58.4 222 38.7
Electronic surveys (including this one) 13 2.3 349 60.8 212 36.9
Kiosks 19 3.3 325 56.7 229 40.0
Library database 22 3.8 333 58.1 218 38.0
Sakai 42 7.3 315 55.1 215 37.6
Phone/Phone equipment 21 3.7 339 59.2 213 37.2
Software (e.g., voice recognition/audiobooks) 28 4.9 325 56.7 220 38.4
Video /video audio description 24 4.2 332 58.0 216 37.8
385
Website 26 4.6 335 58.7 210 36.8
Identity
Electronic databases (e.g., Homer, Parnassus) 36 6.3 330 57.9 204 35.8
Email account 27 4.7 340 59.4 205 35.8
Surveys 29 5.1 340 59.9 199 35.0
Instructional/Campus Materials
Brochures 18 3.2 337 59.1 215 37.7
Food menus 50 8.7 310 54.2 212 37.1
Forms 26 4.6 335 58.7 210 36.8
Journal articles 28 4.9 327 57.5 214 37.6
Library books 20 3.5 334 58.8 214 37.7
Other publications 20 3.5 333 58.3 218 38.2
Syllabi 33 5.8 321 56.5 214 37.7
Textbooks 48 8.5 308 54.3 211 37.2
Video-closed captioning and text description 26 4.7 315 56.6 216 38.8
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they had a disability in Question 60 (n = 623).
386
Table B108. Respondents who identify as trans-spectrum only: Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in any of
the following areas at Ithaca College? (Question 98)

n % n % n %
Facilities
Changing rooms/locker rooms 14 30.4 18 39.1 14 30.4
College housing 13 28.3 20 43.5 13 28.3
Restrooms 20 42.6 17 36.2 10 21.3
Signage 13 29.5 19 43.2 12 27.3
Identity Accuracy
Alumni correspondence and publications 6 13.3 19 42.2 20 44.4
Ithaca College ID Card 8 18.2 26 59.1 10 22.7
Electronic databases (e.g., Homer, Parnassus) 12 26.1 24 52.2 10 21.7
Email account 11 24.4 24 53.3 10 22.2
Ithaca College media 6 14.0 24 55.8 13 30.2
Surveys 14 31.1 23 51.1 8 17.8
Benefits
Health Insurance 7 15.2 21 45.7 18 39.1
Other benefits (e.g., retirement) 3 6.7 20 44.4 22 48.9
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were trans-spectrum in Question 44 (n = 48).
387
Table B109. Faculty only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the
climate at Ithaca College. (Question 100)

Total Total
influences influence on influences initiative is influence no influence influence initiative is not
climate climate climate available climate on climate climate available
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Providing flexibility for calculating
the tenure clock. 189 71.1 68 25.6 9 3.4 266 65.5 109 77.9 20 14.3 11 7.9 140 34.5
Providing recognition and rewards
for including diversity issues in
courses across the curriculum. 141 62.4 53 23.5 32 14.2 226 55.1 108 58.7 56 30.4 20 10.9 184 44.9
Providing diversity, inclusivity,
equity training for faculty. 232 69.0 85 25.3 19 5.7 336 80.0 65 77.4 13 15.5 6 7.1 84 20.0
Providing faculty with tool-kits to
create an inclusive classroom
environment. 171 67.6 75 29.6 7 2.8 253 59.7 134 78.4 30 17.5 7 4.1 171 40.3
Providing faculty with supervisory
training. 147 61.8 76 31.9 15 6.3 238 58.6 103 61.3 52 31.0 13 7.7 168 41.4
Providing access to counseling for
people who have experienced
harassment. 301 91.5 27 8.2 1 0.3 329 80.4 71 88.8 5 6.3 4 5.0 80 19.6
faculty. 276 90.8 27 8.9 1 0.3 304 71.4 112 91.8 7 5.7 3 2.5 122 28.6
Providing a fair process to resolve
conflicts. 212 85.8 34 13.8 1 0.4 247 60.5 148 91.9 10 6.2 3 1.9 161 39.5
Including diversity-related
professional experiences as one of
the criteria for hiring of
staff/faculty. 129 53.1 64 26.3 50 20.6 243 59.6 82 49.7 35 21.2 48 29.1 165 40.4
388
Providing equity and diversity
training to search, promotion, and
tenure committees. 199 67.5 77 26.1 19 6.4 295 71.6 83 70.9 21 17.9 13 11.1 117 28.4
Providing career span development
opportunities for faculty at all
ranks. 200 82.3 41 16.9 2 0.8 243 59.1 154 91.7 12 7.1 2 1.2 168 40.9
389
Table B110. Staff only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each affects the climate at Ithaca College.
(Question 102)

Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
training for staff. 353 73.1 110 22.8 20 4.1 483 95.3 12 50.0 6 25.0 6 25.0 24 4.7
Providing access to counseling for
people who have experienced
harassment. 378 90.0 39 9.3 3 0.7 420 84.5 59 76.6 6 7.8 12 15.6 77 15.5
Providing supervisors/managers
with supervisory training. 342 82.6 68 16.4 4 1.0 414 83.6 63 77.8 12 14.8 6 7.4 81 16.4
Providing faculty supervisors with
supervisory training. 260 79.5 63 19.3 4 1.2 327 70.3 113 81.9 16 11.6 9 6.5 138 29.7
staff. 232 88.2 27 10.3 4 1.5 263 53.2 205 88.7 17 7.4 9 3.9 231 46.8
Providing a fair process to resolve
conflicts. 237 86.5 33 12.0 4 1.5 274 57.7 178 88.6 7 3.5 16 8.0 201 42.3
Considering diversity-related
professional experiences as one of
the criteria for hiring of
staff/faculty. 189 62.6 79 26.2 34 11.3 302 63.2 104 59.1 52 29.5 20 11.4 176 36.8
Providing career development
opportunities for staff. 333 88.8 37 9.9 5 1.3 375 75.0 111 88.8 5 4.0 9 7.2 125 25.0
390
Table B111. Students only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence
the climate at Ithaca College. (Question 104)

Total Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
training for students. 1,495 77.5 393 20.4 42 2.2 1,930 72.2 594 79.8 120 16.1 30 4.0 744 27.8
training for staff. 1,638 81.2 347 17.2 33 1.6 2,018 76.2 543 86.1 56 8.9 32 5.1 631 23.8
training for faculty. 1,614 81.1 340 17.1 35 1.8 1,989 76.1 541 86.6 56 9.0 28 4.5 625 23.9
faculty/staff in on campus learning
environments (e.g. classrooms,
labs). 1,395 79.8 310 17.7 44 2.5 1,749 67.2 725 84.9 102 11.9 27 3.2 854 32.8
student complaints of bias by other
students in on campus learning
environments (e.g. classrooms,
labs). 1,320 76.9 339 19.8 57 3.3 1,716 65.9 714 80.4 132 14.9 42 4.7 888 34.1
supervisors in off-campus learning
environments (e.g., field
experience, internships, clinical
rotations). 1,213 75.2 350 21.7 50 3.1 1,613 62.3 755 77.3 181 18.5 41 4.2 977 37.7
student complaints of bias by other
students in off-campus learning
environments (e.g., field 1,180 74.3 354 22.3 54 3.4 1,588 61.5 726 73.0 220 22.1 49 4.9 995 38.5
391
experience, internships, clinical
rotations).
Increasing opportunities for cross-
cultural dialogue among students. 1,476 80.3 324 17.6 39 2.1 1,839 71.0 651 86.7 84 11.2 16 2.1 751 29.0
Increasing opportunities for cross-
cultural dialogue between faculty,
staff and students. 1,437 80.3 317 17.7 35 2.0 1,789 69.2 696 87.5 83 10.4 16 2.0 795 30.8
Incorporating issues of diversity
and cross-cultural competence
more effectively into the
curriculum. 1,404 76.7 367 20.0 60 3.3 1,831 70.6 639 84.0 94 12.4 28 3.7 761 29.4
Providing effective faculty
mentorship of students. 1,713 84.9 273 13.5 32 1.6 2,018 76.9 508 83.7 82 13.5 17 2.8 607 23.1
Providing effective academic
advising. 1,839 85.3 278 12.9 39 1.8 2,156 83.6 376 88.9 33 7.8 14 3.3 423 16.4
Providing diversity training for
student staff (e.g., student union,
resident assistants). 1,536 79.5 351 18.2 44 2.3 1,931 74.8 542 83.4 87 13.4 21 3.2 650 25.2
Providing affordable childcare. 881 67.3 397 30.3 32 2.4 1,310 51.0 955 75.9 271 21.5 32 2.5 1,258 49.0
Providing adequate childcare
resources. 893 67.9 385 29.3 38 2.9 1,316 51.6 944 76.5 261 21.2 29 2.4 1,234 48.4
spouse/partner employment. 958 69.3 388 28.1 36 2.6 1,382 54.1 837 71.3 309 26.3 28 2.4 1,174 45.9
Providing adequate social space. 1,528 83.8 263 14.4 32 1.8 1,823 70.6 654 86.2 81 10.7 24 3.2 759 29.4
392
393
Appendix C
Comment Analyses (Questions #106, #107, and #108)
The surveys submitted for the Ithaca College climate assessment contained responses to open-
ended questions found throughout the survey. This appendix includes summaries of the
responses submitted for the open-ended questions (Questions 106, 107, and 108) and examples
of remarks that were echoed by multiple respondents.
Experiences On Campus and In the Community
Q106: Are your experiences on campus different from those you experience in the community
surrounding campus? If so, how are these experiences different?
A total of 1,680 respondents elaborated on their experiences on campus versus in the community.
Among the respondents, 1,339 were Student respondents, 165 were Faculty respondents, and 176
were Staff respondents. Among all respondents, a theme of having similar experience was
common. Among Student respondents, four themes emerged: diversity, safety on campus,
preference for on-campus experience, and preference for off-campus experience. Among
Employee respondents, not feeling valued on campus was the major theme that emerged from
the data.
All Respondents – Similar Experiences: One common theme among all respondents was feeling
that the campus and community experiences were similar and that “the experiences were not that
different.” Those who found the experiences to be similar found them mostly to be positive. For
example, a Graduate Student respondent noted, “Both Ithaca College and the surrounding Ithaca
community have a positive climate and very open, un-biased feel about them.” An
Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “No, I feel like Ithaca as a campus very positively
reflects the views and behaviors of the community around the school. I have never felt unsafe or
uninvited on both campus and the surrounding community.” Employee respondents made similar
comments. “Both campus and community are generally friendly and respectful places.” “I feel
that in general the town of Ithaca as well as Ithaca college fosters positive environments.” Other
respondents acknowledged that both communities are predominantly white and therefore their
393
privileged identities led them to having similar experiences. One Undergraduate Student
respondent noted, “Not really, I'm a white, straight, dude so like my life is pretty easy in that
regard. People treat me with kindness and respect no matter what.” Another Undergraduate
Student respondent stated, “No, the college and the community are predominantly white. No
difference.” A Staff respondent noted, “I'm white and middle class, so I carry my privilege with
me.” Overall, respondents felt that Ithaca College and the community were both “welcoming”
environments and that they were “really great places to live, work, be yourself.”
Student Respondents – Diversity: Among the Student respondents, one theme that emerged was
the impact of diversity on their experiences on campus and in the community. Many Student
respondents felt that the experiences for students of color were different from white, majority
students, as indicated by the following Undergraduate Student respondent, who stated, “The
white affluent students definitely have a better experience than the ALANA low income
students.” Other Undergraduate Student respondents wrote, “Yes, I am white and I have more
privilege that my peers who are POC. I'm sure their experiences are much different than mine.”
“Yes, I'm a white male and quite frankly I am not going to be able to have the same experience
as a black male do to the implicit biases they have faced for centuries.” “Yes, as a white person,
my experiences are different from my friends who are other races.”
Student respondents also explained how they felt that the outside community was generally more
accepting of diversity within the population. One Undergraduate Student respondent stated,
“When I am in the Ithaca community and off-campus, I usually find a majority of people are
more accepting and have a better understanding of diversity and how to be cultured.” Other
Student respondents wrote, “On campus, I feel that there is a lack of inclusion whereas, in the
community, I feel that I can meet people who are understanding of social issues and are willing
to have a conversation.” “Ithaca College is a homogeneous, white, middle-class college. In the
surrounding community, I am able to interact with people from a variety of backgrounds/ Sadly,
this is not common at IC.” “On campus, I feel that there is a lack of inclusion whereas, in the
community, I feel that I can meet people who are understanding of social issues and are willing
to have a conversation.”
394
Other Student respondents described how the campus and greater communities were different in
terms of diversity. Some descriptions included, “People on campus are a lot more privileged and
of higher economic status than you would see in town.” “Most students on campus are
financially secure and the community around campus mostly is lower-income.” “I feel as though
I get a more diverse vibe downtown in Ithaca. There are so many people from various
backgrounds that I am exposed to down there.” “There are very few POC on campus, and IC is
less racially/ethnically diverse than the town.” “I just see a lot more underprivileged and, to put it
simply, poor families outside of IC's campus.” Student respondents also commented on how the
differences in diversity impacted their sense of safety within the various communities. One
Undergraduate Student respondent stated, “On campus can be more heterosexist than certain
parts of town, e.g. in the Commons. But other parts of town it is much worse and I feel less safe
and secure.” Another Undergraduate Student respondent described, “In a lot of ways, I feel safer
off-campus. As an example, I don't shave my armpits. I felt safer wearing a tanktop off campus
than I did on campus because I feel as though people who choose to live in Ithaca, NY (the
‘Townies’) are far more open-minded and would not judge me for something like that.”
Student Respondents – Safety on Campus: Student respondents commented on their overall sense
of safety and security within the campus and greater communities. Some Student respondents felt
safer in the greater community, as indicated in the response, “On campus, I do not feel ‘safe’
based off of previous experiences (bullying, difficulty adjusting, etc.)” However, a majority
indicated that they felt safer on campus. One Undergraduate Student respondent commented, “I
feel safer on campus, overall. I run at night on campus and feel fine, when I run downtown I
literally feel like I'm going to get stolen. I also have experienced a lot more sexual harassment
downtown. I generally change my clothes into something very conservative when going to the
commons.” Other comments included, “Campus is a very safe space in Ithaca. Downtown,
though rather safe, can be sketchy at times. IC creates a really safe space that a lot of people
seem to take for granted.” “The community off campus isn't the best one. The commons are a
great place to go but outside of them you have to become aware of your surroundings. The towns
surrounding Ithaca College are low income communities.” “I feel safer on campus than in some
parts of the surrounding community, because of the high drug use in Ithaca.” “I generally feel
more safe on campus than I do in the community. Some of the people who walk around the
395
commons who I have come in contact with can be scary initially, and have approached me and
made me frightened at times. This has never happened on campus, however.”
Student Respondents – “I prefer campus:” Another theme that emerged was that the “college
was better” than the surrounding community. Many times, this feeling that the campus was
“better” was described in terms of feeling welcome and included. One Undergraduate Student
respondent commented, “On campus, people are a little more respectful.” Other comments about
the friendliness of the campus community included, “The college climate is more friendly than
the surrounding community.” “I find that the environment on campus is more positive than in the
surrounding areas. I experience cat calling with my friends while by Cornell and I haven't
experienced that at Ithaca.” “There is more friendly people on campus.” “More inclusive on
campus. Students are more accepting of LGBT community.” “Seeing as the majority of people
on campus are younger than the surrounding area, people on campus are more socially aware and
overall accepting.” “I would say yes but simply because I know the people on campus. Some of
the race relations here are more harsh than off campus.”
In preferring the environment on campus, Student respondents also described how their
experiences and perceptions of the surrounding community were negative. One Undergraduate
Student respondent wrote, “I find the town of Ithaca to be a fairly depressing place.” Other
comments included, “Off campus people seem to care much less about others' feelings and
concerns.” “Off campus is much more poverty-stricken and I believe that can taint our
interactions in both directions.” “The community surrounding campus looks down on the college
students and sometimes turns aggressive when there are community events that students attend.”
“The outside community is less accepting.”
Student Respondents – Preference for the Community: Student respondents also elaborated on
having a preference for the greater community and generally found the greater community to be
more accepting. One Graduate Student respondent wrote, “I feel like other places in the
community are more accessible for older adults.” Other Student respondents describing the
greater community as more inclusive noted, “Sometimes I feel like Ithaca is more accepting of
different ideas than Ithaca college.” “The people that live in the community of Ithaca seem to be
very positive and open to every experience different from their own but many students do not
396
seem to be that way.” “The community is friendly and inviting.” “When I am in the community
off-campus I feel much more welcomed and not afraid to say my opinions. I feel happier and not
afraid I am being judged for my looks, economic status, etc.” “The people who LIVE in town are
so much nicer and better people than the majority of students who come to IC.”
On the other hand, in having a preference for the community, Student respondents described how
they found the campus to be a “bubble,” as noted in the following Undergraduate Student
respondent’s comment, “The campus is more of a ‘bubble’ where you are constantly surrounded
by similar ideas/biases.” Other Undergraduate Student respondents wrote, “My experiences on
campus are much more sheltered than my experience off campus.” “Ithaca College is very much
a bubble. On campus, wealthy, privileged students have no idea the challenges that exist within
the Ithaca community.” Other Student respondents elaborated on how they felt that the campus
environment was not a place they could truly express their opinions. One Undergraduate Student
respondent wrote, “Ithaca college students are only ‘open’ to progressive ideas if they fall in line
with the popular opinion of campus which makes it feel like an unsafe environment to express
any conservative religious views or ideals.” Another Undergraduate Student respondent
explained, “I think that there is significantly greater stigma about a myriad social and political
issues on campus that seem insignificant outside of the campus environment.” Overall, the
Student respondents felt that “off campus more open to accepting people.”
Employee Respondents – Not Valued on Campus: Employee respondents described the ways that
they felt the climates were different between the on-campus and greater communities. Employee
respondents wrote that they did not feel valued on campus. One Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
respondent wrote, “I feel valued within my community but not at Ithaca College.” Another Non-
Tenure-Track Faculty respondent wrote, “But it's also the only place in the world where I don't
feel valued as other individuals. This is based on rank and inconsistent policies in my
department, in my school, and across the college at large. It's frustrating not to have access to
same opportunities that other people of my rank enjoy with regard to teaching upper level
courses, for example. Inconsistency is a problem. And it's scary to be on a NTEN line between
the tenured faculty who have job security and the adjuncts who look like they will soon have the
support of a union.” Another Staff respondent wrote, “They are different because here there has
been a significant slipping on showing all employees are valuable and important. Not just a few.
397
Outside of IC, within my volunteer work, I do not experience the same thing. It didn't used to be
this way.” One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “I feel more valued at Cornell
University where I have been teaching part-time for a year while a search is being held. I feel my
opinions and intellect are more valued at Cornell. At Ithaca I feel I have to moderate my opinions
in order to maintain reasonable collegial relationships.” Finally, one Non-Tenure-Track
respondent wrote, “Ithaca College has some severe internal struggles. The climate here is tense
and strained. This is not how I experience the community outside of campus where I live. That
community is a welcoming and supporting one.”
Employee respondents also explained how they felt this negative climate was affecting their
work environment. One Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “People don't want to lose their
jobs and so are afraid to speak out against the positions and decisions of the administration,
which is largely perceived as very distant from the faculty and often hostile to our interests and
needs.” Another Senior Administrator without Faculty Rank respondent wrote, “Many faculty
and staff engage in chronic gossip and back-biting, which is terrible for morale. There is a sense
of powerlessness and disempowerment that pervades the community and the standards of
professionalism are very low.” Another Staff respondent explained, “I do feel that I must be so
much more cautious of every word on campus. This is not good because it may cause me to
hesitate to interact with others for fear of offending, that doesn't contribute to an inclusive
environment.” Overall, the climate was such that “people feel unsupported, overworked,
undercompensated (same pay, but with significantly more work to do that is under their pay
grade).”
By not feeling valued on campus, Employee respondents also explained how they felt more
welcome within the greater community. One Staff respondent stated, “The Ithaca community
seems to be much more welcoming than the IC community. This campus is like a country club.”
Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent noted, “I generally enjoy living in Ithaca NY as it is a
really interesting and vibrant place to live. This is very different than the feeling I get working on
campus.” Another Staff respondent described how their behavior was different off campus. “I
speak more freely to my friends and family off campus. I measure my words carefully on
campus. Not because I believe what I am saying is inappropriate or disrespectful, but you never
know how someone will respond to your comments, especially if you do not know what they
398
may be feeling or have recently experienced.” Overall, Employee respondents felt “valued more
as a person off campus more than” on campus.
399
Improving the Climate
Q107. Do you have any specific recommendations for improving the climate at Ithaca College?
A total of 1,799 respondents elaborated on specific recommendations that they had for improving
the climate at Ithaca College. Among those respondents, 1,361 were Student respondents, 217
were Faculty respondents, and 221 were Staff respondents. Among all respondents, three themes
emerged: having no suggestions, improving administration, and addressing diversity. Among
Student respondents, there were three additional themes: improving financial support, improving
resources on campus, and providing voice for students. Among Employee respondents, an
additional theme of improving resources also emerged.
All Respondents – No Major Suggestions: Respondents who indicated that they had no
suggestions did not see any reason to change the current climate. One Undergraduate Student
respondent wrote, “I don't really think that anything needs to be changed immediately. I really
don't think things are as bad as people have made them out to be.” Another Undergraduate
Student wrote, “I believe most students have positive attitudes towards IC. I don't think that
much needs to change. I understand different groups feel differently but overall it seems like
everyone really loves IC when walking around campus.” A Part-time/Adjunct respondent wrote,
“I'm happy as it is.” Some respondents recognized that the campus climate could improve but
stated that they felt that they could not offer any suggestions. One Staff respondent wrote, “For
the most part I think this is a great place to work but I think there is still some work to be done.
Unfortunately I don't have any recommendations. A big problem on this campus is not everyone
has the same experience and it is hard to relate to everyone. We can respect each other but
sometimes people want more.” Another Pre-doctoral/Post-doctoral respondent wrote, “No, I feel
that I do not have the capacity to provide such recommendations other than to say listen to what
students are saying.”
All Respondents – Improve Administration: Respondents expressed a distrust of the current

administration. Many respondents simply wanted to see the president removed from office and
have new administration start as soon as possible. Student respondents wrote, “Once Tom
Rochon is gone I think it will be better. Never hire someone like him again.” “Get rid of Tom
Rochon already and hire someone who is equipped to deal with diversity and inclusion issues.”
400
“Firing Tom Rochon earlier than July of 2017. Students are greatly upset with his continued
presence on campus.” Faculty respondents stated, “Hire a new president and provost who can
help the campus move forward, thereby providing a positive, supportive, and respectful climate
for all students, faculty, administration, and staff.” “Ask the president to leave and let's start
fresh. With him hanging around the climate is one of barely breathing, underlying festering,
insidious lack of trust among people who work here.’ Staff respondents also wrote, “A new
president who can rebuild trust and accountability and who see's the people here on campus as
the most important resource the College has and then acts accordingly.” “We need different
leadership, which is coming. A lot of people are simply counting the days.” “Remove Tom
Rochon from campus immediately.”
Respondents wanted to see this new administration have more transparency, improved
communication, and increased accessibility with the Ithaca community. One Staff respondent
described how current administration does not do this, noting, “The Senior administration needs
to actually have contact with staff, not just their direct reports. Most tend to walk passed you and
not even acknowledge you. They do not make an effort to know everyone in their division. They
make decisions without speaking with the staff that have DIRECT contact with students. Have
they even visited the office of the people they supervise? Do they attend events to interact with
students? I only observe them giving speeches at events, but not interacting with students
themselves. They may have had direct contact years ago, but it's obvious now that students do
not even know who they are.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent described the need for
improved transparency with the new administration, writing in all caps. “More shared
governance...transparency throughout on institutional wide decision-making.” Another Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “More honesty and transparency from the administration. Its
actions are still quite opaque. The presidential search process is not open.” Other respondents
wrote, “Have a President who is more accessible to faculty and students.” “Hire senior
administrators that don't hide on the third floor of PRW. The new president needs to lead a
REAL strategic planning process that guides IC into the future and creates community supported
goals and objectives.” “Be more accommodating to the students who want to see a change. It is
very frustrating to see all the bureaucracy involved.” Overall, as one Senior Administration
without Faculty Rank respondent stated, leadership should be “focused on shared governance,
respecting all community members, transparency, and positive engagement.”
401
All Respondents – Addressing Diversity: Respondents had a variety of opinions about how Ithaca
was addressing diversity on campus. Some respondents wanted to see “More diversity and POC
focus and inclusion,” and “Diversity and inclusion could be improved.” Suggestions on how to
improve diversity and inclusion on campus varied. The need for more diversity training was
frequently mentioned. Some respondents indicated that they wanted to see training for students:
“Diversity training for all students. maybe start with providing this for different affiliations on
campus and opening it up campus wide thereafter.” Other comments varied between those who
felt that the training should be mandatory (“Diversity training for ALL constituencies. Everyone
should be held accountable!”) to those who saw it as voluntary (“Mandatory training with
regards to diversity/inclusion as was associated with performance evaluations and merit raises
last year has a negative impact on learning. Staff/faculty should be encouraged to attend these
programs, NOT mandated.”). Overall, training was seen as a way to improve the climate in a
variety of areas, and respondents commented on how it could be implemented in a variety of
ways. One Faculty respondent wrote, “Mandatory, semesterly diversity training for all faculty,
with mandatory monthly diversity training for dept chairs, and search committees when engaging
in a search.” “Train departments in identifying bullying, sexist, racist, xenophobic and
discriminatory behavior. Not enough to make this voluntary at the college level. This has to be
mandatory at the department level.” Another Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “I think
ALL diversity training would be most beneficial to the campus climate. This includes training in
race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, nationality, class, religion, philosophical positions, etc. There
are still too many misconceptions being spread about various groups of people that need to be
clarified.” One Staff respondent explained the need to have more inclusive policies and
procedures, “Policies and standards need to be created and enforced to ensure all members of the
Ithaca College community are included, respected and not marginalized. I also believe staff
positions need to be created to better support the unique needs of our community supporting
access and inclusion.” Finally, one Faculty Tenure-Track respondent explained the impact of
requiring this training, “All members of the community should take a training on diversity issues
and micro-aggressions. This should be part of orientation but could be hosted as online videos
and quizzes. All students, staff, faculty and administrators need to take workshops on
homophobia, xenophobia, racism, etc. and not just once but yearly. This will help change the
environment at the college and help us be better.”
402
Respondents also felt that requiring a course on diversity and inclusion would improve the
climate. One Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “I think requiring first year students to
attend a seminar on gender/religious/sexuality equality seminars at the beginning of the year
would be a positive academic experience to further campus climate.” Other Undergraduate
Student respondents wrote, “I think all majors should take a basic course that covers topics such
as race, gender, sexuality, age, and disability. If a class like Culture and Communication, or
Communication, Culture, and Rhetoric, or something SIMILAR were mandatory for the ICC
curriculum as Freshmen, I think there would be an overall more positive, accepting, and open
campus community. Some people do not take any courses at all that encourage conversations
about race, gender, etc, and I may be bias because I've taken such courses, but I see the impact
they have had on me and truly believe EVERYONE, students, professors, administrators alike
could learn a lot from courses like these.” “I think there should be a base class(es) for everyone
to take with real life examples/statements of discrimination to see how the world really is and
how we can be more aware and preventative. I believe it is more powerful to see, rather than
tell.”
On the other hand, some respondents felt that Ithaca was not being truly inclusive in their
definitions of diversity and were concerned about the impact this would have. One
Undergraduate Student explained how the climate does not consider “intellectual diversity.”
“The school, students and community is very hostile towards differing opinions on ‘privilege,’
feminism, BLM and politics. The focus of intellectual diversity is nonexistent and not even
addressed, rather sexual "diversity" and ethnic diversity are valued higher, which should not be
the case.” Another Staff respondent explained, “Diversity is not only about race. As someone
with a mental illness, I feel very excluded and judged.” Other respondents explained, “People
being more open minded to those with different political opinions.” Other respondents were
concerned that focusing on these issues would exclude some voices, as illustrated by the
following comment by an Undergraduate Student respondent. “My main fear is that with the
polarizing of political ideology and having this radical liberal ideology seep into our classrooms,
some students will be afraid to speak, and would limit their academic experience. We, as
students, need to be tolerant of people's opinions that don't align with ours.”
403
Student Respondents – Improving Financial Support: Student respondents wanted to see
improved resources for paying tuition or wanted tuition to be lowered. One Undergraduate
Student respondent explained that they wanted Ithaca to “Come up with better payment plans
and help those whose parents really can't afford college find ways to afford it.” Others
commented that they wanted to see “cheaper tuition” or have “financial aid help.” Student
respondents described how they “were barely making it” and that this lack of socioeconomic
diversity impacted the overall climate, as one Undergraduate Student respondent noted, “I feel
like one of the things missing from Ithaca College is the resources and ability to foster people
from lower socioeconomic environments. It is often too expensive for that diversity to exist.”
Another Undergraduate Student respondent stated, “Find ways to make college more affordable
for those who many just enough money to be ineligible for finical aid, but not enough to afford
tuition and other living expenses. Just because my family makes $65,000 a year, does not mean
they can pay $56,000 for my education.”
A number of Student respondents also described how they wanted to see part-time faculty paid
“a living wage.” As one Undergraduate Student respondent noted, “I did not realize until recently
the fact that some faculty are part time but do not receive proper wages for being part time and
have the risk of not coming back next year or go somewhere else where they will be able to
make a better living. This then causes faculty to leave which some students may adore and have
strong ties and mentor/mentee relationships so the college should make an effort to improve their
wages to keep the faculty here at Ithaca College.” Another Undergraduate Student respondent
wrote, “I am however disappointed in the situation involving professors who are not being paid
an adequate amount of money to sustain a living.......I must remind the institution that we are for
educating people and we must put all resources towards education first foremost before anything
else. We students need and love our professors very much and it makes the student body very sad
to know about the current situation.” Overall, these Student respondents wanted to see Ithaca
“give teachers fair pay.”
Student Respondents – Improving Campus Resources: Student respondents expressed a desire to

see a variety of improved resources on campus. Parking and housing were often mentioned. With
regards to parking, comments were made such as, “Better parking for students, faculty do not
need all of the parking behind Dillingham, Smiddy, etc all of those schools,” and “Parking on
404
campus is a tragedy. It has created a car culture. Public transportation needs to be free or
subsidized for residents without cars who live off campus or in circles. This will solve our
parking problem and be more sustainable.” With regard to housing, Student respondents wanted
to see more housing available. “You need to make housing more available for the price of this
school (on campus).” They also wanted to see improved resources in the residence halls. Student
respondents made comments such as “We should focus more on the fact that we pay more for
our education and living conditions than an ivy league and yet we do not have as nice of dorm
rooms or as nice of food or as nice of facilities. we need air conditioning in all of the dorms and
we need better food,” “Making the freshman dorms nicer,” “Elevators in all of the dorm
buildings and air conditioning,” and “More neutral and accessible restrooms and changing rooms
in not just one dorm building but all dorms and buildings on campus.”
Another area that Student respondents wanted to see improved was access to mental health
treatment and to see faculty better trained on how to deal with mental health. Many wanted to see
improved services and resources at CAPS. “Making CAPS more approachable and having
faculty more understanding of mental health.” “Make the CAPS program more accessible and so
that appointments can be made for right away because otherwise people won't make
appointments even though they could really benefit them.” “I think that the administration needs
to take a look at how funds are allocated to different offices on campus. I don't believe that there
is enough support at CAPS or the health center, based on my personal experiences and the
experiences of friends.”
Other Student respondents commented on how they wanted faculty to be better equipped to deal
with mental health. “College is a very stressful and emotionally condense environment for
everyone, even those who don't have a mental illness. In order to abide by title 9, you need to be
at the mental state where optimal learning can occur. It also doesn't help that faculty don't take
the mental health section or SAS section seriously or think their course is an exception. I always
go to class and consider myself a diligent student, I don't think it is acceptable for faculty to
undermine this. I also don't think it is okay for faculty to discourage a student for having
accommodations.” Overall, the Students respondents wanted to see better resources dedicated to
mental health, as best summarized by the following Undergraduate Student respondent, who
wrote, “Please, more mental health resources. So many I know, including myself, are in need of
405
help. I see a therapist off campus on a consistent, weekly basis ($60, my insurance doesn't cover
it) because I can't wait for a CAPS appointment to open up. Even more sun light boxes to help
fight Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) would be greatly appreciated by students. How many
students are actually aware that those kind of resources exist? Can we invest in more of them?
These can even help students who don't have severe cases of SAD. Safe, comforting places to
talk about one's mental health are crucial.”
Student respondents – Providing Voice for Students: Student respondents described wanting to
have an outlet for their concerns to be heard by the administration. Undergraduate Student
respondents requested, “Don’t ignore students,” and “More open communication between
students, staff and faculty.” Student respondents wanted the administration to “create
opportunities for conversation, when people feel like their voice is heard.” The Student
respondents also described wanted to allow “better dialogue for issues/complaints.
Understanding that we are not just students... We are adults! We are smart! We have things to
say and they SHOULD be heard. There are a variety of people on this campus, all with different
needs/wants... and each need/want is equally important.” Doing so would mean that “there is
potential for progress.” Overall, the respondent described wanting to see the administration “give
power to the students” and to “Keep an open dialogue with students when there are problems.
This dialogue should be honest and not just about saving face. College students want to be
treated as peers when it comes to addressing problems; they do not want to be patronized. It's all
about listening and reacting in cases that being proactive was not possible.”
Employee Respondents – Improved Campus Resources: Employee respondents also described

how they wanted to see improved campus resources. Having “affordable childcare” and
improved family leave policies were mentioned. One Staff respondent described the impact that
improved childcare would have. “Create a low cost childcare center on campus and subsidize the
program for all families. These times are hard and everyone dealing with childcare is affected.
This will allow you to promote working at IC to a wider range of people. People who have
specialized skills who may come from afar to work in such a great place (people of color from
the ‘big cities’)” Other respondents described wanting to see Ithaca “on the forefront of
expanding to a fair parental/family leave (maternity leave, etc.).” As one Staff respondent wrote,
“Adopt a progressive maternity/paternity/sick child policy that pays employees for time. Ithaca
406
College employees give 110% to students and the school all the time. I feel honored to work with
such great staff/faculty. That effort should be recognized when families need it most.”
CAPS and mental health services were also mentioned as areas where they wanted improved
services. One Staff respondent described, “We need to have more suicide prevention and mental
health programming on campus. Many students, faculty, and staff members are impacted by
mental health concerns and yet the only offering is CAPS which is already overloaded.” Another
Staff respondent wrote, “Increase the number of counselor in CAPS.” Finally, Faculty
respondents wanted improve resources for faculty development. One Faculty Tenure-Track
respondent described, “Finding ways to cultivate more reasonable work expectations for some
faculty - i.e., equitable teaching loads, including internship mentoring into teaching loads (as
other schools do), encouraging time to think and contemplate, rather than a work environment
that rewards overload.” Other Faculty respondents wrote how they wanted “better sponsored
research” or “improved mentoring for junior faculty.”
407
Elaboration on Survey Responses
Q108: This survey has asked you to reflect upon a large number of issues related to the campus
climate and your experiences in this climate, using a multiple-choice format. If you wish to
elaborate upon any of your survey responses or further describe your experiences, you are
encouraged to do so in the space provided below.
A total of 564 respondents elaborated on their survey responses. Among those respondents, 386
were Student respondents, 98 were Faculty respondents, and 80 were Staff respondents. Among
all respondents, diversity and inclusion was the common theme. Among Student respondents,
having a positive campus experience was another common theme. Among Employee
respondents, concerns about administration was a common theme.
All Respondents – Diversity and Inclusion: Among all respondents, diversity and inclusion was a
common theme that emerged. Respondents had a wide range of opinions about how diversity
should be addressed going forward. Some respondents focused on how diversity was being
addressed narrowly and thus excluding different groups. One Undergraduate Student respondent
described this type of climate in the following way. “The campus climate seems to assert that I
should feel guilty for being a straight, white male when I have done nothing wrong. No one
should have to apologize for how they were born.” Other respondents also felt that they were
being ostracized on campus for their identity and their varying viewpoints. Another
Undergraduate Student respondent explained, “As a person who is not a feminist and an African
American who does not support Black Lives Matter, I do not feel my opinions and views matter
and are valued as much as people who believe in crap such as ‘ageism’ and ‘gender as a social
construct’ and the like. I don't feel open to discuss my ideas and opinions because of a hostile
environment towards people with dissenting opinions.” A Tenure-Track Faculty respondent
described the difficulty for individuals who were not liberal. “I would say, though, that this
college is extremely liberal so it can be hard to have "difficult" conversations about things that
liberals disagree with. I have encountered people who are afraid to express their Republican or
Christian beliefs because they feel like they will be judged or receive backlash.” Similarly,
another Undergraduate Student respondent wrote, “Ithaca College is only a welcoming
environment or safe space if you agree with everyone around you. If you are not a liberal, you
408
are shunned and told to keep your mouth shut.” Overall, these difficulties left respondents feeling
as if there was “reverse racism” that “it's very hard to have these conversations, and we need
help.”
Respondents also offered insight into the current climate and suggestions on how Ithaca could
improve diversity and inclusion. One Tenure-Track Faculty respondent explained how the
current climate can be difficult for change, “As a minority faculty I have experienced biases and
issues that have made me uncomfortable and have eroded my sense of belonging to my
department; mostly from some individual faculty members rather than the entire department. I
have found colleagues that are very supportive, and chairs, who have been great mentors and
advisors. I also see that although the college has really tried to hire diverse faculty the culture is
not as welcoming as to retain them. I also see that some faculty are really invested in
incorporating diversity issues and making their classes more inclusive (those are the ones that
often attend professional development and campus events with that purpose) but many do not.
They just keep quiet, continue doing their business as always, rarely state their opinions in
faculty meetings but do not see anything wrong with the content they teach or how they teach it.
When they talk, usually is by using a deficit model claiming that students of color are not college
ready and that is why they are doing poorly. So they end up blaming the students and the
institution for accepting them.” Another Faculty Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “We have to be
careful that our efforts across all areas are grounded in what is truly needed and not just ‘an
effort’ or a ‘great speaker based on reputation.’ For instance, I recently attended a diversity
workshop that was perhaps clear to people who understood the language of political science and
constitutional law, or to people who had a long history of engagement in the discussion of black
internationalism, but was difficult for me to understand at my level of experience with this topic
(fledgling). It felt a bit like ‘preaching to the choir’ but I was not a choir member and did not
know the song. I was left with a feeling of it being a waste of time because it was so hard to
discern the message. Maybe we need some type of disclaimer on the inclusion and diversity
events on campus as are included in professional conference brochures: beginning level,
intermediate level, advanced level.” An Undergraduate Student respondent had the following
description of the climate. “I think the ratio of white students and faculty to PoC students and
faculty isn't in a good position. More than anything, it feels like the purpose of PoC on this
campus is to educate white people about the issues that PoC face, and doesn't really help the
409
PoC. I know that diversity and inclusivity can be good, but I also think if there were more PoC
on our campus, the diversity would be good for everyone including PoC, but with the situation
its in are in I don't think it's a good climate for us. All I do is get tokenized and the only thing me
educating the white people on our campus does is just that. It doesn't help me, it hurts me, which
is why I suggest more courses about marginalized groups, more resources for POC on our
campus, etc.’ Another Undergraduate Student respondent explained how to improve diversity
training. “My issue with offering ‘diversity’ training sessions is that the people that need to be at
them, are not the people showing up. There needs to be a better way to educate the people that
don't understand/get it.” Overall, the respondents recognized that Ithaca was making an effort to
improve the climate around diversity and inclusions. As one Staff respondent stated, “I really do
believe IC has improved quite a bit over the years, and in some real and tangible ways that make
a huge difference in the lives of our students, faculty, and staff. I think there is a lot more to do,
especially regarding people who have disabilities, students and employees of lower
socioeconomic status, transgender people, and around having enough resources for students of
color and support for employees of color.” Another Staff respondent wrote, “I appreciate the
opportunities to dialog with faculty, staff and students on these issues. I look forward to more
events in the coming months.” Finally, an Undergraduate Student respondent reiterated the
efforts on campus, and said, “I think that this campus is going a good job trying to change the
implicit biases we all have and I really appreciate the effort that is put into looking to increase
understanding and diversity on campus. I know that this kind of move takes time and I hope you
will continue with your efforts in years to come.”
Student Respondents – Positive Campus Experiences: Among Student respondents, another

theme that emerged was feeling positive about their campus experience. Some Undergraduate
Student respondents wrote, “I love Ithaca. The majority who attends college here wishes to be
apart of the community and learn to the best of their abilities.” “I have been fairly satisfied with
my time at Ithaca. I have found some great people, and I have learned a lot from the classes I
have taken.” “Keep being awesome Ithaca!” Graduate Students comments included, “It was a
great environment in Ithaca that I have never felt anywhere else. I felt accepted.” “The
professors/staff/faculty are (mostly) excellent.” Other Student respondents acknowledged how
their privileged identity contributed to their positive experience, as stated by the following
Undergraduate Student respondent. “The climate is good for me. I am a white straight cisgender
410
female from New Jersey. Of course it's good for me. I just want to make sure it's good for
everyone else.” Other Student respondents wrote, “Being new here I was not able to experience
much of what went on with the protest and other stuff last year. I have felt comfortable here but I
am not typically one put in a disadvantageous position based of my race and gender.” “I'm white
and straight, so I haven't had any problems,” and “I have had a largely positive experience at IC,
and I recognize that my demographics and family characteristics may have contributed to much
of this. As for other individuals on campus from minority backgrounds and/or who come from
less privileged environments, I'll let them speak for themselves. I hope everyone can feel
welcome and thrive at IC in ways that many, but not all, students have already had the
opportunity to.”
Employee Respondents – Concerns about Administration: A theme that emerged among the
Employee respondents was a desire to see improved administration and leadership. Respondents
described the poor communication between employees and leadership. “Seems like
administration tried to run IC like a business- but a poorly run business with top down decisions.
Good businesses constantly improve communications and feedback, building trust between
administration and workers. Communication is so incredibly poor at IC and information can be
difficult if not impossible to find when it is needed. Feedback is ignored.” Another respondent
described the morale that the administration created, “Morale is really low on campus and I don't
think our senior administrators recognize it. I think they live in a bubble. This first step to fixing
the problem is administrators that recognize it and want to change it.” Other respondents feeling
as if the administration was controlling their ability to do their jobs. One Faculty Tenure-Track
respondent wrote, “Faculty are feeling overworked and over controlled by an overpaid and top-
heavy administration.”
Employee respondents also felt that new leadership could lead to positive change. One Faculty
Tenure-Track respondent wrote, “Our new president will set the tone. S/he needs to be open,
student centered, committed to rebuilding community, and one hell of a fund raiser, who can hire
the right people and get out of their way.” Staff respondents wrote, “We need new, enlightened
leadership at all levels. We need diversity in upper level admin positions or nothing will
change.” “I really hope that a new president can turn this place around, but that's a lot of
responsibility to put on one person. But, one destroyed the college, so I believe one can rebuild it
411
by caring about their employees and showing appreciation.” “Getting new administrators that
had a view like Peggy Williams will be a huge improvement.” Overall, respondents felt that “IC
used to be a great place to work!” and “It could be again with the correct leadership.”
412
Appendix D
Survey
Ithaca College
Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working
(Administered by Rankin & Associates, Consulting)
This survey is accessible in alternative formats. If you need any accommodations

in order to fully participate in this survey, please contact:
Leslie Reid
Manager, Student Accessibility Services
lreid1@ithaca.edu
(607) 274-1005
413
Purpose
You are invited to participate in a survey of students, faculty, staff and administrators regarding the environment for
learning, living and working at Ithaca College. Climate refers to the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of
employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs,
abilities, and potential. Your responses will inform us about the current climate at Ithaca College and provide us
with specific information about how the environment for learning, living and working at Ithaca College can be
improved.
Procedures
Procedures appear respectively in appropriate mediums
Procedures (on-line version)

You will be asked to complete an online survey. Your participation is confidential. Please answer the questions as
openly and honestly as possible. You may skip questions. The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to
complete and must be completed in one sitting. If you close your browser, you will lose any responses you
previously entered. You must be 18 years of age or older to participate. Please note that you can choose to withdraw
your responses at any time before you submit your answers. The survey results will be submitted directly to a secure
off-campus server hosted by and accessible to only the external consultants (Rankin & Associates). Any computer
identification that might identify participants is deleted from the submissions. Any comments provided by
participants are also separated at submission so that comments are not attributed to any individual demographic
characteristics. These comments will be analyzed using content analysis. Anonymous quotes from submitted
comments will be used throughout the report to give “voice” to the quantitative data.
Procedures (paper and pencil version)

You will be asked to complete the attached survey. Your participation is confidential. Please answer the questions as
openly and honestly as possible. You may skip questions. The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to
complete. You must be 18 years of age or older to participate. When you have completed the survey, please return it
directly to the external consultants (Rankin & Associates) using the enclosed envelope. Any comments provided by
participants are also separated at submission so that comments are not attributed to any demographic characteristics.
These comments will be analyzed using content analysis. Anonymous quotes from submitted comments will also be
used throughout the report to give “voice” to the quantitative data.
Discomforts and Risks

There are no anticipated risks in participating in this assessment beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of
the questions are personal and might cause discomfort. In the event that any questions asked are disturbing, you may
skip any questions or stop responding to the survey at any time. If you experience any discomfort in responding to
these questions and would like to speak with someone or review relevant policies, please contact:
http://www.ithaca.edu/campusclimate/support/
Benefits
The results of the survey will provide important information about our climate and will help us in our efforts to
ensure that the environment at Ithaca College is conducive to learning, living, and working.
Voluntary Participation
Participation in this assessment is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you do not have to answer any questions on
the survey that you do not wish to answer. Individuals will not be identified and only group data will be
reported (e.g., the analysis will include only aggregate data). Please note that you can choose to withdraw your
responses at any time before you submit your answers. Refusal to take part in this assessment will involve no
penalty or loss of student or employee benefits.
Statement of Confidentiality for Participation

In the event of any publication or presentation resulting from the assessment, no personally identifiable information
will be shared. Your confidentiality in participating will be kept to the degree permitted by the technology used
(e.g., IP addresses will be stripped when the survey is submitted). The survey is run on a firewalled web server with
forced 256-bit SSL security. In addition, the external consultant (Rankin & Associates) will not report any group
414
data for groups of fewer than 5 individuals that may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, Rankin
& Associates will combine the groups to eliminate any potential for demographic information to be identifiable.
Please also remember that you do not have to answer any question or questions about which you are uncomfortable.
The survey has been approved by the Ithaca College IRB.
Statement of Anonymity for Comments

Upon submission, all comments from participants will be de-identified to make those comments anonymous. Thus,
participant comments will not be attributable to their author. However, depending on what you say, others who
know you may be able to attribute certain comments to you. In instances where certain comments might be
attributable to an individual, Rankin & Associates will make every effort to de-identify those comments or will
remove the comments from the analyses. The anonymous comments will be analyzed using content analysis. In
order to give “voice” to the quantitative data, some anonymous comments may be quoted in publications related to
this survey.
Right to Ask Questions
You can ask questions about this assessment in confidence. Questions concerning this project should be
directed to:
Emil L. Cunningham, PhD Susan R. Rankin, PhD

Senior Research Associate Principal & CEO
Rankin & Associates, Consulting Rankin & Associates, Consulting
emil@rankin-consulting.com sue@rankin-consulting.com
(814) 625-2780 (814) 625-2780
Questions regarding the survey process may also be directed to:
Dr. Roger (Doc) Richardson

Associate Provost Diversity, Inclusion, Provost and Educational Affairs
rrichard@ithaca.edu
(607) 275-3113
Dr. Belisa Gonzalez

Associate Professor and Director, Center for the Study of Culture Race, and Ethnicity
bgonzalez@ithaca.edu
(607) 274-3921
Dr. Linda Petrosino

Provost and Vice President for Educational Affairs
lpetrosino@ithaca.edu
(607) 274-1609
Questions concerning the rights of participants:
Research at Ithaca College that involves human participants is carried out under the oversight of an Institutional
Review Board. Questions or problems regarding these activities should be addressed to:
Institutional Review Board

irb@ithaca.edu
(607) 274-3113
415
PLEASE PRINT A COPY OF THIS CONSENT DOCUMENT FOR YOUR RECORDS, OR IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE PRINT CAPABILITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE RESEARCHER TO OBTAIN A COPY
If you agree to take part in this assessment, as described in detail in the preceding paragraphs, please click on the
“Continue” button below. By clicking on the “Continue” button, you will indicate that you are 18 years of age and
you are providing your consent to participate in this study.
☐ I agree that I am of 18 years of age and I give my consent to participate in this research project. I understand that
participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty.
☐ I am not 18 years of age, or I do not agree to participate and will be excluded from the remainder of the
questions.
416
Following are several terms and definitions that are in the survey. These will be hyperlinked when they appear in the
survey.
Survey Terms and Definitions
Ableist: Discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.
Ageist: Discrimination or prejudice against an individual or group on the basis of their age.
American Indian (Native American): A person having origin in any of the original tribes of North America who
maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Assigned Birth Sex: Refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth.
Biphobia: An irrational dislike or fear of bisexual people. Bisexual people may be attracted, romantically and/or
sexually, to people of more than one sex, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not
necessarily to the same degree.
Bullied: Unwanted offensive and malicious behavior which undermines, patronizes, intimidates or demeans the
recipient or target.
Classist: A bias based on social or economic class.
Climate: Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion
of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential.
Cronyism: The hiring or promoting of friends or associates to positions without proper regard to their
qualifications.
Disability: A physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.
Discrimination: Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or
against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which that person belongs rather than on individual merit.
Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges based on of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability,
medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history),
ancestry, marital status, age, sexual identity, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services.
Ethnocentrism: Judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. Ethnocentric
individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language,
behavior, customs, and religion.
Experiential Learning: Experiential learning refers to a pedagogical philosophy and methodology concerned with
learning activities outside of the traditional classroom environment, with objectives which are planned
and articulated prior to the experience (e.g., internships, service learning, co‐operative education, field experience,
practicum, cross‐cultural experiences, apprenticeships).
Family Leave: The Family Medical Leave Act is a labor law requiring employers with 50 or more employees to
provide certain employees with job-protected unpaid leave due to one of the following situations: a serious health
condition that makes the employee unable to perform his or her job; caring for a sick family member; caring for a
new child (including birth, adoption or foster care). For more information: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
Gender Identity: A person’s inner sense of being man, woman, both, or neither. The internal identity may or may
not be expressed outwardly, and may or may not correspond to one’s physical characteristics.
417
Gender Expression: The manner in which a person outwardly represents gender, regardless of the physical
characteristics that might typically define the individual as male or female.
Gender Non-Binary: Gender non-binary is an umbrella term covering any gender identity that doesn't fit within the
gender binary. The label may also be used by individuals wishing to identify as falling outside of the gender binary
without being any more specific about the nature of their gender.
Genderqueer: A person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both,
or a combination of male and female genders.
Harassment: Harassment is unwelcomed behavior that demeans, threatens or offends another person or group of
people and results in a hostile environment for the targeted person/group.
Heterosexism: Bias or discrimination against homosexuals based on the assumption that heterosexuality is the only
sexual orientation.
Homophobia: An irrational dislike and fear of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, and Homosexual individuals.
Intersex: A general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual
anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.
Nepotism: The hiring or promoting of family members to positions without proper regard to their qualifications.
Non-Native English Speakers: People for whom English is not their first language.
Pansexual: A person who is fluid in sexual identity and is attracted to others regardless of their sexual identity or
gender.
People of Color: People who self-identify as other than White.
Physical Characteristics: Term that refers to one’s appearance.
Position: The status one holds by virtue of her/his position/status within the institution (e.g., staff, full-time faculty,
part-time faculty, administrator)
Racial Identity: A socially constructed category about a group of people based on generalized physical features
such as skin color, hair type, shape of eyes, physique, etc.
Sexual Identity: Term that refers to the sex of the people one tends to be emotionally, physically and sexually
attracted to; this is inclusive of, but not limited to, lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, heterosexual people, and
those who identify as queer.
Sexual Assault: Sexual Assault is unwanted or unwelcome touching of a sexual nature, including: fondling;
penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina, however slight, with a body part or object; or other sexual activity that
occurs without valid consent.
Socioeconomic Status: The status one holds in society based on one’s level of income, wealth, education, and
familial background.
Transgender: An umbrella term referring to those whose gender identity or gender expression is different from that
associated with their sex assigned at birth.
Transphobia: An irrational dislike or fear of transgender, transsexual and other gender non-traditional individuals
because of their perceived gender identity or gender expression.
418
Unwanted Sexual Contact: Unwanted or unwelcome touching of a sexual nature that includes fondling (any
intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without consent); rape; sexual assault (including oral,
anal or vaginal penetration with a body part or an object); use of alcohol or other drugs to incapacitate; gang rape; and
sexual harassment involving physical contact.
Xenophobic: Irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
Directions
Directions appear respectively in appropriate mediums
URL only: Please read and answer each question carefully. For each answer, click on the appropriate oval and/or
fill in the appropriate blank. If you want to change an answer, click on the oval of your new answer and/or edit the
appropriate blank, and your previous response will be erased. You may decline to answer specific questions. You
must answer at least 50% of the questions for your responses to be included in the final analyses. The survey will
take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete and must be completed in one sitting.
Paper/Pencil only: Please read and answer each question carefully. For each answer, darken the appropriate oval
completely. If you want to change an answer, erase your first answer completely and darken the oval of your new
answer. You may decline to answer specific questions. You must answer at least 50% of the questions for your
responses to be included in the final analyses.
419
The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete and must be completed in one sitting to
protect your confidentiality. If you close your browser, you will lose any responses you previously
entered. You must answer at least 50% of the questions for your responses to be included in the final
analyses.
1. What is your primary position at Ithaca College?

O Undergraduate Student
o Started at Ithaca College as a new first time student
o Transferred from another institution
O Graduate Student
o Master’s student
o Doctoral student
O Pre-doctoral/Post-doctoral (Respondents receive faculty questions)
O Faculty Tenure Track
o Assistant Professor
o Associate Professor
o Professor
o Emeritus
O Non-Tenure Track (Respondents receive faculty questions)
O Part-time/Adjunct (Respondents receive faculty questions)
O Senior Administrator with faculty rank (Respondents receive faculty questions)
O Senior Administrator without faculty rank (Respondents receive staff questions)
O Staff
o Non-Exempt (hourly)
o Exempt (salary)
2. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary position?

O Full-time
O Part-time
420
Part 1: Personal Experiences

When responding to the following questions, think about your experiences during the past year at Ithaca College.
3. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at Ithaca College?
O Very comfortable
O Comfortable
O Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
O Uncomfortable
O Very uncomfortable
4. Faculty/Staff only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/program or
work unit at Ithaca College?
O Very comfortable
O Comfortable
O Uncomfortable
5. Students/Faculty only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes at Ithaca
College?
O Very comfortable
O Comfortable
O Uncomfortable
6. Have you ever seriously considered leaving Ithaca College?

O No (skip to Question xxx)
O Yes
7. Students only: When did you seriously consider leaving Ithaca College? (Mark all that apply.)
O During my first year as a student
O During my second year as a student
O During my third year as a student
O During my fourth year as a student
O During my fifth year as a student
O After my fifth year as a student
421
8. Students only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Ithaca College? (Mark all that apply.)
O Climate was not welcoming
O Coursework was too difficult
O Coursework not challenging enough
O Didn’t like major
O Didn’t have my major
O Didn’t meet the selection criteria for a major
O Financial reasons
O Homesick
O Lack of a sense of belonging
O Lack of social life
O Lack of support group
O Lack of support services
O My marital/relationship status
O Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.)
O A reason not listed above (please specify: ____________________)
9. Faculty/Staff only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Ithaca College? (Mark all that apply.)
O Campus climate was unwelcoming
O Family responsibilities
O Lack of institutional support (e.g., tech support, lab space/equipment)
O Increased workload
O Interested in a position at another institution
O Lack of benefits
O Lack of a sense of belonging
O Limited opportunities for advancement
O Local community did not meet my (my family) needs
O Local community climate was not welcoming
O Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.)
O Lack of professional development opportunities
O Recruited or offered a position at another institution/organization
O Relocation
O Low salary/pay rate
O Spouse or partner relocated
O Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment
O Tension with supervisor/manager
O Tension with senior administrator (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean)
O Tension with co-workers
O A reason not listed above (please specify: ____________________)
10. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on why you
seriously considered leaving, please do so here.
Insert text box here
422
11. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements regarding
your academic experience at Ithaca College.
I am performing up to my full
academic potential. O O O O O
Few of my courses this year have
been intellectually stimulating. O O O O O
I am satisfied with my academic
experience at Ithaca College. O O O O O
I am satisfied with the extent of my
intellectual development since
enrolling at Ithaca College. O O O O O
I have performed academically as
well as I anticipated I would. O O O O O
My academic experience has had a
positive influence on my intellectual
growth and interest in ideas. O O O O O
My interest in ideas and intellectual
matters has increased since coming
to Ithaca College. O O O O O
I intend to graduate from Ithaca
College. O O O O O
Thinking ahead it is likely that I will
leave Ithaca College before
graduation O O O O O
423
12. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored),
intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (e.g., bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability
to work, learn, or live at Ithaca College?
O No (skip to Question XXX)
O Yes
13. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
O Academic Performance
O Age
O Educational credentials (BS, MS, PhD, etc.)
O English language proficiency/accent
O Ethnicity
O Gender/gender identity
O Gender expression
O Immigrant/citizen status
O International status/national origin
O Learning disability/condition
O Length of service at Ithaca College
O Major field of study
O Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered)
O Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition
O Medical disability/condition
O Military/veteran status
O Parental status (e.g., having children)
O Participation in an organization/team (please specify ___________)
O Physical characteristics
O Physical disability/condition
O Philosophical views
O Political views
O Position (staff, faculty, student)
O Pregnancy
O Racial identity
O Religious/spiritual views
O Sexual identity
O Socioeconomic status
O Don’t know
O A reason not listed above (please specify ____________________)
424
14. How would you describe what happened? (Mark all that apply)
O I was ignored or excluded
O I was intimidated/bullied
O I was isolated or left out
O I felt others staring at me
O I experienced a hostile classroom environment
O The conduct made me fear that I would get a poor grade
O I experienced a hostile work environment
O I was the target of workplace incivility
O I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks
O I received derogatory written comments
O I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail
O I received derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak)
O I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group
O I received a low or unfair performance evaluation
O I was not fairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process
O Someone assumed I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group
O Someone assumed I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group
O I was the target of graffiti/vandalism
O I was “outed” against my wishes (e.g., gender identity, sexuality, disability status)
O I was denied accommodations
O I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling
O I was the target of stalking
O The conduct threatened my physical safety
O The conduct threatened my family’s safety
O I received threats of physical violence
O I was the target of physical violence
O An experience not listed above (please specify ____________________)
15. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.)
O At an Ithaca College event/program
O In a class/lab
O In a faculty office
O In a meeting with one other person
O In a meeting with a group of people
O In an Ithaca College administrative office
O In an Ithaca College dining facility
O In an experiential learning environment (e.g., community-based learning, retreat, externship, internship)
O In athletic facilities
O In other public spaces at Ithaca College
O In campus housing
O In Counseling and Psychological Services
O In the Wellness Center
O In the Ithaca College library
O In off-campus housing
O In the Health Center
O Off campus
O On phone calls/text messages/e-mail
O On social media sites (Facebook/Twitter/ Yik-Yak)
O While walking on campus
O While working at a Ithaca College job
O A venue not listed above (please specify ____________________)
425
16. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
O Academic advisor (advising center)
O Alumnus/a
O Athletic coach/trainer
O Ithaca College media (posters, brochures, flyers, handouts, web sites, etc.)
O Ithaca College Public Safety Officer
O Co-worker/colleague
O Department Chair
O Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to me)
O Donor
O Faculty advisor
O Faculty member/Other Instructional Staff
O Friend
O Off campus community member
O Senior administrator (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean)
O Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak)
O Staff member
O Stranger
O Student
O Student staff
O Student Organization (please specify _______________)
O Supervisor or manager
O Student Teaching Assistant/Student Lab Assistant/Student Tutor
O Don’t know source
O A source not listed above (please specify ____________________)
17. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
O I felt embarrassed
O I felt somehow responsible
O I was afraid
O I was angry
O I ignored it
O An experience not listed above (please specify ________________)
426
18. What did you do in response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
O I didn’t do anything
O I avoided the person/venue
O I contacted a local law enforcement official
O I confronted the person(s) at the time
O I confronted the person(s) later
O I didn’t know who to go to
O I sought information online
O I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services
O I contacted an Ithaca College resource
o Faculty member
o Staff member
o Senior administrator
o Ithaca College Office of Public Safety
o CAPS (Counseling and Psychological Services)
o ENI Employee Assistance
o Title IX Coordinator
o Case Manager
o Human Resources
o Student staff
o Hammond Health Center
o Muller Chapel
o Center for Health Promotion
o Student Affairs OSEMA, Multicultural Affairs
o Residential Life
o LGBT Center
o Student Accessibility Services
o International Programs
o The Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity (CSRE)
O I told a family member
O I told a friend
O I told a supervisor
O I sought support from a member of the clergy or spiritual advisor (e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest, imam)
O I submitted a bias incident report through an Ithaca College confidential on-line reporting system (e.g.,
EthicsPoint)
O A response not listed above (please specify ____________________)
19. Did you report the conduct?

O No, I did not report it
O Yes, I reported it
o Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome
o Yes, I reported the incident, and while the outcome is not what I had hoped for, I feel as though
my complaint was responded to appropriately
o Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately
20. We are interested in knowing more about your experience. If you would like to elaborate on your
experiences, please do so here.
If you have experienced any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak with
someone, please contact one of the resources listed here:
427
Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. The following
questions are related to any incidents you have experienced with unwanted physical sexual
contact/conduct. If you have had this experience, the questions may invoke an emotional response.
If you experience any difficulty, please take care of yourself and seek support from campus or
community resources listed.
21. While a member of the Ithaca College community, have you experienced unwanted sexual
contact/conduct (including interpersonal violence, sexual harassment, stalking, sexual assault, sexual
assault with an object, fondling, rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, sodomy or gang rape)?
O No (Skip to new set of questions)
(PROGRAMMING NOTE: Respondents cannot select this answer option and any other option.)
O Yes
o Yes - relationship violence (e.g., ridiculed, controlling, hitting)
o Yes - stalking (e.g., following me, on social media, texting, phone calls)
o Yes - sexual interaction (e.g., cat-calling, repeated sexual advances, sexual harassment)
o Yes - sexual contact (e.g., fondling, rape, sexual assault, penetration without consent, gang rape)
PROGRAMMING NOTE: For questions 22-24; 26-31: Insert appropriate experience (e.g., relationship
violence, stalking, sexual interaction, sexual contact) from Q#21
22. Students only. Were alcohol and/or drugs involved in the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21]?
o No
o Yes
o Alcohol only
o Drugs only
o Both alcohol and drug
23. When did the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21] occur? (Mark all that apply)
O Within the last year
O 2-4 years ago
O 5-10 years ago
O 11-20 years ago
O More than 20 years ago
24. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the [insert appropriate experience from
Q#21]? (Mark all that apply.)
O During my time as a graduate student at Ithaca College
O Undergraduate First year
o Fall semester
o Spring semester
o Summer semester
O Undergraduate Second year
o Fall semester
o Spring semester
o Summer semester
O Undergraduate Third year
o Fall semester
o Spring semester
o Summer semester
O Undergraduate Fourth year
o Fall semester
o Spring semester
o Summer semester
O After my fourth year as an undergraduate
25. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.)
428
O Acquaintance/Friend
O Family member
O Ithaca College faculty member
O Ithaca College staff member
O Stranger
O Ithaca College student
O Current or former dating/intimate partner
O Other Role/Relationship not listed above
26. Where did the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21] occur? (Mark all that apply.)
O Off campus (please specify location: __________)
O On campus (please specify location: __________)
27. How did you feel after experiencing the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21]? (Mark all that apply.)
O I felt embarrassed
O I felt somehow responsible
O I felt afraid
O I felt angry
O I ignored it
O An experience not listed above (please specify ________________)
28. What did you do in response to experiencing the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21]? (Mark all
that apply.)
o Faculty member
o Staff member
o Case Manager
o Human Resources
o Student staff
o Muller Chapel
o Residential Life
o LGBT Center
O I told a friend
EthicsPoint)
429
29. Did you report the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21]?
O No, I did not report it [to Q30]
O Yes, I filed an official complaint to Title IX Coordinator and/or Ithaca College Public Safety
o Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome [to next section]
my complaint was responded to appropriately [to next section]
o Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately [to Q31]
O Yes, I reported the incident to someone other than Title IX Coordinator and/or Ithaca College Public
Safety
o Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome [to next section]
my complaint was responded to appropriately [to next section]
o Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately [to Q31]
30. You indicated that you DID NOT report the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21]to a campus official
or staff member. Please share why you did not.
Insert Text Box
31. You indicated that you DID report the [insert appropriate experience from Q#21], but that it was not
responded to appropriately. Please share why you felt that it was not.
Insert Text Box
430
32. Please offer your response to the following comments:

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
I am aware of the definition of Affirmative Consent. O O O O
I am generally aware of the role of Ithaca College’s Title
IX Coordinator with regard to reporting incidents
unwanted sexual contact/conduct. O O O O
I know how and where to report such incidents. O O O O
I am familiar with the campus policies on addressing
sexual misconduct, domestic/dating violence, and
stalking. O O O O
I am aware of the campuses resources available for those
listed unwanted sexual contact/conduct. here: O O O O
I have a responsibility to report such incidents when I see
them occurring on or off campus. O O O O
I understand that Ithaca College’s standard of conduct
and penalties differ from standards of conduct and
penalties under the criminal law. O O O O
I know that information about the prevalence of sex
offenses (including domestic and dating violence) are
available in Ithaca College’s Annual Security and Fire
Report O O O O
I know that the College sends a Public Safety Alert to the
campus community when such an incident occurs. O O O O
If you have experienced any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak with someone,
please contact one of the resources offered at following website:
431
Part 2: Workplace Climate
33. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty only: As a faculty member at Ithaca College, I feel (or felt)…
Neither
agree
agree Agree disagree disagree disagree
The criteria for tenure are clear. O O O O O
The tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to
faculty in my school/department. O O O O O
Supported and mentored during the tenure-track years. O O O O O
Ithaca College policies for delay of the tenure-clock are used by all
faculty. O O O O O
Research/Scholarship is valued by Ithaca College. O O O O O
Teaching is valued by Ithaca College. O O O O O
Service contributions are valued by Ithaca College. O O O O O
Pressured to change my research/scholarship agenda to achieve
tenure/promotion. O O O O O
Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues
with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships,
departmental/program work assignments). O O O O O
I perform more work to help students than do my colleagues (e.g.,
formal and informal advising, thesis advising, helping with student
groups and activities). O O O O O
Faculty members in my department/program who use family
accommodation (FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in
promotion/tenure (e.g., child care, elder care). O O O O O
Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g.,
President, VP, AVP, Dean). O O O O O
Faculty opinions are sought out by senior administrators (e.g.,
President, VP, AVP, Dean). O O O O O
Faculty opinions are valued within Ithaca College committees. O O O O O
I would like more opportunities to participate in substantive
committee assignments. O O O O O
I have opportunities to participate in substantive committee
assignments. O O O O O
34. Faculty only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on
any of your responses to the previous statements or any other issues not covered in this section, please do
so here.
432
35. Non-Tenure Track Academic Appointment only: As an employee with a non-tenure track appointment
at Ithaca College I feel (or felt)…
Neither
agree
agree Agree disagree disagree disagree
The criteria used for contract renewal are clear. O O O O O
The criteria used for contract renewal are applied equally to all positions. O O O O O
There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. O O O O O
Research/Scholarship is valued by Ithaca College. O O O O O
Teaching is valued by Ithaca College. O O O O O
Service contributions are valued by Ithaca College. O O O O O
departmental/program work assignments). O O O O O
and informal advising, thesis advising, helping with student groups and
activities). O O O O O
Pressured to do extra work that is uncompensated. O O O O O
Non Tenure Track Faculty, opinions are taken seriously by senior
administrators (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean). O O O O O
Non Tenure Track Faculty, opinions are sought out by senior
administrators (e.g., President, VP, AVP, Dean). O O O O O
I have job security. O O O O O
36. Non Tenure-Track Faculty only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you
would like to elaborate on any of your responses to the previous statements or any other issues not covered
in this section, please do so here.
433
37. All Faculty: As a faculty member at Ithaca College, I feel…
Neither
agree
Salaries for tenure track faculty are competitive. O O O O O
Salaries for adjunct faculty are competitive. O O O O O
Salaries for part-time faculty are competitive. O O O O O
Salaries for NTEN Continuing faculty are competitive. O O O O O
Health insurance benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Child care benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Retirement/supplemental benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Ithaca College provides adequate resources to help me
manage work-life balance (e.g., wellness services,
eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation,
etc.). O O O O O
My colleagues include me in opportunities that will help
my career as much as they do others in my position. O O O O O
The performance evaluation process is clear. O O O O O
Ithaca College provides me with resources to pursue
professional development (e.g., conferences, materials,
research and course design traveling). O O O O O
Positive about my career opportunities at Ithaca College. O O O O O
I would recommend Ithaca College as good place to
work. O O O O O
38. All Faculty: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on
so here.
434
39. All Staff: As a staff member at Ithaca College, I feel…
Neither
agree
I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or
guidance when I need it. O O O O O
I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career
advice or guidance when I need it. O O O O O
I am included in opportunities that will help my career as
much as others in similar positions. O O O O O
The performance evaluation process is clear. O O O O O
The performance evaluation process is productive. O O O O O
My supervisor provides adequate support for me to
manage work-life balance. O O O O O
I am able to complete my assigned duties during
scheduled hours. O O O O O
My workload was increased without additional
compensation due to other staff departures (e.g.,
retirement positons not filled). O O O O O
I am pressured by departmental/program work
requirements that occur outside of my normally
scheduled hours. O O O O O
I am given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned
responsibilities. O O O O O
People who do not have children are burdened with work
responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work
week-ends) beyond those who do have children. O O O O O
Burdened by work responsibilities beyond those of my
colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g.,
committee memberships, departmental/program work
assignments). O O O O O
I perform more work than colleagues with similar
performance expectations (e.g., formal and informal
mentoring or advising, helping with student groups and
activities, providing other support). O O O O O
There is a hierarchy within staff positions that allows
some voices to be valued more than others. O O O O O
Ithaca College provides adequate resources to help me
manage work-life balance (e.g., wellness services,
eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation,
etc.). O O O O O
40. Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on
so here.
435
41. Staff only: As a staff member at Ithaca College I feel…
Neither
agree
Ithaca College provides me with resources to pursue
training/professional development opportunities. O O O O O
My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue
training/professional development opportunities. O O O O O
I have the resources necessary to achieve my job
responsibilities (e.g., technology, budget, space) O O O O O
Ithaca College is supportive of taking extended leave
(e.g., FMLA, parental). O O O O O
My supervisor is supportive of my taking leaves (e.g.,
vacation, parental, personal, short-term disability). O O O O O
Staff in my department/program who use family
accommodation (FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in
promotion or evaluations. O O O O O
Ithaca College policies (e.g., FMLA) are fairly applied
across Ithaca College. O O O O O
Ithaca College is supportive of flexible work schedules. O O O O O
My supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. O O O O O
Staff salaries are competitive. O O O O O
Vacation and personal time benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Health insurance benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Child care benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Retirement benefits are competitive. O O O O O
Staff opinions are valued on Ithaca College committees. O O O O O
Staff opinions are valued by Ithaca College
administration. O O O O O
Staff opinions are valued by Ithaca College faculty. O O O O O
Staff opinions are sought by Ithaca College
administration. O O O O O
Staff opinions are sought by Ithaca College faculty. O O O O O
There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. O O O O O
There are clear procedures on how I can advance at
Ithaca College. O O O O O
Positive about my career opportunities at Ithaca College. O O O O O
I would recommend Ithaca College as good place to
work. O O O O O
42. Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on
so here.
436
Part 3: Demographic Information

Your responses are confidential and group data will not be reported for any group with fewer than 5 responses that
may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, the data will be aggregated to eliminate any potential
for individual participants to be identified. You may also skip questions.
43. What is your birth sex (assigned)?

O Female
O Intersex
O Male
44. What is your gender/gender identity? (Mark all that apply)

O Genderqueer
O Man
O Non-binary
O Transgender
O Woman
O A gender not listed here (please specify): _____________________
45. What is your current gender expression?

O Androgynous
O Feminine
O Masculine
O A gender expression not listed here (please specify): _____________________
46. What is your citizenship status in the U.S.? (Mark all that apply)
o U.S. citizen, birth
o U.S. citizen, naturalized
o Permanent Resident
o A visa holder (such as F-1, J-1, H1-B, and U)
o DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival)
o DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability)
o Refugee status
o Other legally documented status
o Currently under a withholding of removal status
o Undocumented resident
47. Although the categories listed below may not represent your full identity or use the language you prefer, for
the purpose of this survey, please indicate which group below most accurately describes your racial/ethnic
identification. (If you are of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-cultural identity, mark all that apply)
O Alaska Native (if you wish please specify your enrolled or principal corporation __________________)
O American Indian/Native (if you wish please specify your enrolled or principal tribe ________________)
O Asian/Asian American (if you wish please specify __________________)
O Black/African American (if you wish please specify __________________)
O Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (if you wish please specify __________________)
O Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian (if you wish please specify __________________)
O Native Hawaiian (if you wish please specify __________________)
O Pacific Islander (if you wish please specify __________________)
O White/European American (if you wish please specify __________________)
O A racial/ethnic identity not listed here (please specify): _____________________
48. What is your age?

(Insert drop down of all ages: “18” through “99”
437
49. Although the categories listed below may not represent your full identity or use the language you prefer, for
the purpose of this survey, please indicate which choice below most accurately describes your sexual
identity?
O Bisexual
O Gay
O Heterosexual
O Lesbian
O Pansexual
O Queer
O Questioning
O A sexual identity not listed here (please specify): _____________________
50. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility?

O No
O Yes (Mark all that apply)
o Children 5 years or under
o Children 6-18 years
o Children over 18 years of age, but still legally dependent (e.g., in college, disabled)
o Independent adult children over 18 years of age
o Sick or disabled partner
o Senior or other family member
o A parenting or caregiving responsibility not listed here (please specify) ___________________
(e.g., pregnant, adoption pending)
51. Have you ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, Reserves, or National Guard?
o Never served in the military
o Now on active duty (including Reserves or National Guard)
o On active duty in the past, but not now
o ROTC
52. What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)?
Parent/ Guardian 1: Parent/ Guardian 2:
o No high school o Not applicable
o Some high school o No high school
o Completed high school/GED o Some high school
o Some college o Completed high school/GED
o Business/Technical certificate/degree o Some college
o Associate’s degree o Business/Technical certificate/degree
o Bachelor’s degree o Associate’s degree
o Some graduate work o Bachelor’s degree
o Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA) o Some graduate work
o Specialist degree (EdS) o Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA)
o Doctoral degree (e.g., Phd, EdD) o Specialist degree (EdS)
o Professional degree (e.g., MD, JD) o Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, EdD)
o Unknown o Professional degree (e.g., MD, JD)
o Not applicable o Unknown
438
53. Staff only: What is your highest level of education?

O No high school
O Some high school
O Completed high school/GED
O Some college
O Business/Technical certificate/degree
O Associate’s degree
O Bachelor’s degree
O Some graduate work
O Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA, MLS)
O Specialist degree (e.g., EdS)
O Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD., EdD)
O Professional degree (e.g., MD, JD)
54. Faculty/Staff only: How long have you been employed at Ithaca College?
o Less than 1 year
o 1-5 years
o 6-10 years
o 11-15 years
o 16-20 years
o More than 20 years
55. Undergraduate Students only: What year are you in at Ithaca College?
O First year
O Second year
O Third year
O Fourth year
O Fifth year
O Sixth year (or more)
56. Faculty only: Which academic division/college are you primarily affiliated with at this time?
O School of Business
O School of Communications
O School of Health Science and Human Performance
O School of Humanities and Sciences
O School of Music
57. Staff only: Which academic division/work unit are you primarily affiliated with at this time?
O Enrollment Management
O Finance and Administration (e.g., Facilities, DIIS)
O Human and Legal Resources
O Institutional Advancement and Communication
O Office of the President
O Provost and Educational Affairs (e.g., Student Affairs, Public Safety)
O School of Business
O School of Communications
O School of Health Science and Human Performance
O School of Humanities and Sciences
O School of Music
439
58. Undergraduate Students only: What is your major (if modified choose the primary department/program,
excluding minors)? (Mark all that apply)
O Accounting
O Acting
O Aging Studies
O Anthropology
O Applied Economics
O Applied Psychology
O Architectural Studies
O Art BA
O Art BFA
O Art Education
O Art History
O Athletic Training
O Biochemistry
O Biology
O Biology (Teaching)
O Business Administration
O Chemistry 3-2 Engineering
O Chemistry
O Chemistry (Teaching)
O Cinema and Photography
O Clinical Exercise Science
O Clinical Health Studies
O Communication Management and Design
O Communication Studies
O Community Health Education
O Composition
O Computer Information Systems
O Computer Science
O Culture and Communication
O Documentary Studies and Production
O Drama
O Economics
O Emerging Media - Computation
O Emerging Media - Design and Production
O Emerging Media - Entrepreneur
O English
O English (Teaching)
O Environmental Science
O Environmental Studies
O Exercise Science
O Exploratory
O Extramural
O Film, Photography, and Visual Arts
O French
O French (Teaching)
440
O French and Francophone Studies

O German (Teaching)
O German Area Studies
O Gerontology Certificate
O Health Care Management
O Health Education and Physical Education (Teaching)
O Health Education (Teaching)
O Health Policy Studies
O Health Sciences
O Health Sciences Preprofessional
O History
O Integrated Marketing Communications
O Italian Studies
O Jazz Studies
O Journalism
O Legal Studies
O Mathematics
O Mathematics (Teaching)
O Mathematics-Computer Science
O Mathematics-Computer Science (Teaching)
O Mathematics-Economics
O Mathematics-Physics
O Music BA
O Music BM
O Music Education BM
O Music Performance Education
O Music with Outside Field
O Music Theory
O Musical Theatre
O Occupational Therapy
O Outdoor Adventure Leadership
O Performance
O Philosophy
O Philosophy-Religion
O Physical Education (Teaching)
O Physics (Teaching)
O Physics 3-2 Engineering
O Physics
O Planned Studies
O Politics
O Psychology
O Public and Community Health
O Recreation Management
O Social Studies
O Social Studies (Teaching)
O Sociology
O Sound Recording Technology
O Spanish
441
O Spanish (Teaching)
O Speech Communication
O Speech-Language Pathology BS
O Speech-Language Pathology Integrated Program BS
O Sport Management
O Sport Media
O Sport Studies
O Television-Radio
O Theatre Arts Management
O Theatre Studies
O Theatrical Production Arts
O Therapeutic Recreation
O Writing
O Writing for Film, TV, Emerging Media
59. Graduate Students only: What is your academic program? (Mark all that apply)
O Adolescence Education MAT
O Business Administration MBA
O Childhood Education MS
O Communications Innovation MS
O Communications MS
O Composition MM
O Conducting MM
O Exercise and Sport Sciences MS
O Extramural GR
O Health Education MS
O Music Education MM
O Music Education MS
O Occupational Therapy Entry Level MS
O Occupational Therapy MS
O Performance MM
O Physical Education MS
O Physical Therapy DPT
O Professional Accountancy MBA
O Speech-Language Pathology MS
O Speech-Language Pathology Teaching Integrated Program MS
O Speech-Language Pathology Teaching MS
O Sport Management MS
O Suzuki Pedagogy MM
O Teachers of Students with Speech and Language Disabilities MS
442
60. Do you have a condition/disability that influences your learning, working or living activities?
O No [skip to XXX]
O Yes
61. Which, if any, of the conditions listed below impact your learning, working or living activities? (Mark all
that apply)
o ADD/ADHD
o Alcohol/Substance abuse recovery
o Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury
o Autism Spectrum Disorder/Asperger’s Disorder
o Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition (e.g., Asthma, Diabetes, Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis,
Fibromyalgia)
o Hard of Hearing or Deaf
o Learning Difference/Disability (e.g., Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Cognitive/Language-
based)
o Low Vision or Blind
o Mental Health/Psychological Condition (e.g., anxiety, depression)
o Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking
o Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking
o Speech/Communication Condition
o A disability/condition not listed here (please specify): ___________________
62. What is the language(s) spoken in your home?

O English
O A language other than English (please specify ___________________)
O English and other language(s) (please specify __________________)
63. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply)
o Agnostic
o Atheist
o Baha’i
o Buddhist
o Christian
o African Methodist Episcopal
o African Methodist Episcopal Zion
o Assembly of God
o Baptist
o Catholic/Roman Catholic
o Church of Christ
o Church of God in Christ
o Christian Orthodox
o Christian Methodist Episcopal
o Christian Reformed Church (CRC)
o Episcopalian
o Evangelical
o Greek Orthodox
o Lutheran
o Mennonite
o Moravian
o Nondenominational Christian
o Pentecostal
o Presbyterian
o Protestant
o Protestant Reformed Church (PR)
o Quaker
443
o Reformed Church of America (RCA)
o Russian Orthodox
o Seventh Day Adventist
o The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
o United Methodist
o Unitarian Universalist
o United Church of Christ
o A Christian affiliation not listed above (please specify) _______________
o Confucianist
o Druid
o Hindu
o Jain
o Jehovah’s Witness
o Jewish
o Conservative
o Orthodox
o Reform
o Muslim
o Ahmadi
o Shi’ite
o Sufi
o Sunni
o Native American Traditional Practitioner or Ceremonial
o Pagan
o Rastafarian
o Scientologist
o Secular Humanist
o Shinto
o Sikh
o Taoist
o Tenrikyo
o Wiccan
o Spiritual, but no religious affiliation
o No affiliation
o A religious affiliation or spiritual identity not listed above (please specify) __________
64. Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your
living/educational expenses) or independent (you are the sole provider for your living/educational
expenses)?
O Dependent
O Independent
65. Students only: What is your best estimate of your family’s yearly income (if dependent student, partnered,
or married) or your yearly income (if single and independent student)?
O Below $30,000
O $30,000 - $49,999
O $50,000 - $69,999
O $70,000 - $99,999
O $100,000 - $149,999
O $150,000 - $199,999
O $200,000 - $249,999
O $250,000 - $499,999
O $500,000 or more
444
66. Students only: Where do you live?

O On-campus Residence Hall
o Boothroyd, Rowland, & Tallcott
o East Tower
o Eastman & Lyon
o Emerson
o Hilliard, Hood, & Holmes
o Landon, Bogart, & Clarke
o West Tower
o Terraces
O Living Learning Community
o Housing Offering a Multicultural Experience
o La Casa Language Learning Community
o The Sustainably Conscious Community
o Outdoor Adventure Learning Community
o Quiet Study Housing
o Substance Free Housing Community
o Honors Housing
o Transfer Housing Program
o The Interfaith Housing Community
O On-campus Apartment Complexes
o Garden Apartments
o Circle Apartments
O Off-campus apartment/house
O Housing insecure (e.g. couch surfing, sleeping in car, sleeping in campus office/lab)
445
67. Students only: Since having been a student at Ithaca College, have you been a member or participating in
any of the following clubs and organizations? (Mark all that apply)
O I do not participate in any clubs or organizations at Ithaca College
O Academic
O Activism
O ALANA student organizations
O Cultural
O Environmental
O Event programming
O Honorary
O Intercollegiate athletics
O Media
O Music
O Non-profit
O Performing
O Personal
O Political
O Professional
O Religious
O Service
O Special interest
O Student governance
O Recreational sports
o Competitive sport club
o Performance sport club
o Recreational sport Club
68. Students only: At the end of your last semester, what was your cumulative grade point average?
O 3.75 – 4.00
O 3.50 – 3.74
O 3.25 – 3.49
O 3.00 – 3.24
O 2.75 – 2.99
O 2.50 – 2.74
O 2.25 – 2.49
O 2.00 - 2.24
O Below 2.00
69. Students only: Have you experienced financial hardship while attending Ithaca College?
O No [skip to XXX]
O Yes
446
70. Students only: How have you experienced the financial hardship? (Mark all that apply)
O Difficulty affording tuition
O Difficulty purchasing my books/course materials
O Difficulty participating in social events
O Difficulty affording food
O Difficulty affording co-curricular events or activities
O Difficulty in affording unpaid internships/research opportunities
O Difficulty in affording alternative spring breaks
O Difficulty affording travel to and from Ithaca College
O Difficulty affording commuting to campus
O Difficulty in affording housing
O Difficulty in affording health care
O Difficulty in affording child care
O Difficulty in affording other campus fees
O A financial hardship not listed above (please specify _________________)
71. Students only: How are you currently paying for your education at Ithaca College? (Mark all that apply)
O Campus employment
O Credit card
O Family contribution
O GI Bill
O Loans
O Need-based scholarship (e.g., Gates)
O Non-need based scholarship (e.g., Merit, ROTC)
O Grant (e.g., Pell)
O Personal contribution /job
O Resident assistant
O Dependent tuition remission (e.g., family member works at Ithaca)
O A method of payment not listed here (please specify): _____________________
72. Students only: Are you employed either on campus or off-campus during the academic year?
O No
O Yes, I work on-campus – (Please indicate total number of hours you work)
O 1-10 hours/week
O 11-20 hours/week
O 21-30 hours/week
O 31-40 hours/week
O More than 40 hours/week
O Yes, I work off-campus – (Please indicate total number of hours you work)
O 1-10 hours/week
O 11-20 hours/week
O 21-30 hours/week
O 31-40 hours/week
O More than 40 hours/week
447
Part 4: Perceptions of Campus Climate
73. Within the past year, have you OBSERVED any conduct directed toward a person or group of people on
campus that you believe created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or
hostile (bullying, harassing) working or learning environment at Ithaca College?
O No (Skip to Question #xxx)
O Yes
74. Who/what was the target of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
O Alumnus/a
O Department Chair
O Donor
O Faculty advisor
O Friend
O Staff member
O Stranger
O Student
O Student staff
O Don’t know target
O A target not listed above (please specify ____________________)
448
75. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
O Alumnus/a
O Department Chair
O Donor
O Faculty advisor
O Friend
O Staff member
O Stranger
O Student
O Student staff
O Don’t know source
O A source not listed above (please specify ____________________)
449
76. Which of the target’s characteristics do you believe was/were the basis for the conduct? (Mark all that
apply.)
O Academic Performance
O Age
O Ethnicity
O Gender expression
O Political views
O Pregnancy
O Racial identity
O Sexual identity
O Don’t know
450
77. Which of the following did you observe that occurred because of the target’s identity? (Mark all that
apply.)
O Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity
O Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity
O Derogatory verbal remarks
O Derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail
O Derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak)
O Derogatory written comments
O Derogatory phone calls
O Graffiti/vandalism
O Person intimidated/bullied
O Person ignored or excluded
O Person isolated or left out
O Person experiences a hostile classroom environment
O Person experienced a hostile work environment
O Person was the target of workplace incivility
O Person being stared at
O Racial/ethnic profiling
O Person received a low or unfair performance evaluation
O Person received a poor grade
O Person was unfairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process
O Person was stalked
O Person was “outed” against their wishes (e.g., gender identity, sexuality, disability status)
O Person was denied accommodations
O Physical violence
O Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group
O Threats of physical violence
O Something not listed above (please specify ____________________)
78. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.)
O At an Ithaca College event/program
O In a class/lab
O In a faculty office
O In a meeting with one other person
O In a meeting with a group of people
O In an Ithaca College administrative office
O In an Ithaca College dining facility
O In an experiential learning environment (e.g., community-based learning, retreat, externship, internship)
O In athletic facilities
O In other public spaces at Ithaca College
O In campus housing
O In the Counseling and Psychological Services
O In the Wellness Center
O In the Ithaca College library
O In off-campus housing
O In the Health Center
O Off campus
O On phone calls/text messages/e-mail
O On social media (Facebook/Twitter/ Yik-Yak)
O While walking on campus
O While working at an Ithaca College job
O A venue not listed above (please specify ____________________)
451
79. What was your response to observing this conduct? (Mark all that apply.)
o Faculty member
o Staff member
o Case Manager
o Human Resources
o Student staff
o Muller Chapel
o Residential Life
o LGBT Center
o The Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity (CSRE)
O I told a friend
EthicsPoint)
80. Did you report the conduct?

O No, I did not report it
O Yes, I reported it
o Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome
my complaint was responded to appropriately
o Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately
81. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you wish to elaborate on your observations
of conduct directed toward a person or group of people on campus that you believe created an exclusionary,
intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning environment, please do so here.
Insert Text Box here
452
82. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed hiring practices at Ithaca College (e.g., hiring supervisor bias,
search committee bias, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) that you perceive to be unjust or that
would inhibit diversifying the community?
O Yes
83. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon…(Mark all that apply).
O Age
O Ethnicity
O Gender expression
O Nepotism/Cronyism
O Political views
O Pregnancy
O Racial identity
O Sexual identity
O Don’t know
84. Faculty/Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you wish to elaborate on
your observations of unjust hiring practices, please do so here.
453
85. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification practices at
Ithaca College that you perceive to be unjust?
O Yes
86. Faculty/Staff only: I believe the unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to
promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification were based upon… (Mark all that apply.)
O Age
O Ethnicity
O Gender expression
O Nepotism/Cronyism
O Political views
O Pregnancy
O Racial identity
O Sexual identity
O Don’t know
your observations of unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to
promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification, please do so here.
454
88. Faculty/ Staff only: Have you observed employment-related discipline or action, up to and including
dismissal, at Ithaca College that you perceive to be unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community?
O Yes
89. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust employment-related disciplinary actions were based
upon…(Mark all that apply.)
O Age
O Ethnicity
O Gender expression
O Nepotism/Cronyism
O Political views
O Pregnancy
O Racial identity
O Sexual identity
O Don’t know
your observations of employment-related discipline or action, up to and including dismissal practices,
please do so here.
455
91. Using a scale of 1–5, please rate the overall campus climate at Ithaca College on the following dimensions:
(Note: As an example, for the first item, “friendly—hostile,” 1=very friendly, 2=somewhat friendly,
3=neither friendly nor hostile, 4=somewhat hostile, and 5=very hostile)
friendly 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 hostile
inclusive 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 exclusive
improving 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 regressing
positive for persons 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for persons
with disabilities with disabilities
positive for people negative for people
who identify as lesbian, who identify as lesbian,
gay, bisexual, queer 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 gay, bisexual, queer
or transgender or transgender
positive for people of negative for people of
various spiritual/religious various spiritual/religious
backgrounds 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 backgrounds
positive for People 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for People
of Color of Color
positive for men 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for men
positive for women 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for women
positive for non-native negative for non-native
English speakers 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 English speakers
positive for people who are negative for people who are not
not U.S. citizens 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 U.S. citizens
welcoming 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 not welcoming
respectful 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 disrespectful
positive for people 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for people
of high socioeconomic of high socioeconomic status
status
positive for people 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for people
of low socioeconomic of low socioeconomic status
status
positive for people of 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 negative for people of
various political affiliations various political affiliations
positive for people in 1.........2........3..........4..........5 negative for people in active
active military/ veterans military/veterans status
status
456
92. Using a scale of 1–5, please rate the overall campus climate on the following dimensions:
(Note: As an example, for the first item, 1= completely free of racism, 2=mostly free of racism,
3=occasionally encounter racism; 4= regularly encounter racism; 5=constantly encounter racism)
Not racist 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Racist

Not sexist 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Sexist
Not homophobic 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Homophobic
Not biphobic 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Biphobic
Not transphobic 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Transphobic
Not ageist 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Ageist
Not classist Classist
(socioeconomic 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 (socioeconomic
status) status)
Not classist Classist
(position: faculty, 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 (position: faculty
staff, student) staff, student)
Disability friendly 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Not disability friendly (Ableist)
(Not ableist)
Not xenophobic 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Xenophobic
Not ethnocentric 1…….2…….3…….4…….5 Ethnocentric
93. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.
Neither
I feel valued by Ithaca College
faculty. O O O O O
staff. O O O O O
senior administrators (e.g.,
dean, vice president, provost). O O O O O
I feel valued by faculty in the
classroom. O O O O O
I feel valued by other students in
the classroom. O O O O O
I feel valued by other students
outside of the classroom. O O O O O
I think that faculty pre-judge my
perception of my
identity/background. O O O O O
I believe that the campus
climate encourages free and
open discussion of difficult
topics. O O O O O
I have faculty whom I perceive
as role models. O O O O O
I have staff whom I perceive as
role models. O O O O O
94. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.
457
Neither
I feel valued by faculty in my
department/program. O O O O O
I feel valued by my
department/program chair. O O O O O
I feel valued by other faculty at
Ithaca College. O O O O O
I feel valued by students in the
classroom. O O O O O
senior administrators (e.g., dean,
vice president, provost). O O O O O
I think that faculty in my
department/program pre-judge
my abilities based on their
perception of my
I think that my department/
program chair pre-judges my
perception of my
I believe that Ithaca College
encourages free and open
discussion of difficult topics. O O O O O
I feel that my
research/scholarship is valued. O O O O O
I feel that my teaching is
valued. O O O O O
I feel that my service
contributions are valued. O O O O O
458
95. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.
Neither
I feel valued by co-workers in my
department. O O O O O
I feel valued by co-workers outside
my department. O O O O O
I feel valued by my
supervisor/manager. O O O O O
students. O O O O O
faculty. O O O O O
senior administrators (e.g., dean,
vice president, provost). O O O O O
I think that co-workers in my work
unit pre-judge my abilities based
on their perception of my
I think that my supervisor/manager
pre-judges my abilities based on
their perception of my
I think that faculty pre-judges my
abilities based on their perception
of my identity/background. O O O O O
I believe that my
department/program encourages
free and open discussion of
difficult topics. O O O O O
I feel that my skills are valued. O O O O O
I feel that my work is valued. O O O O O
459
96. (Respondents with disabilities only) Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in any of the
following areas at Ithaca College?

Facilities
Athletic and recreational facilities O O O
Classroom buildings O O O
Classrooms, labs (including computer labs) O O O
College housing O O O
Dining facilities O O O
Doors O O O
Elevators/lifts O O O
Emergency preparedness O O O
Health Center O O O
Office furniture (e.g., chair, desk) O O O
Campus transportation/parking O O O
Other campus buildings O O O
Podium O O O
Restrooms O O O
Signage O O O
Studios/performing arts spaces O O O
Temporary barriers due to construction or maintenance O O O
Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks O O O
Technology/Online Environment
Accessible electronic format O O O
Clickers O O O
Computer equipment (e.g., screens, mouse, keyboard) O O O
Electronic forms O O O
Electronic signage O O O
Electronic surveys (including this one) O O O
Kiosks O O O
Library database O O O
Sakai O O O
Phone/Phone equipment O O O
Software (e.g., voice recognition/audiobooks) O O O
Video /video audio description O O O
Website O O O
Identity
Electronic databases (e.g., Homer, Parnassus) O O O
Email account O O O
Intake forms (e.g., Health Center) O O O
Learning technology O O O
Surveys O O O
Instructional/Campus materials
Brochures O O O
Food menus O O O
Forms O O O
Journal articles O O O
Library books O O O
Other publications O O O
Syllabi O O O
Textbooks O O O
Video-closed captioning and text description O O O
97. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on your
responses regarding accessibility, please do so here.
460
98. (Respondents who identify as trans-specrtum only) Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in
any of the following areas at Ithaca College?

Facilities
Athletic and recreational facilities O O O
Changing rooms/locker rooms O O O
College housing O O O
Restrooms O O O
Signage O O O
Identity Accuracy
Alumni correspondence and publications O O O
Ithaca College ID Card O O O
Electronic databases (e.g., Homer, Parnassus) O O O
Email account O O O
Intake forms (e.g., Health Center) O O O
Learning technology O O O
Ithaca College media O O O
Surveys O O O
Benefits O O O
Health Insurance O O O
Other benefits (e.g., retirement) O O O
99. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on your
responses, please do so here.
461
Part 5: Institutional Actions Relative to Climate Issues

100. Faculty only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would
influence the climate at Ithaca College.
If This Initiative IS Available at If This Initiative IS NOT at Ithaca
Ithaca College College
Would Would have
Positively Has no Negatively positively no influence Would negatively
influences influence on influences influence on influence
climate climate climate climate climate climate
Providing flexibility for calculating the tenure clock. O O O O O O
Providing recognition and rewards for including
diversity issues in courses across the curriculum. O O O O O O
Providing diversity, inclusivity, equity training for
faculty. O O O O O O
Providing faculty with tool-kits to create an inclusive
classroom environment. O O O O O O
Providing faculty with supervisory training. O O O O O O
Providing access to counseling for people who have
experienced harassment. O O O O O O
Providing mentorship for new faculty. O O O O O O
Providing a clear process to resolve conflicts. O O O O O O
Providing a fair process to resolve conflicts. O O O O O O
Including diversity-related professional experiences as
one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty. O O O O O O
Providing equity and diversity training to search,
promotion, and tenure committees. O O O O O O
Providing career span development opportunities for
faculty at all ranks. O O O O O O
Providing affordable childcare. O O O O O O
Providing support/resources for spouse/partner
employment. O O O O O O
101. We are interested in knowing more about your opinions on institutional actions. If you would like to elaborate on your responses regarding the impact of
institutional actions on campus climate, please do so here.
462
102. Staff only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence
the climate at Ithaca College.
If This Initiative IS Available at If This Initiative IS NOT Available at

Ithaca College Ithaca College
Would Would have
Providing diversity and equity training for staff. O O O O O O
Providing access to counseling for people who
have experienced harassment. O O O O O O
Providing supervisors/managers with supervisory
training. O O O O O O
Providing faculty supervisors with supervisory
training. O O O O O O
Providing mentorship for new staff. O O O O O O
Providing a clear process to resolve conflicts. O O O O O O
Providing a fair process to resolve conflicts. O O O O O O
Considering diversity-related professional
experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of
staff/faculty. O O O O O O
Providing career development opportunities for
staff. O O O O O O
463
104. Students only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would
influence the climate at Ithaca College.
If This Initiative IS Available at If This Initiative IS NOT Available at
Ithaca College Ithaca College
Would Would have
Providing diversity and equity training for students. O O O O O O
Providing diversity and equity training for staff. O O O O O O
Providing diversity and equity training for faculty. O O O O O O
Providing a person to address student complaints of bias
by faculty/staff in on campus learning environments (e.g.
classrooms, labs). O O O O O O
by other students in on campus learning environments
(e.g. classrooms, labs). O O O O O O
by supervisors in off-campus learning environments
(e.g., field experience, internships, clinical rotations). O O O O O O
by other students in off-campus learning environments
(e.g., field experience, internships, clinical rotations). O O O O O O
Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue
among students. O O O O O O
Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue
between faculty, staff and students. O O O O O O
Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural
competence more effectively into the curriculum. O O O O O O
Providing effective faculty mentorship of students. O O O O O O
Providing effective academic advising. O O O O O O
Providing diversity training for student staff (e.g.,
student union, resident assistants). O O O O O O
Providing adequate childcare resources. O O O O O O
Providing adequate social space. O O O O O O
464
465
Part 6: Your Additional Comments
106. Are your experiences on campus different from those you experience in the community surrounding
campus? If so, how are these experiences different?
107. Do you have any specific recommendations for improving the climate at Ithaca College?
108. This survey has asked you to reflect upon a large number of issues related to the campus climate and your
experiences in this climate, using a multiple-choice format. If you wish to elaborate upon any of your
survey responses or further describe your experiences, you are encouraged to do so in the space provided
below.
466
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY
To thank all members of the Ithaca College community for their participation in this survey,
you have an opportunity to win an award.
Submitting your contact information for a survey award is optional. No survey information
is connected to entering your information.
To be eligible to win a survey award, select the appropriate link below. After the new page loads,
enter your email address. Please submit only one entry per person; duplicate entries will be
discarded. A random drawing will be held for the following survey awards:
IC Parking Pass for all red and blue lots in Cinemapolis gift card ($50)
Spring 2016 Regal Ithaca Mall Stadium gift card ($50)
Cortaca Jug Game fan package Purity Ice Cream gift card ($25)
ID Express gift card ($100) Sodexo: unlimited ValidFill drinks through
Massage at August Moon Spa (50 minutes) spring 2017
Collegetown Bagels gift card ($25) IC sweatshirts from the IC Campus Store
Coltivare gift card ($50)
By clicking on a link below, you will be taken to a separate website for the purposes of providing
an email for the drawing. In providing your email on the separate website, you are in no way
linked or identified with the survey information collected here. The separation between the
survey and drawing websites ensures your confidentiality.
http://www.ithaca.edu/campusclimate/thanks/
Awards will be reported in accordance with IRS regulations. Please consult with your tax
professional if you have questions.
We recognize that answering some of the questions on this survey may have been difficult for
people.
If you have experienced any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak
with someone, please copy and paste the link below into a new browser to contact a resource:
467

Climatereport PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Climatereport PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ithaca College

Project Design and Campus Involvement

Ithaca College Participants

Table 1. Ithaca College Respondent Demographics

Position status Undergraduate Student 2,672 69.9

Graduate Student 157 4.1

Faculty 466 12.2

Staff 528 13.8

Gender identity Man 2,446 64.0

Woman 1,257 32.9

Racial/ethnic identity Asian/Asian American 172 4.5

Black/African American 160 4.2

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 144 3.8

Additional People of Color 38 1.0

White 2,883 75.4

Multiracial 314 8.2

Sexual identity LGBQ 652 17.1

Heterosexual 3,038 79.5

Citizenship status U.S. Citizen 3,532 92.4

Non-U.S./Naturalized Citizen 263 6.9

Disability status Single Disability 390 10.2

No Disability 3,190 83.4

Multiple Disabilities 210 5.5

Religious/spiritual identity Christian Affiliation 1,500 39.2

Additional Faith Based Affiliation 399 10.4

No Affiliation 1,629 42.6

Multiple Affiliation 212 5.5

Key Findings – Areas of Strength

1. High levels of comfort with the climate at Ithaca College

4. Student Respondents – Positive attitudes about academic experiences

Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success

Key Findings – Opportunities for Improvement

Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences of exclusionary,

3. Faculty and Staff Respondents – Challenges with work-life issues

4. Faculty Respondents – Challenges with faculty work

98 Faculty Tenure-Track respondents elaborated on their workplace climate. Three

5. A small but meaningful percentage of respondents experienced unwanted sexual

History of the Project

Project Design and Campus Involvement

Contextual Framework and Summary of Related Literature

Institutional Climate within Campus Structures

Campus Climate and Student, Faculty, and Staff Success

In assessing campus climate and its influence on specific populations, it is important to

Accessibility and Inclusivity

Campus Climate and Student Activism

Perceived I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at

o Gender identity (undergraduate - Woman, Man, Transspectrum; graduate –

This section of the report provides a description of respondent demographics, measures of

• Women were significantly overrepresented in the sample; men were

Reliability - Internal Consistency of Responses.23 Correlations between the responses to

Not Not Not Not Classist Disability-

Positive for People

Positive for People

Figure 1. Respondents’ Collapsed Position Status

Table 5. Staff Respondents’ Academic Division/Work Unit Affiliations

Academic division/work unit n %

Enrollment Management 56 10.6

Finance and Administration (e.g., Facilities, DIIS) 103 19.5

Academic division/work unit n %

Human and Legal Resources 17 3.2

Institutional Advancement and Communication 71 13.4

Office of the President <5 ---

School of Business 7 1.3