university of florida survey june 2016 - president...the university of florida report june 2016 i...

Faculty and Staff Climate

Survey

University of Florida

June 2016

Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project

The University of Florida Report June 2016

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... i Project Design and Campus Involvement ....................................................................... ii The University of Florida Participants ............................................................................ ii Key Findings – Areas of Strength .................................................................................. iv Key Findings – Opportunities for Improvement ............................................................ vi

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 History of the Project ...................................................................................................... 1 Review of the Literature: Campus Climate’s Influence on Academic and Professional Success ............................................................................................................................ 2 The University of Florida Campus-Wide Climate Assessment Project Structure and Process ............................................................................................................................ 5

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 6 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 6 Research Design.............................................................................................................. 6

Results ................................................................................................................................. 8 Description of the Sample ............................................................................................... 9 Sample Characteristics .................................................................................................. 13

Campus Climate Assessment Findings ............................................................................. 32 Comfort With the Climate at the University of Florida ................................................ 32 Barriers at the University of Florida for Respondents With Disabilities ...................... 61 Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct....................................................................................................................................... 63 Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct ........ 80 Employee Perceptions of Climate ................................................................................. 93

Perceptions of Employment Practices ...................................................................... 93 Staff and University Athletic Association Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance ............................................................................. 104 Faculty Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance ....... 158 Respondents Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving the University of Florida 211

Institutional Actions ........................................................................................................ 220 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 233 References ....................................................................................................................... 234 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 239

Appendix A – Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics ....................................240 Appendix B – Data Tables ..........................................................................................242 Appendix C – Comment Analyses (Questions #77, #78, and #79) .............................293 Appendix D – Survey: University of Florida Faculty and Staff Climate Survey ........302 Appendix E – Final Response Rates by Position.…………………………………...337



i

Executive Summary

Introduction

The University of Florida (UF) affirms that diversity and inclusion are crucial to the intellectual

vitality of the campus community. It is through freedom of exchange over different ideas and

viewpoints in supportive environments that individuals develop the critical thinking and

citizenship skills that will benefit them throughout their lives. Diversity and inclusion engender

academic engagement where teaching, working, learning, and living take place in pluralistic

communities of mutual respect.

UF is dedicated to fostering a caring community that provides leadership for constructive

participation in a diverse, multicultural world. As noted in UF’s mission statement, “The

University of Florida must create the broadly diverse environment necessary to foster multi-

cultural skills and perspectives in its teaching and research for its students to contribute and

succeed in the world of the 21st century.”1 In order to better understand the campus climate, the

senior administration at the University of Florida recognized the need for a comprehensive tool

that would provide campus climate metrics for UF faculty and staff.

To that end, members of the University of Florida formed the President’s Council on Diversity

Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) in 2015. The CSWG was composed of faculty, staff,

and administrators. Ultimately, the University of Florida contracted with Rankin & Associates

Consulting (R&A) to conduct a campus-wide study entitled, “University of Florida Faculty and

Staff Climate Survey.” Data gathered via reviews of relevant UF literature and a campus-wide

survey focused on the experiences and perceptions of various constituent groups. Based on the

findings of this study, the University of Florida will develop action items to build on successful

initiatives and address challenges.

1http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/catalog1011/administration/mission.html



ii

Project Design and Campus Involvement

The CSWG collaborated with R&A to develop the survey instrument. The final survey

instrument was completed in October 2015. The University of Florida’s survey contained 79

items (17 qualitative and 62 quantitative) and was available via a secure online portal from

October 27 to November 27, 2015. Confidential paper surveys were distributed to those

individuals who did not have access to an Internet-connected computer or who preferred a paper

survey.

The conceptual model used as the foundation for UF’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. The

CSWG implemented participatory and community-based processes to generate survey questions

as a means to capture the various dimensions of power and privilege that shape the campus

experience. In this way, the University of Florida’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 University of Florida Participants

UF community members completed 5,590 surveys for an overall response rate of 36%. Only

surveys that were at least 50% completed were included in the final data set for analyses.2

Response rates by constituent group varied: 36% (n = 2,037) for Faculty, 19% (n = 117) for

Postdoctoral Associates, 37% (n = 3,277) for Staff/Administrators, and 40% (n = 159) for

University Athletic Association. Table 1 provides a summary of selected demographic

2Fifty-eight were removed because they did not complete at least 50% of the survey. Surveys were also removed from the data file if the respondent did not provide consent (n = 48).



iii

characteristics of survey respondents. The percentages offered in Table 1 are based on the

numbers of respondents in the sample (n) for each demographic characteristic.3

Note: The total n for each demographic characteristic may differ as a result of missing data.

3The total n for each demographic characteristic may differ as a result of missing data.

Table 1. The University of Florida Sample Demographics

Characteristic Subgroup n % of Sample Position status Faculty 2,037 36.4 Postdoctoral Associate 117 2.1 Staff 3,277 58.6 University Athletic Association 159 2.8 Gender identity Man 2,248 40.2 Woman 3,277 58.0 Racial/Ethnic identity Asian/Asian American 302 5.4 Black/African American 358 6.4 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 256 4.6 Other People of Color 48 0.9 White 4,213 75.4 Multiracial 219 3.9 Sexual identity LGBQ 366 6.5 Heterosexual 4,890 87.5 Other 53 0.9 Citizenship status U.S. Citizen 4,679 83.7 U.S. Citizen, naturalized 463 8.3 Non-U.S. Citizen 319 5.7 Multiple Citizenship 82 1.5 Disability status Disability 511 9.1 No Disability 5,060 90.5 Military status Military Service 307 5.5 No Military Service 5,210 93.2 Faith-based affiliation Christian Affiliation 3,000 53.7 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 333 6.0 No Affiliation 1,802 32.3 Multiple Affiliations 257 4.6



iv

Key Findings – Areas of Strength

1. High levels of comfort with the climate at the University of Florida

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.

• 73% (n = 4,106) of the survey respondents were “comfortable” or “very

comfortable” with the climate at UF.

• 70% (n = 3,912) of all respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable”

with the climate in their departments/work units.

• 62% (n = 2,049) of all respondents were "comfortable" or "very comfortable"

with the climate in their classes/learning environment.

o 83% of Faculty respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable”

with the classroom climate, compared to 60% of Postdoctoral Associate

respondents and 35% of Staff respondents.

2. Respondents – Positive attitudes about work-life issues

Campus climate5 is constituted in part by perceptions of work, sense of balance between

work and home life, and opportunities for personal and professional development

throughout the span of one’s career. Work-life balance is one indicator of campus

climate.

• 84% (n = 2,865) of Staff6 respondents felt that they were given a reasonable time

frame to complete assigned responsibilities.

• 72% (n = 2,429) of Staff6 respondents felt that UF and their supervisors provided

resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities. Among

Faculty respondents, 64% (n = 1,261) felt that UF provided these resources.

• 73% (n = 2,264) of Staff6 respondents found UF supportive of flexible work

schedules.

4Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264 5Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006 6 Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff



v

• The majority of Staff7 indicated that they had supervisors (75%, n = 2,548) and

colleagues/coworkers (83%, n = 2,797) at UF who gave them career advice or

guidance when they needed it.

• 65% (n = 2,073) of Staff7 respondents indicated that their supervisors and UF

(64%, n = 2,073) provided them with adequate resources to manage work/life

balance.

3. Faculty Respondents – Positive attitudes about faculty work

• Tenured and Tenure-Accruing respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the

criteria for tenure were clear (75%, n = 829), and standards were applied equally

to faculty in their school/division (60%, n = 667).

• 52% (n = 1,094) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt that their

service contributions were valued.

• 71% (n = 629) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the

criteria used for job retention was clear.

7 Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff



vi

Key Findings – Opportunities for Improvement

1. Members of several constituent groups were differentially affected by 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.8

Research also underscores the relationship between workplace discrimination and

subsequent productivity.9 The survey requested information on experiences of

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.

• 24% (n = 1,325) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced

exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile

(bullying, harassing) conduct at UF within the past year.10

o 36% (n = 470) indicated that the conduct was based on their position

status, 21% (n = 275) noted that the conduct was based on their

educational credentials, 20% (n = 259) felt that it was based on their age,

and 19% (n = 248) felt that it was based on their gender/gender identity.

• Differences emerged based on various demographic characteristics, including

position status, gender identity, age, and ethnicity. For example:

o A significantly higher percentage of respondents who completed a high

school/GED or completed some college felt that the conduct was based on

their educational attainment.

o Significantly higher percentages of respondents ages 22 through 24 years

and ages 65 and over felt that the conduct was based on their age when

compared to the other age groups (25-64 years of age).

8Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, & Nora, 2001 9Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008; Waldo, 1999 10The 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, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009).



vii

o A significantly higher percentage of Transgender/Genderqueer/Other

respondents and Women respondents than Men respondents indicated that

they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile

conduct.

Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences of

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. Respondents offered

comments related to the conduct of supervisors, administrators, or other individuals with

“power.” Other respondents described the incivility they had experienced from their

supervisors including yelling, belittling, and intimidation. Still other respondents that

oftentimes coworkers were the source of workplace incivility and commented on the

overall workplace environment, where they felt that bullying, harassment, and/or other

forms of intimidating and disrespectful behavior took place regularly. The largest shared

theme among respondents was that of issues surrounding the process of, as well as the

results of, reporting negative conduct. Many individuals were concerned about what

would happen if they reported the behavior.

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,

Veterans).11 Several groups indicated that they were less comfortable than their majority

counterparts with the climates of the campus, workplace, and classroom.

11Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Norris, 1992; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, & Hart, 2008



viii

• Differences by gender identity:

o 75% of Women respondents, 72% of Men respondents, and 62% of

Transgender/Genderqueer/Other respondents were “very comfortable” or

“comfortable” with the overall climate.

o A significantly higher percentage of Men Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate,

and Staff respondents (34%) than Women Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate,

and Staff respondents (22%) felt “very comfortable” in their classes

o 36% of overall Men respondents and 30% of Women respondents were

“very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units.

• Differences by racial identity:

o 66% of Black/African American and 62% of Multiracial respondents were

“very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate at UF versus

73% of Asian/Asian American respondents, 74% of

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 75% of Other People of Color

respondents, and 76% of White respondents.

o A significantly lower percentage of Black/African American respondents

(23%) were “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work

units than were Asian/Asian American respondents (29%),

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents (29%), Other People of Color

respondents (31%), White respondents (34%), and Multiracial respondents

(31%).

o 25% of Asian/Asian American Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff

respondents, 12% of Black/African American Faculty, Postdoctoral

Associate, and Staff respondents, 29% of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents, 36% of Other

Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents of Color, 29% of

White Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and 21% of Multiracial Faculty,

Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents were “very comfortable”




ix

• Differences by disability:

o Respondents with Disabilities (15%) were significantly less comfortable

with the overall climate than were respondents with No Disability (24%).

o Respondents with Disabilities (22%) were significantly less comfortable

with the department/work unit climate than were respondents with No

Disability (33%).

o Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Disabilities

(21%) were significantly less comfortable with the climate in their classes

than were Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with No

Disability (28%).

• Differences by faith-based affiliation:

o 75% of Christian-Affiliated respondents and 76% of Other Faith-Based

respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall

climate, compared to 72% of No Affiliation respondents and 73% of

Multiple Affiliation respondents who were “very comfortable” or

"comfortable" with the overall climate.

o 70% of Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Other

Faith-Based Affiliations, 64% of Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents with No Affiliation, and 72% of Faculty, Postdoctoral

Associate, and Staff respondents with Multiple Affiliations were “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in the classroom/learning

environment, compared to 60% of Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents with Christian Affiliations.

• By citizenship status:

o Naturalized U.S. Citizens (66%) were significantly less likely to feel “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate than U.S. Citizens

(74%), Non-U.S. Citizens (77%), and respondents with Multiple

Citizenships (83%).

o Naturalized U.S. Citizens (66%) were significantly less likely to feel “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work



x

unit than U.S. Citizens (70%), Non-U.S. Citizens (75%), and respondents

with Multiple Citizenships (77%).

o Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Multiple

Citizenships (51%) were significantly less likely to feel “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work

unit than U.S. Citizen (61%), Naturalized U.S. Citizen (68%), and Non-

U.S. Citizen (71%) Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents.

3. Respondents – Challenges with work-life issues

• 57% (n = 3,171) of respondents noted that they had seriously considered leaving

UF in the past year.

o 53% (n = 1,684) of those respondents who seriously considered leaving

did so because of financial reasons. Forty-three percent (n = 1,377) of

those respondents who seriously considered leaving indicated that they

saw limited opportunities for advancement at UF.

• Respondents observed unjust hiring practices (23%, n = 1,249), unfair or unjust

disciplinary actions (14%, n = 749), or unfair or unjust

promotion/tenure/reclassification (28%, n = 1,512).

• 24% (n = 87) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Women respondents and 12% (n =

79) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Men Faculty respondents felt that faculty

members in their departments who use family accommodation (FMLA) policies

were disadvantaged in promotion or tenure.

• A higher percentage of Men Staff12 respondents (91%, n = 967) versus Women

Staff respondents (88%, n = 1,964) felt that their supervisors were supportive of

leave.

• Less than half of Staff12 respondents (42%, n = 1,392) “agreed” or “strongly

agreed” that staff salaries were competitive.

12 Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff



xi

Respondents were provided the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences with work-

life issues. Respondents offered that they felt their salary at the University of Florida was

significantly lower than they would be able to earn at another job. Many respondents

commented on various issues of inequity surrounding the fact that not everyone is treated

the same. Respondents were concerned about different treatment between staff and

faculty, new staff and old staff, part-time and full-time status, different departments and

disciplines, and people with children and people without children. Respondents across

various positions commented that high workload expectations were stressful.

4. Faculty Respondents – Challenges with faculty work

• Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Women respondents (31%, n = 118) were more

likely than Men respondents (28%, n = 191) to feel pressure to change their

research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure/promotion.

• Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Women respondents (51%, n = 202) were more

likely than Men respondents (36%, n = 253) to feel burdened by service

responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental/program work

assignments) beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance

expectations.

• 50% (n = 555) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents thought 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.

• Among Faculty respondents, 54% (n = 1,007) felt that salaries for Tenure-Track

Faculty positions were competitive, 44% (n = 702) felt that salaries among

Adjunct Professors were competitive, and 46% (n = 807) felt that salaries for

Tenure-Track Faculty position were competitive.

• 76% (n =1,492) of all Faculty respondents believed they had job security. Among

faculty, 90% (n = 813) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 60% (n = 125) of Tenure-

Accruing Faculty respondents, and 63% (n = 405) of Non-Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents felt this way.



xii

Faculty respondents were provided the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences

regarding faculty work. Most of the Tenured and Tenure-Accruing respondents were

critical of the extent to which “shared governance” was actually implemented at the

University of Florida. Faculty respondents expressed concern about professional

development, especially travel funds for conferences; resources for research; and

administrative support. Respondents also felt that salaries at UF were not competitive

with other universities, especially for faculty who had been at UF for a long time and

those outside tenure-track.

Conclusion

The University of Florida campus climate findings13 were consistent with those found in higher

education institutions across the country, based on the work of R&A Consulting.14 For example,

70% to 80% of all respondents in similar reports found the campus climate to be “comfortable”

or “very comfortable.” A similar percentage (73%) of all the University of Florida respondents

reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at the University.

Likewise, 20% to 25% in similar reports indicated that they personally had experienced

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. At the University of Florida, a

similar percentage of respondents (24%) 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.15

The University of Florida’s climate assessment report provides baseline data on diversity and

inclusion, and addresses the University of Florida’s mission and the goals. While the findings

may guide decision-making in regard to policies and practices at UF, 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 UF community with an opportunity to build upon its

strengths and to develop a deeper awareness of the challenges ahead. UF, with support from 13Additional findings disaggregated by position and other selected demographic characteristics are provided in the full report. 14Rankin & Associates Consulting, 2015 15Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 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

http://www.rankin-consulting.com/



xiii

senior administrators and collaborative leadership, is in a prime position to actualize its

commitment to an inclusive campus and to institute organizational structures that respond to the

needs of its dynamic campus community.



1

Introduction

History of the Project

The University of Florida (UF) affirms that diversity and inclusion are crucial to the intellectual

vitality of the campus community. It is through freedom of exchange over different ideas and

viewpoints in supportive environments that individuals develop the critical thinking and

citizenship skills that will benefit them throughout their lives. Diversity and inclusion engender

academic engagement where teaching, working, learning, and living take place in pluralistic

communities of mutual respect.

UF is dedicated to fostering a caring community that provides leadership for constructive

participation in a diverse, multicultural world. As noted in UF’s mission statement, “The

University of Florida must create the broadly diverse environment necessary to foster multi-

cultural skills and perspectives in its teaching and research for its students to contribute and

succeed in the world of the 21st century.”16 In order to better understand the campus climate, the

senior administration and the Faculty Senate at the University of Florida recognized the need for

a comprehensive tool that would provide campus climate metrics for UF faculty and staff.

To that end, members of UF formed the President’s Council on Diversity Climate Study

Working Group (CSWG) in 2015. The CSWG was composed of faculty, staff, and

administrators. Ultimately, the University of Florida contracted with Rankin & Associates

Consulting (R&A) to conduct a campus-wide study entitled, “University of Florida Faculty and

Staff Climate Survey.” Data gathered via reviews of relevant UF literature and a campus-wide

survey focused on the experiences and perceptions of various constituent groups. Based on the

findings of this study, the University of Florida will develop action items to build on successful

initiatives and address challenges.

16http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/catalog1011/administration/mission.html



2

Review of the Literature: Campus Climate’s Influence on Academic and Professional

Success

Climate is defined for this project 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.”17 This includes the perceptions and

experiences of individuals and groups on campus. For the purposes of this study, climate also

includes an analysis of the perceptions and experiences individuals and groups have of others on

campus.

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

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, in order 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 groups.

In the ensuing years, many campuses instituted initiatives to address the challenges presented in

the reports. 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. 17Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264



3

Diversity is a process toward 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 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 environments are “complex social systems defined by the relationships between the

people, bureaucratic procedures, structural arrangements, institutional goals and values,

traditions, and larger socio-historical environments” (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, &

Allen, 1998, p. 296). Smith (2009) encouraged readers to examine critically their positions and

responsibilities regarding underserved populations within the campus environment. A guiding

question Smith posed was, are special-purpose groups (e.g., Black Faculty Caucus) and locations

(e.g., GLBTIQ and Multicultural Student Retention Services) perceived as “‘problems’ or are

they valued as contributing to the diversity of the institution and its educational missions” (p.

225)?

Campus climate influences students’ academic success and employees’ professional success, in

addition to the social well-being of both groups. The literature also suggests that various identity

groups may perceive the campus climate differently from each other 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). A summary of this literature follows.

Several scholars (Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Johnson

et al., 2007; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Strayhorn, 2013; Yosso, Smith, Ceja & Solórzano,

2009) found that when students of color perceive their campus environment as hostile, outcomes

such as persistence and academic performance are negatively impacted. Several other empirical



4

studies reinforce the importance of the perception of non-discriminatory environments to

positive learning and developmental outcomes (Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers &

Pascarella, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt et

al., 2001). Finally, research supports the value of a diverse student body and faculty on

enhancing learning outcomes and 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). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and Trans*

(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 LGB 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).

Finally, 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 of one

another. 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



5

privilege and oppression operate within the environment to influence the perceptions and

experiences of groups and individuals with intersecting identities (see Griffin, Bennett, & Harris,

2011; Maramba & Museus, 2011; Patton, 2011; Pittman, 2010; Turner, 2002).

The University of Florida Campus-Wide Climate Assessment Project Structure and

Process

The CSWG collaborated with R&A to develop the survey instrument. The final survey

instrument was completed in October 2015. The University of Florida’s survey contained 79

items (17 qualitative and 62 quantitative) and was available via a secure online portal from

October 27 to November 27, 2015. Confidential paper surveys were distributed to those

individuals who did not have access to an Internet-connected computer or who preferred a paper

survey.

The conceptual model used as the foundation for UF’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. The

CSWG implemented participatory and community-based processes to generate survey questions

as a means to capture the various dimensions of power and privilege that shape the campus

experience. In this way, UF’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.



6

Methodology

Conceptual Framework

R&A defined 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.”18 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

Survey Instrument. The survey questions were constructed based on the work of Rankin

(2003), with the assistance of the CSWG. The CSWG reviewed several drafts of the initial

survey proposed by R&A and vetted the questions to be contextually more appropriate for the

UF population. The final UF campus-wide survey contained 79 questions,19 including open-

ended questions for respondents to provide commentary. The survey was designed so that

respondents could provide information about their personal campus experiences, perceptions of

the campus climate, and perceptions of UF’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. The University of Florida’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 the University’s strategic 18Rankin & Associates Consulting (2015) adapted from AAC&U (1995). 19To 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.



7

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 in

September 2015.

Prospective participants received an invitation from President W. Kent Fuchs 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 that comments

were not attributed to any individual demographic characteristics.

Limitations. Two limitations to the generalizability of the data existed. The first limitation was

that respondents “self-selected” to participate. 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 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 UF 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



8

narrative, information is presented using valid percentages.20 Actual percentages21 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.

Qualitative Comments

Several survey questions provided respondents the opportunity to describe their experiences on

the University of Florida campus, 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 reviewed22 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.

Results

This section of the report provides a description of the sample 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 UF’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 20Valid percentages were derived using the total number of respondents to a particular item (i.e., missing data were excluded). 21Actual percentages were derived using the total number of survey respondents. 22Any comments provided in languages other than English were translated and incorporated into the qualitative analysis.



9

provides results from descriptive analyses that were not statistically significant, yet were

determined to be meaningful to the climate at the University of Florida.

Description of the Sample23

Five thousand five hundred-ninety (5,590) surveys were returned, for a 36.1% overall response

rate. The sample and population figures, chi-square analyses,24 and response rates are presented

in Table 2. All analyzed demographic categories showed statistically significant differences

between the sample data and the population data as provided by UF.

• Women were significantly overrepresented in the sample; men were underrepresented.

• Asian/Asian American/South Asians, Black/African Americans,

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders were significantly underrepresented in

the sample. White/European Americans, First Nation/American Indian/Indigenous

individuals, and those who were Missing/Unknown/Race Not Listed were significantly

overrepresented in the sample.

• Staff and University Athletic Association were significantly overrepresented in the

sample; Faculty and Postdoctoral Associates were underrepresented.

23All frequency tables are provided in Appendix B. 24Chi-square tests were conducted only on those categories that were response options in the survey and included in demographics provided by UF.



10

Table 2. Demographics of Population and Sample

Population Sample Response

Rate Characteristic Subgroup N % n %

Gender identitya Man 7,378 47.6 2,248 40.7 30.47

Woman 8,116 52.4 3,244 58.7 39.97

Transgender Not

available N/A < 5 --- N/A

Genderqueer Not

available N/A 22 0.4 N/A

Other/Missing/Unknown Not

available N/A 9 0.2 N/A Race/Ethnicity1,b Asian/Asian American/South

Asian 1,169 7.8 302 5.4 25.83

Black/African American 1,529 10.3 358 6.4 23.41

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 1,099 7.4 256 4.6 23.29

White 10,748 72.1 4,213 75.4 39.20

First Nation/American Indian/Indigenous 36 0.2 16 0.3 44.44

Middle Eastern/North African 0 0.0 27 0.5 N/A

Pacific Islander 11 0.1 5 0.1 45.45

Multiple Race 168 1.1 219 3.9 >100.0

Missing/Unknown/Race Not Listed 138 0.9 194 3.5 >100.0

Position statusc Faculty 5,706 36.8 2,037 36.4 35.70

Postdoctoral Associate 624 4.0 117 2.1 18.75

Staff 8,768 56.6 3,277 58.6 37.37

University Athletic Association 396 2.6 159 2.8 40.15

1Respondents were instructed to indicate all categories that apply. 2For a more detailed review of response rates by position, please see Appendix E. a Χ2 (1, N = 5,492) = 97.63, p < .001 b Χ2 (6, N = 5,344) = 627.00, p < .001 c Χ2 (3, N = 5,590) = 56.34, p < .001



11

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, as well as higher education

survey research methodology experts, reviewed the bank of items available for the survey, as did

the members of the University of Florida’s CSWG.

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 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.25 Correlations between the responses to

questions about overall campus climate for various groups (Question 67) and to questions that

rated overall campus climate on various scales (Question 68) were moderate-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 coefficients26

are provided in Table 3.

25Internal 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). 26Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the degree to which two variables are related. A value of 1 signifies perfect correlation; 0 signifies no correlation.



12

All correlations in the table were significantly different from zero at the .01 level; that is, a

relationship existed between all selected pairs of responses.

A strong relationship (between .62 and .71) existed for all five pairs of variables - between

Positive for People of Color and Not Racist; between Positive for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual People

and Not Homophobic; between Positive for Women and Not Sexist; between Positive for People

of Low Socioeconomic Status and Not Classist; and between Positive for People with

Disabilities and Disability Friendly.

Table 3. Pearson Correlations Between Ratings of Acceptance and Campus Climate for Selected Groups

Climate Characteristics

Not Racist

Not Homophobic

Not Sexist

Not Classist (SES)

Disability-Friendly

Positive for People of Color .6581 Positive for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual People .6161 Positive for Women .6291 Positive for People of Low Socioeconomic Status (SES) .7101 Positive for People with Disabilities .6641 1p < 0.01



13

Sample Characteristics27 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 fewer than five (n < 5).

Primary status data for respondents were collapsed into Faculty respondents, Postdoctoral

Associate respondents, Staff respondents, and University Athletic Association respondents.28 Of

all respondents, 36% (n = 2,037) were Faculty, 2% (n = 117) were Postdoctoral Associates, 59%

(n = 3,277) were Staff, and 3% (n = 159) were University Athletic Association (Figure 1).

Ninety-six percent (n = 5,351) of all respondents were full-time in their primary positions.

Subsequent analyses indicated that 93% (n = 1,881) of Faculty respondents, 95% (n = 111) of

Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 98% (n = 3,210) of Staff respondents, and 94% (n = 149) of

University Athletic Association respondents were full-time in their primary positions.

Forty-seven percent (n = 2,632) of all respondents indicated that they served in an

Administrative/Supervisory role in this position. Subsequent analyses indicated that 47% (n =

961) of Faculty respondents, 21% (n = 25) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 48% (n =

1,558) of Staff respondents, and 56% (n = 88) of University Athletic Association respondents

served in an Administrative/Supervisory role.

27All percentages presented in the “Sample Characteristics” section of the report are actual percentages. 28Collapsed position status variables were determined by the CSWG. “Staff” includes Non-Exempt (Hourly) and Exempt (Salary). “Faculty” includes Tenured, Tenure-Accruing, Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status (PKY & IFAS Extension Agent), Permanent Status Accruing (IFAS Extension Agent), and Adjunct.



14

3%

59%

2%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

University Athletic Association

Staff

Postdoctoral Associate

Faculty

Figure 1. Respondents’ Collapsed Position Status (%)

With regard to respondents’ work-unit affiliations, among Faculty respondents, 63% (n = 1,275)

were affiliated with a college, 4% (n = 74) were affiliated with the Provost and Senior Vice

President for Academic Affairs, 18% (n = 362) were affiliated with the IFAS, 11% (n = 214)

were affiliated with the UF Health – Health Science Center, less than 1% (n < 5) were affiliated

with the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, less than 1% (n < 5) were affiliated

with the Office of the President, and 4% (n = 86) were affiliated with a unit not listed on the

survey (Table 4).

Six percent (n = 115) of Faculty respondents have been employed at UF less than one year, 24%

(n = 465) of Faculty respondents have been employed at the University of Florida one to five

years, 21% (n = 393) for six to 10 years, 28% (n = 536) for 11 to 20 years, and 22% (n = 423) for

more than 20 years.

Of Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 62% (n = 72) were affiliated with a college, < 1% (n = <

5) were affiliated with the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, 22% (n = 26)



15

were affiliated with the IFAS, 8% (n = 9) were affiliated with the UF Health – Health Science

Center, and 7% (n = 8) were affiliated with a unit not listed on the survey.

Sixteen percent (n = 28) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents have been employed at UF less

than one year, 52% (n = 59) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents have been employed at UF

one to five years, 18% (n = 21) for six to 10 years, and 5% (n = 6) for 11 to 20 years.

Of Staff respondents, 35% (n = 1,128) were affiliated with a college, 10% (n = 322) were

affiliated with the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, 10% (n = 322) were

affiliated with the IFAS, 12% (n = 392) were affiliated with the UF Health – Health Science

Center, 7% (n = 230) were affiliated with the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,

3% (n = 85) were affiliated with the Office of the President, and 22% (n = 713) were affiliated

with a unit not listed on the survey

Eight percent (n = 258) of Staff respondents have been employed at UF less than one year,

31.5% (n = 1,003) of Staff respondents have been employed at UF one to five years, 18.8% (n =

598) for six to 10 years, 24.3% (n = 773) for 11 to 20 years, and 17.2% (n = 549) for more than

20 years.

Of University Athletic Association respondents, 6% (n = 10) were affiliated with a college, less

than 1% (n < 5) were affiliated with the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs,

less than 1% (n < 5) were affiliated with the UF Health – Health Science Center, less than 1% (n

< 5) were affiliated with the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and 90% (n =

141) were affiliated with a unit not listed on the survey.

Fourteen percent (n = 22) of University Athletic Association respondents have been employed at

UF less than one year, 34% (n = 52) of University Athletic Association respondents have been

employed at UF one to five years, 19% (n = 29) for six to 10 years, 19% (n = 29) for 11 to 20

years, and 15% (n = 23) for more than 20 years.



16

Table 4 indicates that respondents represented various work units across campus.

Table 4. Respondents’ Primary Work Unit Affiliations Work unit n %

I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with working in a college. 2,485 44.5

College of Medicine 462 17.8

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 285 11.0

College of Engineering 155 6.0

College of Agricultural and Life Sciences 139 5.4

College of Public Health and Health Professions (including Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology) 101 4.0

College of Veterinary Medicine 89 3.4

Levin College of Law 80 3.1

College of Education 65 2.5

College of Pharmacy 65 2.5

Warrington College of Business Administration 60 2.3

College of the Arts 48 1.8

College of Journalism and Communications 47 1.8

College of Dentistry 43 1.7

College of Nursing 41 1.6

College of Health and Human Performance 40 1.5

College of Design, Construction, and Planning 36 1.4

College of Medicine – Jacksonville 24 0.9

Missing 815 31.4

I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit reporting to the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs other than a college. 400 7.2

Another unit reporting to the SVP, including but not limited to UF Online, UF Performing Arts, International Center, Honors Program, Museums, Latin American Studies, Whitney Labs, Florida Sea Grant, University Press, Undergraduate Affairs, Institutional Planning and Research, Provost’s Office, ROTC 112 22.0

Division of Student Affairs 66 12.9

George A. Smathers Libraries 67 13.1

Division of Enrollment Management 60 11.8

Chief Financial Officer (Budget Office, Contracts & Grants, Finance & Accounting, Finance & Planning, Purchasing) 36 7.1

Missing 169 33.1



17

Table 4 (cont.)

Work unit n %

I work in IFAS and am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit other than a college. 710 12.7

I work in UF Health—Health Science Center and am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit reporting to the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs other than a college. 616 11.0

I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with an area reporting to the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. 234 4.2

UFIT 85 24.7

Division of Business Affairs, other than PPD: Business Services, Environmental Health & Safety, Facilities Planning & Construction, Office of Sustainability, Small Business and Vendor Diversity, Stephen C. O'Connell Center, University Police Department 46 13.4

Another unit including but not limited to Baby Gator, Human Resource Services, UF Privacy Office, Office of the Chief Audit Executive, Real Estate, COO Office 38 11.0

Physical Plant Division 32 9.3

Missing 143 41.6

I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with an area reporting to the Office of the President. 87 1.6

Office of Research 60 26.4

Office of Development and Alumni Affairs 29 12.8

Another unit including but not limited to the President’s Office, Office of the Executive Chief of Staff, Office of the General Counsel, University Relations 17 7.5

Missing 121 53.3

I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit not listed. 948 17.0

Missing 110 2.0

In terms of primary location within UF system, 82% (n = 1,675) of Faculty respondents were

from the Gainesville campus, 4% (n = 87) were from the Jacksonville campus, and 13% (n =

230) were from a campus not listed (Figure 2). Eighty-two percent (n = 96) of Postdoctoral

Associate respondents were from the Gainesville campus, less than 1% (n < 5) were from the

Jacksonville campus, and 17% (n = 20) were from a campus not listed. Ninety-three percent (n =

3,033) of Staff respondents were from the Gainesville campus, 2% (n = 62) were from the



18

Jacksonville campus, and 5% (n = 178) were from a campus not listed. All (n = 159) of the

University Athletic Association respondents were from the Gainesville campus.

82%

4%

13%

82%

0%

17%

93%

2% 5%

100%

0% 0%

Gainsville Jacksonville Not Listed

Faculty


Staff


Figure 2. Respondents by UF Location (%)



19

Almost 60% of the sample (58%, n = 3,244) were Women, and 40% (n = 2,248) were Men.29

Less than 1% (n = 22) identified as Genderqueer (Figure 3). Less than 1% (n < 5) of the

respondents identified as transgender.30 Nine respondents (< 1%) marked “a gender not listed

here” and offered identities such as “lesbian,” “questioning,” “mostly androgynous woman,” “Do

not know what is meant,” “I can't believe I am being asked these questions!,” “This is an un-

answerable question,” “This is BS answer should be male/female,” “This is gender/identity

biased. Really?,” “what is genderqueer,” and “WTF is genderqueer.”

54%

44%

56%

43%

30%

68%

54%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Facu

ltyPo

stdo

ctor

alAs

soci

ate

Staf

f

Univ

ersi

tyAt

hlet

icAs

soci

atio

n

Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.

Figure 3. Respondents by Gender Identity31 and Position Status (%)

29The majority of respondents identified their birth sex as female (58.6%, n = 3,274), while 40.2% (n = 2,245) of respondents identified as male, and < 1% (n = 8) as intersex. Additionally, 56.8% (n = 3,173) identified their gender expression as feminine, 39.3% (n = 2,196) as masculine, 1.1% (n = 61) as androgynous, and 0.5% (n = 29) as “not listed here.” 30Self-identification as transgender 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 fewer than five, no analyses were conducted or included in the report in order to maintain the respondents’ confidentiality. 31Transgender and Genderqueer not included in the table.



20

The majority of respondents were Heterosexual32 (88%, n = 4,890); 7% (n = 366) were LGBQ

(lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, or questioning) (Figure 4).

126

1793

<5102

233

2849

<5146

LGBQ Heterosexual

Faculty


Staff


Figure 4. Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)

32Respondents who answered “other” in response to the question about their sexual identity and wrote “straight” or “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, and those who wrote in “other” terms such as “homoflexible” and “fluid.”



21

Of Faculty respondents, less than 1% (n < 5) were under 21 years old, less than 1% (n < 5) were

between 22 and 24 years old, 8% (n = 156) were between 25 and 34 years old, 24% (n = 450)

were between 35 and 44 years old, 26% (n = 495) were between 45 and 54 years old, 29% (n =

554) were between 55 and 64 years old, and 12% (n = 221) were more than 65 years old (Figure

5). Of Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 56% (n = 63) were between 25 and 34 years old, 36%

(n = 41) were between 35 and 44 years old, 6% (n = 7) were between 45 and 54 years old, less

than 1% (n < 5) were between 55 and 64 years old, and less than 1% (n < 5) were more than 65

years old. Of Staff respondents, less than 1% (n = 5) were under 21 years old, 2% (n = 75) were

between 22 and 24 years old, 22% (n = 683) were between 25 and 34 years old, 22% (n = 696)

were between 35 and 44 years old, 27% (n = 844) were between 45 and 54 years old, 24% (n =

737) were between 55 and 64 years old, and 3% (n = 86) were more than 65 years old. Of

University Athletic Association respondents, less than 1% (n < 5) were under 21 years old, 12%

(n = 19) were between 22 and 24 years old, 36% (n = 55) were between 25 and 34 years old,

21% (n = 32) were between 35 and 44 years old, 18% (n = 28) were between 45 and 54 years

old, 8% (n = 12) were between 55 and 64 years old, and 4% (n = 6) were more than 65 years old.



22

156

450495

554

221

63 4175

75

683 696

844

737

8619

55 32 28 12 6

under 21 22-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and over

Faculty


Staff



Figure 5. Employee33 Respondents by Age and Position Status (n)

33Throughout the report, the term “employee respondents” refers to all respondents who indicated that they were staff members, administrators, or faculty members.



23

With regard to racial identity, 77% (n = 4,401) of the respondents identified as White

(Figure 6).34 Six percent (n = 337) were Asian/Asian American, 6% (n = 363) were

Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a), 7% (n = 405) were Black/African/African American, 1% (n =

71) were American Indian, and less than 1% each were Middle Eastern35 (n = 42), Pacific

Islander (n = 11), Native Hawaiian (n < 5), and Alaskan Native (n = 2). Some individuals

marked the response category “a race/ethnic identity not listed here” and wrote "American,"

"Jewish," and "Human."

1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

1%

1%

6%

6%

7%

77%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Racial Identity Not Listed

Alaskan Native

Native Hawaiian

Pacific Islander

Middle Eastern

American Indian

Asian/Asian American

Hispanic/Latino/Chicano

Black/African/African American

White

Figure 6. Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%),

Inclusive of Multiracial and/or Multiethnic

34Figure 6 illustrates the duplicated total of responses (n = 6,036) for the question, “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 multiracial/multiethnic/multicultural identity, mark all that apply)?” 35In several places throughout the report narrative, the figure may not match the exact total noted in the narrative as a result of rounding the numbers in the figure to the nearest whole number.



24

Respondents were given the opportunity to mark multiple boxes regarding their racial identity,36

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 = 4,213) as their identity (Figure 7).37 Other

respondents identified as Asian/Asian American (5%, n = 302), Black/African American (6%, n

= 358), Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic (5%, n = 256), Other People of Color38 (1%, n = 48), and

Mixed Race39 (4%, n = 219). A substantial percentage of respondents did not indicate their racial

identity and were recoded to Other/Missing/Unknown (4%, n = 194).

4%

4%

1%

5%

6%

5%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Race, Other/Missing/Unknown

Mixed Race

Other People of Color

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

Black/African American

Asian/Asian American

White

Figure 7. Respondents by Collapsed Categories of Racial Identity (%)

36While 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. 37Figure 7 illustrates the unduplicated total of responses (n = 5,590) for the question, “What is your race/ethnicity (If you are of a multiracial/multiethnic identity, mark all that apply)?” 38Per the CSWG, the Other People of Color category included respondents who identified as First Nation/American Indian/Indigenous, Alaskan Native, Asian/Asian American, Black/African/African American, Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. 39Per the CSWG, respondents who identified as more than one racial identity were recoded as Mixed Race.



25

Thirty-two percent (n = 1,802) of respondents reported No Faith-Based Affiliation (Figure 8).

Fifty-four percent of respondents identified as having a Christian Faith-Based Affiliation (n =

3,000). Six percent (n = 333) of respondents chose Other Faith-Based Affiliation, and 5% (n =

257) identified with Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations.

0%

5%

6%

32%

54%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Other Faith-Based Affiliations

Multiple Affiliations

No Affiliation

Christian Affiliation

Figure 8. Respondents by Faith-Based Affiliation (%)



26

Forty-nine percent (n = 991) of Faculty respondents, 56% (n = 66) of Postdoctoral Associate

respondents, 55% (n = 1,791) of Staff respondents, and 55% (n = 88) of University Athletic

Association respondents had no substantial parenting or caregiving responsibilities (Figure 9).

Forty-three percent (n = 881) of Faculty respondents, 51% (n = 60) of Postdoctoral Associate

respondents, 36% (n = 1,201) of Staff respondents, and 46% (n = 73) of University Athletic

Association respondents were caring for children under the age of 18 years. Thirteen percent (n =

256) of Faculty respondents, less than 1% (n < 5) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 13% (n

= 420) of Staff respondents, and 6% (n = 9) of University Athletic Association respondents were

responsible for senior or other family members.

49%44%

9%3% 2%

13%

56%51%

55%

37%

8%3% 2%

13%

55%

46%

4% 6%

FacultyPostdoctoral AssociateStaffUniversity Athletic Association


Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% owing to multiple responses.

Figure 9. Employee Respondents’ Caregiving Responsibilities by Position Status (%)

Additional analyses revealed that 93% (n = 5,210) of respondents had never served in the

military. Fifty-three respondents (< 1%) were on active duty (including Reserved/National

Guard) and 254 respondents (5%) formerly were active military.



27

Nine percent (n = 511) of respondents40 had conditions that substantially influenced learning,

working, or living activities. Among those that indicated that they had a disability, 21% (n =

107) of respondents had mental health/psychological conditions, 19% (n = 95) had learning

disabilities, and 30% (n = 154) had chronic diagnoses or medical conditions (Table 5).

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.

40Some respondents indicated that they had multiple disabilities or conditions that substantially influenced major life activities. The unduplicated total number of respondents with disabilities is 511 (9%). The duplicated total (n = 612, 10%) is reflected in Table 5 and in Appendix B, Table B18.

Table 5. Respondents’ Conditions That Affect Learning, Working, Living Activities Conditions

n

%

Chronic diagnosis or medical condition (e.g., Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia, etc.) 154 30.1

Mental health/psychological condition 107 20.9 Learning disability (e.g., Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, Dyslexia, etc.) 95 18.6

Physical/mobility condition that affects walking 94 18.4

Hearing impaired or deaf 37 7.2

A disability/condition not listed here 38 7.4

Physical/mobility condition that does not affect walking 30 5.9

Visually impaired or blind 27 5.3

Speech/communication condition 12 2.3

Acquired/traumatic brain injury 12 2.3

Asperger’s/Autism spectrum 6 1.2



28

Table 6 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 four citizenship

categories:41 Eighty-three percent (n = 4,679) of respondents were U.S. Citizens, 8% (n = 463)

were U.S. Citizens, Naturalized, 6% (n = 319) were Non-U.S. Citizens, and 2% (n = 82) claimed

Multiple Citizenships. Subsequent analyses revealed that 8% (n = 158) of Faculty respondents,

56% (n = 66) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 3% (n = 93) of Staff respondents, and less

than 1% (n < 5) of University Athletic Association respondents were Non-U.S. Citizens.

Eighty-five percent (n = 4,773) of respondents noted that only English was spoken in their

homes. Four percent (n = 199) indicated that only a language other than English was spoken in

their homes, while 10% (n = 573) 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 Afrikaans, American Sign Language, Arabic, Assamese, Bengali, Brazilian Portuguese,

Cantonese, Chinese, Creole, Czech, Dari, Dutch, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Guajarati,

Gullah, Hebrew, Hindi, Igbo, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Marathi, Nepali,

Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Tagalog, Tamil, Telugu, Thai,

Turkish, and Vietnamese.

41For the purposes of analyses, the collapsed categories for citizenship are U.S. Citizen, U.S. Citizen, Naturalized, Non-U.S. Citizen (includes Permanent Residents, Non-U.S. Citizens [F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E, and TN visa holders], Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, Refugee status, and other legally documented status), and Multiple Citizenship (includes any respondent who marked more than one response).

Table 6. Respondents’ Citizenship Status (Duplicated Totals)

Citizenship

n % U.S. citizen, birth 4,754 84.4

U.S. citizen, naturalized 478 8.4

Permanent Resident 284 5.0

A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) 100 1.8

Other legally documented status 13 0.2

Refugee status < 5 ---

Currently under a withholding of removal status 0 0.0

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) 0 0.0

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) 0 0.0



29

Four percent (n = 127) of Staff respondents indicated that the highest level of education they had

completed was a doctoral degree, 26% (n = 832) had finished a master’s degree, and 29% (n =

941) had finished a bachelor’s degree. Table 7 depicts the respondents’ parents’ or legal

guardians’ highest level of education.

Table 7. Respondents’ Parents’/Guardians’ Highest Level of Education

Parent/legal guardian 1

Parent/legal guardian 2

Level of education

n

%

n

%

No high school 244 4.4 251 4.5

Some high school 255 4.6 336 6.0

Completed high school/GED 1,182 21.1 1,429 25.6

Some college 628 11.2 711 12.7

Business/technical certificate/degree 255 4.6 340 6.1

Associate’s degree 266 4.8 239 4.3

Bachelor’s degree 999 17.9 959 17.2

Some graduate work 110 2.0 95 1.7

Master’s degree 762 13.6 477 8.5

Specialist degree 35 0.6 31 0.6

Doctoral degree 319 5.7 121 2.2

Professional degree (MD, MFA, JD) 292 5.2 113 2.0

Unknown 18 0.3 67 1.2

Not applicable 136 2.4 227 4.1



30

Less than 1% (n < 5) of Faculty respondents reported that they had estimated annual incomes of

less than $30,000 (Figure 10). Two percent (n = 44) reported annual incomes between $30,000

and $49,999; 21% (n = 417) between $50,000 and $99,999; 25% (n = 486) between $100,000

and $149,999 annually; and 33% (n = 645) between $150,000 and $249,999 annually. Eighteen

percent (n = 358) of Faculty respondents noted that they had estimated annual incomes greater

than $250,000.

Five percent (n = 6) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents reported that they had estimated

annual incomes of less than $30,000. Fifty percent (n = 57) reported annual incomes between

$30,000 and $49,999; 31% (n = 35) between $50,000 and $99,999; 11% (n = 13) between

$100,000 and $149,999 annually; and less than 1% (n < 5) between $150,000 and $249,999

annually.

Five percent (n = 154) of Staff respondents reported that they had estimated annual incomes of

less than $30,000. Twenty-four percent (n = 767) reported annual incomes between $30,000 and

$49,999; 41% (n = 1,306) between $50,000 and $99,999; 21% (n = 656) between $100,000 and

$149,999 annually; and 8% (n = 254) between $150,000 and $249,999 annually. Two percent (n

= 56) of Staff respondents noted that they had estimated annual incomes greater than $250,000.

Thirteen percent (n = 21) of University Athletic Association respondents reported that they had

estimated annual incomes of less than $30,000. Fifteen percent (n = 23) reported annual incomes

between $30,000 and $49,999; 31% (n = 48) between $50,000 and $99,999; 21% (n = 33)

between $100,000 and $149,999 annually; and 17% (n = 26) between $150,000 and $249,999

annually. Three percent (n = 5) of University Athletic Association respondents noted that they

had estimated annual incomes greater than $250,000.



31

42

2125

33

18

5

50

31

11

<1 0

5

24

41

21

8

2

1315

31

2117

3

<$30,000 $30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$149,999

$150,000-$249,999

>$250,000

Faculty


Staff


Figure 10. Respondents by Estimated Income (%)



32

Campus Climate Assessment Findings42

The following section reviews the major findings of this study.43 The review explores the climate

at the University of Florida through an examination of respondents’ personal experiences, their

general perceptions of campus climate, and their perceptions of institutional actions regarding

the climate on campus, including administrative policies and academic initiatives. Each of these

issues was examined in relation to the relevant identity44 and status of the respondents.

Comfort With the Climate at the University of Florida

The survey posed questions regarding respondents’ level of comfort with the University of

Florida’s campus climate. Table 8 illustrates that 73% (n = 4,106) of the survey respondents

were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at UF. Seventy percent (n = 3,912) of

all respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their

departments/work units, and 62% (n = 2,049) of all respondents were "comfortable" or "very

comfortable" with the climate in their classes/learning environment.

42Frequency 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. 43The 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). 44Throughout a majority of the report, Transgender and Genderqueer respondents were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few to ensure confidentiality.



33

Table 8. Respondents’ Comfort With the Climate at UF

Comfort with overall climate*

Comfort with climate in department/

work unit**

Comfort with climate in classes/learning environment***

Level of comfort n % n % n %

Very comfortable 1,284 23.0 1,780 31.9

886

27.0

Comfortable 2,822 50.6 2,132 38.2

1,163

35.4 Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 898 16.1 728 13.0 1,153 35.1 Uncomfortable 459 8.2 674 12.1 64 1.9 Very uncomfortable 117 2.1 268 4.8 20 0.6 *Includes all survey respondents (n = 5,580). **Includes all survey respondents (n = 5,582). **Includes only those who indicated that they teach (n = 3,286); limited to Faculty, Postdoctoral Associates, and Staff.



34

Figure 11 illustrates that University Athletic Association respondents (43%) were significantly

more comfortable (“very comfortable”) with the overall climate at UF than were Staff

respondents (23%), Faculty respondents (21%), and Postdoctoral Associate respondents (29%).i

44

23

29

21

49

54

48

46

5

15

18

18

3

7

5

11

1

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

University Athletic Association (n = 159)

Staff (n = 3,270)

Postdoctoral Associate (n = 117)

Faculty (n = 2,034)

Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable

Figure 11. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Position Status (%)



35

Figure 12 illustrates that a significantly higher percentage of University Athletic Association

respondents (55%) than Staff respondents (31%), Faculty respondents (32%), and Postdoctoral

respondents (35%) were “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units at

UF.ii

55

31

35

32

32

39

39

37

5

14

15

13

6

12

5

12

2

4

5

6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Staff (n = 3,272)


Faculty (n = 2,034)


Figure 12. Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by Position Status

(%)



36

Among Staff respondents, a similar percentage of Exempt Staff respondents (71%) than Non-

Exempt Staff respondents (69%) were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in

their departments/work units (Figure 13). This finding was not statistically significant.

31

30

40

38

14

14

12

13

4

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exempt (n = 1,979)

Non-Exempt (n = 1,288)



Figure 13. Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by Staff Position Status (%)



37

Among Faculty respondents, a similar percentage of Tenured Faculty respondents (67%),

Tenure-Accruing respondents (73%), and Non-Tenure-Accruing respondents (67%) were “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units (Figure 14). This

finding was not statistically significant.

32

32

31

36

41

35

13

11

12

14

10

13

6

6

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Non-Tenure Accruing (n = 662)

Tenure Accruing (n = 214)

Tenured (n = 926)



Figure 14. Faculty Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by Faculty Status (%)



38

With regard to classes/learning environment, Faculty respondents were significantly more

comfortable than were Postdoctoral Associate respondents and Staff respondents (Figure 15).iii

Eighty-three percent of Faculty respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the

classroom climate, compared to 60% of Postdoctoral Associate respondents and 35% of Staff

respondents.

13

23

38

22

37

46

64

39

12 3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Staff (n = 1,406)


Faculty (n = 1,802 )



Figure 15. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With

Classes/Learning Environment by Position Status (%)



39

Several analyses were conducted to determine whether respondents’ level of comfort with the

overall climate, climate in their departments/work units, or climate in their classes differed based

on various demographic characteristics.

Respondents who had a Christian Affiliation or Other Faith-Based Affiliations were significantly

more comfortable with the overall climate than were respondents who had No Affiliation or

Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations (Figure 16).iv Seventy-five percent of Christian-Affiliated

respondents and 76% of Other Faith-Based respondents were “very comfortable” or

“comfortable” with the overall climate, compared to 72% of No Affiliation respondents and 73%

of Multiple Affiliation respondents who were “very comfortable” or "comfortable" with the

overall climate.

24

26

21

20

51

50

51

53

16

15

16

16

7

8

9

9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Christian Affiliation (n = 2,993)

Other Faith-Based (n = 332)

No Affiliation (n = 1,801)

Multiple Affiliations (n = 257)


Figure 16. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Faith-Based Affiliation (%)



40

Regarding the climate in the department/work unit, 34% of Christian-Affiliated respondents,

36% of Other Faith-Based respondents, 30% of No Affiliation respondents, and 30% of Multiple

Affiliation respondents were “very comfortable” with the department/work unit climate (Figure

17).

34

36

30

30

38

39

37

42

13

9

14

12

11

12

13

14

5

4

5

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Figure 17. Respondents’ Comfort With Department/Work Unit Climate by

Faith-Based Affiliation (%)



41

Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliation, No

Affiliation, and Multiple Affiliations were significantly more comfortable with the climate in the

classroom/learning environment than were Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff

respondents who had Christian Affiliations (Figure 18).v Seventy percent of Faculty,

Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 64% of

Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with No Affiliation, and 72% of Faculty,

Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Multiple Affiliations were “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in the classroom/learning environment,

compared to 60% of Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Christian

Affiliations.

34

36

30

30

38

39

37

42

13

9

14

12

11

12

13

14

5

4

5

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Figure 18. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With the Climate in

Classes/Learning Environment by Faith-Based Affiliation (%)



42

By gender identity,45 Women and Men respondents were significantly more comfortable with the

overall climate at UF than Transgender/Genderqueer/Other respondents.vi Seventy-five percent

of Women respondents, 72% of Men respondents, and 62% of Transgender/Genderqueer/Other

respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate (Figure 19).

22

25

15

54

47

47

17

15

21

7

10

18

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Women (n = 3,234)

Men (n = 2,235)

Trans/Genderqueer/Other (n = 34)



Figure 19. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Gender Identity (%)

45For several analyses throughout this report, gender identity was recoded into the categories Man (n = 2,248), Woman (n = 3,244), and Transgender/Genderqueer/Other (n = 34). To ensure confidentiality, Transgender/Genderqueer/Other will be excluded from all subsequent analysis due to low numbers.



43

Significant differences existed between Men and Women employee respondents regarding their

level of comfort with the climate in their departments/work units (Figure 20).vii Thirty-six

percent of Men respondents and 30% of Women respondents were “very comfortable” with the

climate in their departments/work units.

30

36

39

37

14

12

13

11

5

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Women (n = 3,235)

Men (n = 2,236)


Figure 20. Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by Gender Identity (%)



44

Additionally, a significantly higher percentage of Men Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff

respondents (34%) than Women Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents (22%)

felt “very comfortable” in their classes (Figure 21).viii

22

34

34

38

42

26

2

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Women (n = 1,777)

Men (n = 1,447)


Figure 21. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in

Classes by Gender Identity (%)



45

By racial identity, Black/African American and Multiracial respondents were significantly less

comfortable with the overall climate than Asian/Asian American, Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic,

Other People of Color, and White respondents.ix Sixty-six percent of Black/African American

and 62% of Multiracial respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall

climate at UF versus 73% of Asian/Asian American respondents, 74% of

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 75% of Other People of Color respondents, and 76% of

White respondents (Figure 22).

21

31

27

15

24

24

42

44

47

50

49

52

23

15

19

20

17

15

13

7

12

8

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Multiracial (n = 219)

People of Color (n = 48)

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic (n = 255)

Black/African American (n = 356)

Asian/Asian American (n = 302)

White (n = 4,207)



Figure 22. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Racial Identity (%)



46

A significantly lower percentage of Black/African American respondents (23%) were “very

comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units than were Asian/Asian American

respondents (29%), Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents (29%), Other People of Color

respondents (31%), White respondents (34%), and Multiracial respondents (31%) (Figure 23).x

31

31

29

23

29

34

32

40

39

42

42

38

16

13

16

19

16

12

14

13

12

10

12

7

10

3

5

3

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Multiracial (n = 219)

Other People of Color (n = 48)




White (n = 4,207)


Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure. Figure 23. Respondents Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by Racial Identity (%)



47

Figure 24 illustrates that Black/African American and Multiracial Faculty, Postdoctoral

Associate, and Staff respondents were significantly less comfortable with the climate in their

classes/learning environment than were other Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff

respondents by racial identity.xi Twelve percent of Black/African American Faculty, Postdoctoral

Associate, and Staff respondents and 21% of Multiracial Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents were “very comfortable” with the climate in their classes/learning

environment. Twenty-five percent of Asian/Asian American Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents, 29% of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff

respondents, 36% of Other Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents of Color, and

29% of White Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents were "very comfortable"


21

36

29

12

25

29

25

42

30

33

44

36

50

18

36

52

29

33

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Multiracial (n =131)

People of Color (n = 33)




White (n = 2,373)



Figure 24. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes/Learning Environment by Racial Identity (%)



48

Respondents had similar levels of comfort with the overall climate based on sexual identity

(Figure 25). LGBQ respondents (70%) and Other respondents (70%) were only slightly less

likely to be “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate than were

Heterosexual respondents (74%). These findings were not statistically significant.

25

23

20

45

51

50

15

16

18

8

10

2

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other (n = 53)

Heterosexual (n = 4,881)

LGBQ (n = 366)



Figure 25. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Sexual Identity (%)



49

No significant differences based on sexual identity were noted regarding respondents' degree of

comfort with the climate in their departments/work units (Figure 26). No significant differences

based on sexual identity were found with the climate in Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents’ classes/learning environment (Figure 27).

30

33

28

36

38

35

15

13

13

17

12

15

5

6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Asexual/Other (n = 53)


LGBQ (n = 365)



Figure 26. Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in their Department/Work Unit by Sexual Identity (%)



50

27

27

25

40

36

34

27

35

37 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Asexual/Other (n = 37)


LGBQ (n = 218)



Figure 27. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Their Classes/Learning Environment by Sexual Identity (%)



51

When analyzed by military status,46 the survey data revealed no significant differences in

respondents’ comfort with the overall climate (Figure 28), the climate in their departments/work

units (Figure 29), or with the level of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment

(Figure 30).

23

24

51

48

16

18

8

7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Non-Military Service (n = 5,201)

Military Service (n = 306)



Figure 28. Respondents’ Comfort With the Overall Climate by Military Status (%)

46Per the CSWG, this report uses the categories “Military Service” to represent respondents who indicated that they were active military, reservists/National Guard, ROTC, or veterans and “Non-Military Service” for respondents who have never served in the military.



52

32

36

39

33

13

12

12

14

5

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





Figure 29. Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by Military Status (%)



53

27

28

36

32

35

38

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





Figure 30. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes/Learning Environment by Military Status (%)



54

Figure 31 illustrates that respondents with Disabilities (15%) were significantly less comfortable

with the overall climate than were respondents with No Disability (24%).xii

15

24

43

51

23

15

15

7

4

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Disability (n = 509)

No Disability (n = 5,052)



Figure 31. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Disability Status (%)



55

Figure 32 illustrates that respondents with Disabilities (22%) were significantly less comfortable

with the department/work unit climate than were respondents with No Disability (33%).xiii

22

33

35

39

14

13

19

11

10

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure. Figure 32. Respondents’ Comfort With Department/Work Unit Climate by Disability Status (%)



56

Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with Disabilities (21%) were significantly

less comfortable with the climate in their classes than were Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents with No Disability (28%) (Figure 33).xiv

21

27

32

36

42

34

4

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





Figure 33. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes/Learning Environment by Disability Status (%)



57

With regard to citizenship status,47 the survey data revealed that Naturalized U.S. Citizens were

significantly less comfortable with the overall climate than U.S. Citizens, Non-U.S. Citizens, and

those respondents with Multiple Citizenships.xv Naturalized U.S. Citizens (66%) were

significantly less likely to feel “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate than

U.S. Citizens (74%), Non-U.S. Citizens (77%), and respondents with Multiple Citizenships

(83%) (Figure 34).

22

27

22

23

61

50

45

51

11

16

21

16

6

9

8

4

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Multiple Citizenships (n = 82)

Non-U.S. Citizen (n = 318)

U.S. Citizen, Naturalized (n = 461)

U.S. Citizen (n = 4,672)



Figure 34. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Citizenship Status (%)

47Per the CSWG, citizenship was collapsed into four categories: U.S. Citizen (n = 4,679), U.S. Citizen, Naturalized (n = 463), Non-U.S. Citizen (n = 319), and Multiple Citizenship (n = 82).



58

The survey data revealed that Naturalized U.S. Citizens were significantly less comfortable with

the department/work unit climate than U.S. Citizens, Non-U.S. Citizens, and those respondents

with Multiple Citizenships.xvi Naturalized U.S. Citizens (66%) were significantly less likely to

feel “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work unit than

U.S. Citizens (70%), Non-U.S. Citizens (75%), and respondents with Multiple Citizenships

(77%) (Figure 35).

24

32

31

33

52

43

35

38

9

15

16

13

13

7

12

12

2

6

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







Figure 35. Respondents’ Comfort With Department/Work Unit Climate by Citizenship Status (%)



59

The survey data revealed that Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents with

Multiple Citizenships were significantly less comfortable with the climate in their

classes/learning environment than U.S. Citizen, Naturalized U.S. Citizen, and Non-U.S. Citizen

Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff respondents. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and

Staff respondents with Multiple Citizenships (51%) were significantly less likely to feel “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work unit than U.S. Citizen

(61%), Naturalized U.S. Citizen (68%), and Non-U.S. Citizen (71%) Faculty, Postdoctoral

Associate, and Staff respondents (Figure 36).xvii

16

30

29

27

35

42

39

35

49

27

27

36

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






3

2


Figure 36. Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With the Climate in Classes/Learning Environment by Citizenship Status (%)

iA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall climate by position status: χ2 (12, N = 5,580) = 175.8, p < .001. iiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the department/work unit climate by position status: χ2 (12, N = 5,582) = 73.0, p < .001. iiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment by position status: χ2 (8, N = 3,286) = 931.5, p < .001.



60

ivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall climate by religious affiliation: χ2 (12, N = 5,383) = 23.3 p < .05. vA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment by religious affiliation: χ2 (12, N =3,169) = 56.0, p < .001. viA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall climate by gender identity: χ2 (8, N = 5,503) = 52.1, p < .001. viiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the department/work unit climate by gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 5,471) = 29.7, p < .001. viiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment by gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,224) = 100.9, p < .001. ixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall climate by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 5,387) = 60.4, p < .001. xA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the department/work unit climate by race identity: χ2 (20, N = 5,390) = 50.8, p < .001. xiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment by race identity: χ2 (20, N = 3,164) = 91.6, p < .001. xiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall climate by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 5,561) = 82.3, p < .001. xiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the department/work unit climate by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 5,563) = 73.0, p < .001. xivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,277) = 24.7, p < .001. xvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall climate by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 5,533) = 29.1, p < .005. xviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the department/work unit climate by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 5,535) = 30.5, p < .005. xviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the climate in classes/learning environment by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 3,255) = 31.6, p < .005.



61

Barriers at the University of Florida for Respondents With Disabilities

Two survey items asked respondents with disabilities and transgender respondents if they had

experienced barriers in facilities, technology and the online environment, and educational

materials at UF within the past year.48 Table 9 highlights the responses where 8% or more of

respondents with one or more disabilities experienced barriers at UF.49 Thirty-five percent (n =

171) of respondents with disabilities experienced barriers with on-campus transportation/parking

within the past year.

Table 9. Barriers at the University of Florida Experienced by Respondents With Disabilities

Yes No Not applicable

Area n % n % n %

Facilities On-campus transportation/parking 171 34.8 242 49.3 78 15.9 Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks 95 19.6 318 65.6 72 14.8 Elevators/lifts 69 14.2 335 68.8 83 17.0 Doors 67 13.7 334 68.2 89 18.2 Restrooms 61 12.5 349 71.7 77 15.8 Classroom buildings 51 10.4 268 54.8 170 34.8

Technology/online environment

Accessible electronic format 71 14.9 306 64.4 98 20.6 Website 63 13.5 328 70.2 76 16.3 Electronic forms 54 11.3 326 68.3 97 20.3 Electronic signage 39 8.2 315 66.2 122 25.6

Instructional/Campus materials

Forms 38 8.1 328 69.6 105 22.3 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were transgender in Question 31 (n < 5) or that they had a disability in Question 42 (n = 511).

48The data for the two survey items were collapsed. The data presented represented the collapsed data owing to the low number of transgender respondents (n < 5). 49See Appendix B, Table B60 for all responses to the question, “Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in any of the following areas at UF?”



62

Seventy-two respondents elaborated on issues of accessibility. Responses covered a variety of

topics, but the two most common were parking and campus buildings.

Campus buildings. Twenty-four percent of respondents commented on issues of accessibility

related to buildings on campus. The most common topic was campus bathrooms. For some it was

an issue of wanting more all-gender bathrooms, while others were concerned with disability

accessibility. One respondent wrote, “lack of all-gender bathrooms is a safety issue for

genderqueer and trans students, faculty and staff.” Handicap access of building doors was

another common concern. One respondent wrote, “Doors in my building are not easy to navigate

if you have impaired mobility.” Respondents also commented on classroom layout and

amenities. One respondent stated, “Equipment is not the same in all classrooms and doesn't work

right half the time.” Lack of elevator and/or stair access in some buildings were also mentioned.

Parking. Twenty-nine percent of respondents had concerns about parking. Many lamented the

distance between parking and buildings, especially when mobility was an issue. One respondent

shared, “Parking is nearly impossible. I am not handicapped but I am old and walking a half mile

to and from my car is not friendly in any manner.” Respondents lamented the cost of parking,

noting that “Employees should not have to pay to come to work (park)”; the difficulty finding

parking; and the challenges of parking during special events, such as the respondent who wrote

simply, “Parking is expensive and inadequate.” Other respondents commented on often finding

service trucks blocking spots, especially handicapped ones, or blocking off parking for special

events. One respondent shared, “It sounds silly but better parking for staff. The parking situation

adds unnecessary stress to all jobs and is sometimes unfair.” While dramatic, the following

response captures the feel of many others, “I guarantee you if this survey asked ‘what is the most

stressful part about your daily job routine,’ the #1 answer by a longshot would be related to

traveling to campus or parking on campus. You want to show employees that you care? Tangible

benefits. Help make the parking situation better. The incremental campus-wide raises over the

past few years have been very welcomed. No amount of HR sugarcoating will ever override

making an effort to give employees benefits that are tangible and directly improve their lives. I

don't dread going to work every day. My department is great, I like my job, I make a comfortable



63

wage. What I do dread is the stress involved in physically getting to campus each day. Fix that,

and you've made my life better.”

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct50

Twenty-four percent (n = 1,325) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced

exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullying, harassing)

conduct at UF within the past year.51 Table 10 reflects the perceived bases and frequency of

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. Of the respondents who

experienced such conduct, 36% (n = 470) indicated that the conduct was based on their position

status. Twenty-one percent (n = 275) noted that the conduct was based on their educational

credentials, 20% (n = 259) felt that it was based on their age, and 19% (n = 248) felt that it was

based on their gender/gender identity.

50This report uses the phrase “exclusionary conduct” as a shortened version of conduct that someone had “personally experienced,” including “exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) conduct.” 51The 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).



64

Table 10. Bases of Experienced Conduct Basis of conduct

n %

Position 470 35.5

Educational credentials 275 20.8

Age 259 19.5

Gender/gender identity 248 18.7

Don’t know 208 15.7

Length of service at UF 200 15.1

Philosophical views 168 12.7

Ethnicity 126 9.5

Racial identity 85 6.4

Major field of study 80 6.0

Political views 73 5.5

Participation in an organization/team 63 4.8

Parental status 62 4.7

Physical characteristics 58 4.4

Religious/spiritual views 49 3.7

Marital status 48 3.6

Sexual identity 41 3.1

Medical disability/condition 39 2.9

Socioeconomic status 35 2.6

International status/national origin 33 2.5

English language proficiency/accent 28 2.1

Mental health/psychological disability/condition 26 2.0

Physical disability/condition 26 2.0

Immigrant/citizen status 21 1.6

Pregnancy 17 1.3

Gender expression 12 0.9

Learning disability/condition 10 0.8

Military/veteran status 7 0.5

A reason not listed above 399 30.1 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



65

The following figures depict the responses by selected characteristics (position status,

educational credentials, age, gender/gender identity) 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 (bullied, harassing) that has

interfered with your ability to work at UF?”

In terms of position status, University Athletic Association respondents were significantly less

likely than other respondents to indicate that they had experienced this conduct (Figure 37).xviii

Of those respondents who noted that they had experienced this conduct, 23% (n = 108) of

Faculty respondents, 43% (n = 10) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 42% (n = 347) of Staff

respondents and 26% (n = 5) of University Athletic Association respondents thought that the

conduct was based on their position status.xix

23%20%

25%

12%

23%

44% 42%

26%

Faculty PostdoctoralAssociate

Staff University AthleticAssociation

Overall experienced conduct¹

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, indicated they experienced conduct as aresult of position status²

(n = 465)¹

(n = 108)²

ntages are based on total n split by group. ntages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

(n = 23)¹

(n = 10)²

(n = 818)¹

(n = 347)²(n = 19)¹

(n = 5)²

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

Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Position Status (%)



66

Similar percentages across all educational degree attainment levels experienced exclusionary

conduct (Figure 38).52 However, a significantly higher percentage of respondents who completed

a high school/GED or completed some college felt that the conduct was based on their

educational attainment.xx

23% 24% 26%22% 23%

27%21% 24% 24%

15%

CompletedHS/GED or Some

College

Business/TechCert/Assoiates

Bachelor's/SomeGrad Work

Master's Specialist/Doctoral/

Professional


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, indicated they experienced conductas a result of their educational attainment²

(n = 595)¹

(n = 137)²(n = 2,008)¹

(n = 469)²

(n = 454)

(n = 110)²

entages are based on total n split by group. entages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

(n = 1,266)¹

(n = 325)²

(n = 1,194)¹

(n = 260)²



Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Educational Attainment (%)

52Those respondents with no or some high school were excluded due to low numbers. (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



67

As depicted in Figure 39, significantly higher percentages of respondents ages 35 through 44

years, 45 through 54 years, and 55 through 64 years indicated that they had experienced

exclusionary conduct than did other respondents.xxi Higher percentages of respondents ages 22

through 24 years and ages 65 and over, however, felt that the conduct was based on their age.xxii

20% 23% 25% 24% 24%

15%

63%

32%

16%

6%

22%

44%

22-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and over


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, indicated they experienced conductas a result of their age²

(n = 95)¹

(n = 19)²

(n = 1,304)¹

(n = 314)²

(n = 956)¹

(n = 218)² ages are based on total n split by group. ages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

(n = 1,218)¹

(n = 298)²

(n = 1,371)¹

(n = 324)²(n = 314)¹

(n = 48)²



Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Age (%)



68

By gender identity, a significantly higher percentage of Transgender/Genderqueer/Other

respondents (29%, n = 10) and Women respondents (27%, n = 859) than Men respondents (19%,

n = 435) indicated that they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile

conduct (Figure 40).xxiii Twenty-four percent (n = 208) of Women respondents and 7% (n = 29)

of Men respondents who indicated that they had experienced exclusionary conduct noted that the

conduct was based on their gender/gender identity.53

19%

27%29%

7%

24%

Men Women Trans/Genderqueer/Other


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, indicated they experiencedconduct as a result of their gender identity²

(n = 435)¹

(n = 29)²

(n = 10)¹

(n < 5)² re based on total n split by group. re based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

(n = 859)¹

(n = 208)²



Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Gender Identity (%)

Table 11 illustrates the manners in which respondents experienced exclusionary conduct. Forty-

eight percent felt that they experienced a hostile working environment, 47% felt deliberately

ignored or excluded, 45% felt intimidated and bullied, and 38% felt isolated or left out. 53Transgender respondents were excluded from analysis due to the low sample number (n < 5) and to ensure confidentiality.



69

Table 11. Forms of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct (What Happened)

Form of conduct

n

% of those who

experienced the conduct

I experienced a hostile work environment. 634 47.8

I was ignored or excluded. 616 46.5

I was intimidated/bullied. 597 45.1

I was isolated or left out. 500 37.7

I was the target of workplace incivility. 391 29.5

I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 379 28.6

I received a low or unfair performance evaluation. 217 16.4

I received derogatory written comments. 150 11.3

I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail. 110 8.3

I was not fairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process. 121 9.1

I felt others staring at me. 75 5.7

I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group. 43 3.2

Someone assumed I was hired/promoted due to my identity group. 34 2.6

The conduct threatened my physical safety. 31 2.3

I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. 25 1.9

I experienced a hostile classroom environment. 22 1.7

Someone assumed I was not hired/promoted due to my identity group. 11 0.8

I was the target of stalking. 11 0.8

I received derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line. 9 0.7

I was the target of graffiti/vandalism. 9 0.7

I received threats of physical violence. 8 0.6

The conduct threatened my family’s safety. 5 0.4

I was the target of physical violence. < 5 ---

An experience not listed above 224 16.9 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



70

Fifty-four percent of respondents who indicated they experienced exclusionary conduct noted

that it occurred while working at a UF job: 33% in a UF administrative office, 30% while in a

meeting with a group of people, and 21% while in a meeting with one other person (Table 12).

Many respondents who marked “a location not listed above” described the specific office,

meeting, building, campus location, or event where the incidents occurred (e.g., “4-H County

Leaders Meeting,” “by phone and email,” “emails,” “Camp Timpoochee,” “at a seminar,” and

“in an office space.”)

Table 12. Locations of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Location of conduct

n

% of respondents

who experienced

conduct

While working at a UF job 718 54.2

In a UF administrative office 445 33.6

In a meeting with a group of people 398 30.0

In a meeting with one other person 273 20.6

In a faculty office 213 16.1

In a public space at UF 130 9.8

In a UF Health facility 86 6.5

In a class/lab/clinical setting 75 5.7

At a UF event 64 4.8

Off campus 49 3.7

While walking on campus 41 3.1

On UF media, communications, or publications 22 1.7

In a UF library 10 0.8

In athletic/recreational facilities 8 0.6

On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak 7 0.5

On UF transportation (RTS, campus cab) 0 0.0

A location not listed above 111 8.4 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



71

Forty percent of the respondents who indicated they experienced exclusionary conduct identified

a coworker, 31% identified supervisors, 27% identified department chairs/program

chairs/directors, 26% identified faculty members/other instructional staff, and 19% identified

staff members as the sources of the conduct (Table 13). Sources of exclusionary conduct “not

listed above” included “Emeritus faculty,” “former directors,” “human resources,”

“administrative personnel,” “volunteers,” and “upper command.”

Table 13. Sources of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Source of conduct

n

% of respondents

who experienced

conduct

Co-worker 531 40.1

Supervisor 418 31.5

Department Chair/Program Chair/Director 352 26.6

Faculty member/other instructional staff 340 25.7

Staff member 248 18.7

Senior administrator (e.g., dean, vice president, provost) 197 14.9

Student 37 2.8

Direct report (e.g., person who reports to me) 27 2.0

Athletic coach/staff member 12 0.9

Alumnus/a 8 0.6

Patient 8 0.6

UF media, communications, or publications 7 0.5

Off campus community member 6 0.5

Stranger 5 0.4

UF Public Safety Officer < 5 ---

Donor < 5 ---

On-line site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) < 5 ---

Don’t know source < 5 ---

A source not listed above 80 6.0 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



72

Figures 41 and 42 display the perceived source of experienced exclusionary conduct by position

status. Faculty respondents most often cited other faculty and coworkers as the source of the

exclusionary conduct. Postdoctoral Associate respondents most often cited faculty as the source

of the exclusionary conduct. Staff and University Athletic Association respondents identified

supervisors and coworkers as their greatest sources of exclusionary conduct.

35%

61%

26%

44%

35%

39%

8%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Coworker

Faculty

Staff

Sr Admin

Supervisor

Coworker

Faculty

Staff

Sr Admin

Post

doct

oral

Ass

ocia

teFa

culty


Figure 41. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%)



73

53%

0%

0%

32%

43%

18%

25%

11%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Coworker

Faculty

Staff

Sr Admin

Supervisor

Coworker

Faculty

Staff

Sr Admin

Supervisor

Uni

vers

ity A

thle

tic A

ssoc

iatio

nSt

aff


Figure 42. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%)



74

In response to this conduct, 77% of respondents were uncomfortable, 62% felt angry, 38% felt

embarrassed, 20% were afraid, and 19% ignored it (Table 14).

Table 14. Respondents’ Emotional Responses to Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Emotional response to conduct

n

% of respondents

who experienced

conduct

I felt uncomfortable. 1,021 77.1

I was angry. 824 62.2

I felt embarrassed. 501 37.8

I was afraid. 266 20.1

I ignored it. 250 18.9

I felt somehow responsible. 187 14.1 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.

In response to experiencing the conduct, 43% (n = 566) of respondents told a family member,

39% (n = 512) told a friend, 34% (n = 454) did not do anything, and 34% (n = 451) avoided the

person/venue (Table 15). Of the respondents (19%) who sought support from a UF resource, 88

respondents each sought support from a faculty member and from a staff member. Forty people

sought support from a senior administrator, and 116 sought help from Human Resources.



75

Table 15. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Actions in response to conduct

n

% of respondents

who experienced

conduct

I told a family member. 566 42.7

I told a friend. 512 38.6

I didn’t do anything. 454 34.3

I avoided the person/venue. 451 34.0

I didn’t know whom to go to. 271 20.5

I contacted an on-campus resource. 257 19.4

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource. 42 3.2

A spiritual advisor (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) 68 5.1

Off-campus counseling service 58 4.4

I sought information online. 42 3.2

I filed a complaint with an external agency. 9 0.7

A response not listed above 245 18.5 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses. *See Appendix B, Table B34 for a listing of UF and off-campus resources.



76

Table 16 illustrates that 71% (n = 917) of respondents did not report the incident and that 30% (n

= 383) of respondents did report the incident. Of the respondents who reported the incident, 13%

(n = 34) were satisfied with the outcomes, 20% (n = 54) felt the complaint received an

appropriate response, and 67% (n = 180) felt the incident did not receive an appropriate

response.

Table 16. Respondents’ Reporting Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Reporting the conduct

n

% of respondents who

experienced conduct

No, I didn’t report it. 917 70.5

Yes, I reported it. 383 29.5

Satisfied with outcome 34 12.7

While the outcome was not what I had hoped for, I feel as though my complaint was responded to appropriately. 54 20.1

Felt the incident was not responded to appropriately 180 67.2 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses. Seven hundred and two respondents elaborated on their personal experiences with exclusionary,

intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct. While their responses touched on various topics

and concerns, four themes were discovered in the comments.

Supervisor/Administrator Incivility. Seventeen percent of respondents elaborated on issues

related to the conduct of supervisors, administrators, or other individuals with “power.”

Respondents described the incivility they had experienced from their supervisors, including

yelling, withholding raises, spreading false information, belittling, stealing ideas, and

intimidation. One respondent wrote, “My supervisor has been intimidating me and others since I

began working here 11 years ago and takes any disagreement in opinion personally, and believes

that the person that disagrees with him is trying to undermine him,” while another respondent

noted, “My supervisor is at times abusive, demeaning, and disrespectful.” Others expressed

concern over how the incivility from persons with power made it seem as though the elite feel

that “you don't have to be nice to the little people if you don't want to." One person offered

“these situations almost always involve a huge power disparity (staffer vs. department chair,



77

dean, etc.) and what I'll call casual rudeness. I've only had a couple of experiences that I

considered reporting to HR (and ultimately I did not report them to HR) but it's very common for

me to get brusque, unhelpful or unnecessarily peevish responses from administrators when I

interact with them.” Others felt that the administration was condoning the incivility. As one

respondent shared, “The behavior and person is supported by{name removed}, I feel like there is

nothing I can do.” Another stated, “The administration needs to be more responsive when

everyone reports that certain faculty are horrible to everyone. But because they're preeminent

with research money anything is allowed.”

Coworker Incivility. Twelve percent of respondents indicated that coworkers were the source of

incivility in the workplace. Sometimes the coworker was difficult with everyone such as the case

where one respondent shared, “One coworker in particular has been the source of conflict for

most individuals who know them. This person lashes out at people, verbally attacks them for

their work, acts like a superior/manager, and has an incredibly disruptive negative demeanor

(constantly slamming papers down, stomping around, and huffing and puffing).” Other times, the

behavior was personally directed at the respondent, such as the respondent who elaborated, “A

coworker ignored/isolated me from office meetings/collaboration with my peers, ignored

protocol where only I was involved, choosing to go directly to my boss for answers to questions

my colleague knew I had the answer to. This was not only meant to make me look inefficient and

incompetent, it was also meant to show dominance, embarrass me and generally make me ‘look

bad’ to a senior administrator.”

Negative Environment. Twelve percent of respondents commented on the environment, in that

bullying, harassment and/or other forms of intimidating and disrespectful behavior took place

regularly. One respondent reported, “I feel like there has been some very uncivil behavior with

personnel who are higher up on the organizational chart that has set precedence for other

employees to also act in an uncivil manner to fellow employees.” Another commented that, “The

atmosphere of disrespect toward student, faculty, and staff in my department in the name of

achieving science borders on abusive and is perpetuated by the administration.” Another

respondent concurred and shared, “In my experience there have been times when I've been

treated disrespectfully and unprofessionally.”



78

Concerns with Reporting Incivility. The largest shared theme was that of issues around the

process of, and results of, reporting incivility. Many individuals were concerned about what

would happen if they reported the behavior. One respondent stated, “I feared retaliation. College

administrators knew about the situation and did nothing.” Another shared, “There is a common

fear to not complain to the administration. They micromanage the entire college and there is a

constant fear of passive retaliation (inhibiting promotion, advancement, etc.).” Another

summarized, “Most people at UF don't report these types of incidents due to the fear of

retribution, along with the fact that nothing is done about it in the end, so it feels pointless.”

Others discussed how they had picked up the message that reporting was useless, because

nothing would be done. One respondent stated, “I learned that UF is not interested in protecting

employees' rights, and that it is more interested in protecting the institution.” Another shared

that, “I have lost faith that lower staff members voices are taken seriously regardless of who is

notified of the issues. It seems the lower down on the hierarchy you are, the less your concerns

are taken seriously.” Some respondents had tried to report behavior but were dissatisfied with the

response. One respondent reported, “I reported incidents multiple times to my supervisor, the

administrator, the department chair and human resources. I received no follow up even after

escalations after each reporting.” It is important to note that a few respondents shared that they

had followed the appropriate avenues for reporting misconduct and that they were satisfied with

the results, such as the respondent who wrote, “My supervisor responded to the event in an

appropriate and respectable manner. I was immediately appeased because of her actions and

because she ‘stuck up for me’.”

xviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct by position status: χ2 (3, N = 5581) = 17.1, p < .001 xixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct by position status: χ2 (3, N = 1,325) = 49.1, p < .001 xxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct by educational attainment: χ2 (5, N = 1,302) = 15.0, p < .01



79

xxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct by age: χ2 (6, N = 5,265) = 15.0, p < .05. xxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct by age as a result of age: χ2 (6, N = 1,224) = 106.4, p < .001 xxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct by gender/gender identity: χ2 (2, N = 5519) = 38.2, p < .05.



80

Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Respondents’ observations of others’ experiencing exclusionary conduct also may contribute to

their perceptions of campus climate. Twenty-seven percent (n = 1,488) of survey respondents

observed conduct or communications directed toward a person or group of people at UF that they

believed created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning

environment54 within the past year. Most of the observed exclusionary conduct was based on

position status (27%, n = 399), gender/gender identity (18%, n = 264), ethnicity (13%, n = 188),

or age (12%, n = 181). Sixteen percent (n = 244) of respondents indicated that they “don’t know”

the basis.

Figures 43, 44, and 45 separate by demographic categories (i.e., racial identity, gender identity,

sexual identity, faith-based affiliation, disability status, citizenship status, and position status) the

significant responses of those individuals who indicated on the survey that they observed

exclusionary conduct within the past year. No significant difference was found based on military

status.

54This report uses the phrase “exclusionary conduct” as a shortened version of “conduct or communications directed toward a person or group of people at the University of Florida that they believed created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning environment.”



81

A higher percentage of respondents with Disabilities (42%) than respondents with No Disability

(25%) indicated that they had observed such conductxxiv (Figure 43). A significantly higher

percentage of Transgender/Genderqueer/Other respondents (47%) than Women respondents

(29%) and Men respondents (23%) noted that they observed such conduct.xxv Additionally, a

higher percentage of LGBQ respondents (40%) indicated on the survey that they observed such

conduct than did Heterosexual respondents (26%) and Other respondents (26%).xxvi

42%

25%

23%

29%

47%

26%

26%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Single Disability (n = 508)


Men (n = 2,237)

Women (n = 3,230)

Trans/Genderqueer/Other (n = 34)

Other (n = 53)


LGBQ (n = 364)

Figure 43. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by

Respondents’ Sexual Identity, Gender Identity, and Disability Status (%)



82

U.S. Citizen respondents (28%) were significantly more likely than U.S. Citizen, Naturalized

respondents (22%), Non-U.S. Citizen respondents (18%), and respondents with Multiple

Citizenships (24%) to indicate that they had observed exclusionary conduct within the past year

(Figure 44).xxvii

xxviii

In terms of faith-based affiliation, respondents with Multiple Affiliations (33%)

and No Affiliation (29%) were more likely to indicate that they had witnessed such conduct than

were Other Faith-Based Affiliation respondents (21%) and respondents with Christian

Affiliations (25%).

25%

22%

29%

33%

28%

22%

18%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Christian Affiliation (n = 2986)

Other Faith-Based Affiliation (n = 332)

No Affiliation (n = 1794)






Figure 44. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by Respondents’ Citizenship Status and Faith-Based Affiliation (%)



83

Significantly higher percentages of Black/African American respondents (31%),

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents (29%), and Mixed Race respondents (36%) than

Asian/Asian American respondents (17%), Other Respondents of Color (25%), and White

respondents (26%) indicated that they had observed exclusionary conductxxix (Figure 45).

26%

36%

25%

29%

31%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

White (n = 4,196)

Mixed Race (n = 219)

Other People of Color (n = 48)



Asian/Asian American (n= 301)

Figure 45. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by Respondents’ Race/Ethnicity (%)



84

In terms of position status at UF, results indicated that significantly higher percentages of

Faculty respondents (27%) and Staff respondents (28%) indicated that they had observed

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct than did Postdoctoral Associate

respondents (21%) and University Athletic Association respondents (11%) (Figure 46).xxx

27%

21%

28%

11%

Faculty (n = 2,026)


Staff (n = 3,261)


Figure 46. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%)

Table 17 illustrates that respondents most often observed this conduct in the form of someone

being subjected to derogatory remarks (50%, n = 746), experiencing a hostile working

environment (42%, n = 618), being intimidated/bullied (38%, n = 562), or being isolated or left

out (33%, n = 494).



85

Table 17. Forms of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Form of conduct

n

% of respondents

who observed conduct

Derogatory remarks 746 50.1

Person experienced a hostile work environment 618 41.5

Person intimidated/bullied 562 37.8

Person isolated or left out 494 33.2

Person deliberately ignored or excluded 402 27.0

Person was the target of workplace incivility 378 25.4

Person received a low performance evaluation 218 14.7

Person was unfairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process 141 9.5

Derogatory written comments 139 9.3

Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 121 8.1

Racial/ethnic profiling 118 7.9

Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 92 6.2

Derogatory/unsolicited emails, text messages, Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak 92 6.2

Person experiences a hostile classroom environment 76 5.1

Derogatory phone calls 64 4.3

Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group 54 3.6

Person received a poor grade 30 2.0

Threats of physical violence 24 1.6

Graffiti (e.g., event advertisements removed or defaced) 21 1.4

Physical violence 13 0.9

Person was stalked 9 0.6

Something not listed above 127 8.5 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



86

Additionally, 45% (n = 673) of the respondents who indicated that they observed exclusionary

conduct noted that it happened while working at a UF job (Table 18). Some respondents noted

that the incidents occurred in a meeting with a group of people (22%, n = 328), in a University of

Florida administrative office (21%, n = 313), in a public space at UF (15%, n = 226), or in a

faculty office (11%, n = 169).

Table 18. Locations of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Location of conduct n

% of respondents




In UF administrative office 313 21.0





In a UF health care setting 102 6.9




Off campus 47 3.2

On social networking sites 30 2.0

On UF media, communication, or publications 21 1.4


In a UF dining facility 11 0.7


On UF transportation < 5 ---

A location not listed above 73 4.9 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



87

Forty-six percent (n = 694) of respondents who indicated that they observed exclusionary

conduct noted that the targets of the conduct were coworkers. Other respondents identified staff

members (33%, n = 496), faculty members/other instructional staff (22%, n = 328), and students

(18%, n = 263) as targets.

Of respondents who indicated that they observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or

hostile conduct directed at others, 27% (n = 405) noted that coworkers were the sources of the

conduct. Respondents identified additional sources as faculty members/other instructional staff

(26%, n = 385), supervisors (24%, n = 357), and staff members (18%, n = 269).

In response to this conduct, 75% (n = 1,115) of respondents were uncomfortable, 54% (n = 810)

felt angry, 30% (n = 450) felt embarrassed, 11% (n = 157) were afraid, and 8% (n = 124) ignored

it (Table 19).

Table 19. Respondents’ Emotional Responses to Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Emotional response to conduct

n

% of respondents

who experienced

conduct


I was angry. 810 54.4




I felt somehow responsible. 115 7.7 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.



88

Respondents took the following actions in response to observing the exclusionary, intimidating,

offensive, and/or hostile conduct: 32% (n = 468) of respondents did not do anything, 23% (n =

348) told a family member, and 23% (n = 338) told a friend (Table 20). Of the respondents

(14%) who sought support from a UF resource, 90 respondents sought support from a supervisor,

and 72 people sought support from human resources.

Table 20. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Actions in response to observed conduct

n

% of respondents





I confronted the person(s) later. 175 11.8




I confronted the person(s) at the time. 158 10.6


I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services. 17 1.1


A response not listed above 308 20.7 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed exclusionary conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses. *See Appendix B, Table B48 for a listing of UF resources.



89

Table 21 illustrates that 79% (n = 1,120) of respondents did not report the incident and that 21%

(n = 295) of respondents did report the incident. Of the respondents who reported the incident,

22% (n = 51) were satisfied with the outcomes, 28% (n = 65) felt the complaint received an

appropriate response, and 49% (n = 113) felt the incident did not receive an appropriate

response.

Table 21. Respondents’ Reporting of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Reporting the observed conduct

n

% of respondents


No, I didn’t report it. 1,120 79.2


Satisfied with outcome 51 22.3

While the outcome was not what I had hoped for, I feel as though my complaint was responded to appropriately. 65 28.4

Felt the incident was not responded to appropriately 113 49.3 Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed exclusionary conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages do not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses.

Four hundred ninety-one respondents shared comments about their observations of conduct that

created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning environment.

Three main themes were the focus of these responses.

Response After Conduct. Thirty-six percent of responses dealt with what happened after the

conduct had occurred. Some respondents described ways in which they had responded to the

situation, often by reporting the incident to someone senior to them or by reaching out to the

victim. One respondent wrote, “I treated the person with respect in-front of the derogatory

person(s) as an example of how they should act.” Another shared, “During the confrontation, I

tried my best to help de-escalate the event between the two individuals involved. Immediately

after the event, I contacted a trusted supervisor in our department, and I felt satisfied with the

outcome.” Other responses focused more on the reporting process, whether the incident was

reported or not. The responses were mixed. One respondent wrote, “After reporting the incident

that occurred in front of my staff, staff was interviewed by the administration and told not to tell

anyone.” Another stated, “I reported the event, and was assured that it would be brought up with



90

higher level administrators.” Several respondents were frustrated with the fact that even though

an incident was reported, nothing was done. One respondent commented, “This person will never

be confronted for {her/his} behavior, and because of {her/his} closeness to people in HR, we

know that concerns will be swept under the rug as they have been before.” Another shared, “The

incident was reported to human resources by our department, but appropriate action was not

taken to address abusive behavior.”

Another common response about the aftermath of the conduct focused on the fact that

individuals were fearful of retaliation and other negative consequences if they reported the

misconduct. Respondents wanted to make sure a clear path existed for reporting concerns, even

if the concern involved a supervisor or administrator. Respondents spoke of a culture of fear of

retaliation in reporting concerns. One respondent shared, “The administration in our office has

the final say in everything, they do not value our honest input, and the repercussions of speaking

out would be punitive. Therefore most staff won't come forward with concerns, that's the way it

is now in our office.” Another commented, “Allowing staff to evaluate their supervisors - but in

a way that retribution is not possible. My current supervisor is outstanding. The previous one that

left was a terrible manager with poor people skills. Staff needs a way to voice concerns without

fear of retaliation. Everyone needs to have consequences or boundaries.” Another respondent

wrote, “Reporting to the program administrator results in retaliation. I have personal experience

with this.” Yet another stated, “Retaliation keeps people from reporting conduct that generates a

hostile environment.” Finally, one shared, “I was afraid to get involved because it would have

meant risking my own job.”

Perpetrator of Conduct. Thirty-two percent of respondents chose to focus their responses on

identifying the perpetrator of the behavior. Faculty, supervisors, and coworkers were the most

commonly identified individuals. One respondent wrote, “I witnessed a faculty member berating

a colleague repeatedly during meetings.” Another shared, “The supervisor was verbally abusive,

demeaning and was yelling at the employee in a staff meeting.” Sometimes comments regarding

administration identified specific individuals, while other responses just described administration

as a whole. One respondent identifying administration broadly noted, “A senior administrator

was hostile to my colleagues. The response from administration was not warranted.”



91

Basis of Conduct. Twenty-one percent of respondents shared comments about why the negative

conduct took place. The list of reasons for negative conduct includes race, religion, gender,

sexuality, being conservative, international status, age, physical characteristics, use of FMLA,

being a veteran, and being in the majority. Race was one of the most commonly cited basis for

conduct. One response noted, “I have witnessed casual and institutional racism many times.”

Gender, particularly being transgender, was also a shared concern. Another respondent wrote,

“This campus is discriminatory against transgender individuals especially related to restrooms.”

Discrimination based on gender was one diversity-related issue that was identified by several

respondents. One respondent called for “Merit based advancement for women in leadership

positions; adjustments to salaries to reduce gender disparities; provide paid maternity/paternity

leave.” Several respondents felt that their conservative, Christian viewpoints were not welcome

on campus, with one respondent sharing, “I was the victim of conduct, I was criticized for my

Conservative, Christian based beliefs and political views.” Another respondent wrote, “Be more

accepting of conservative political values, conservative moral/religious values, and Southern

culture/history.”

xxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by disability status: χ2 (1, N = 5,545) = 64.3, p < .001. xxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by gender/gender identity: χ2 (2, N = 5,501) = 26.4, p < .001. xxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by sexual identity: χ2 (2, N = 5,289) = 35.3, p < .001. xxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by citizenship status: χ2 (3, N = 5,518) = 21.7, p < .001. xxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by religious affiliation: χ2 (3, N = 5,368) = 16.9, p < .001. xxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by race/ethnicity: χ2 (5, N = 5,373) = 29.4, p < .001. xxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct by position status: χ2 (3, N = 5,563) = 24.7, p < .001.



92

Summary

Seventy-four percent of all respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the

climate at UF and 70% of all respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the

climate in their departments/work units. The findings from investigations at higher education

institutions across the country (Rankin & Associates Consulting, 2015), where 70% to 80% of all

respondents found the campus climate “comfortable” or “very comfortable,” suggests that a

similar percentage of UF respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate

at UF.

Twenty percent to 25% of individuals in similar investigations indicated that they personally had

experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. At UF, 24% (n =

1,325) of respondents believed 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 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).

Twenty-seven percent (n = 1,488) of UF survey respondents indicated that they had observed

conduct or communications directed toward a person or group of people at UF that they believed

created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile working or learning environment

within the past year.



93

Employee Perceptions of Climate

This section of the report describes Faculty and Staff/Administrator responses to survey items

focused on certain employment practices at UF (e.g., hiring, promotion, and disciplinary

actions), their perceptions of the workplace climate at UF, and their thoughts on work-life and

various climate issues.

Perceptions of Employment Practices

The survey queried all respondents about whether they had observed discriminatory employment

practices at UF. Twenty-three percent (n = 458) of Faculty respondents, 13% (n = 15) of

Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 24% (n = 763) of Staff respondents, and 8% (n = 13) of

University Athletic Association respondents indicated that they had observed hiring practices at

UF (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 22).xxxi

Table 22. Respondents Who Observed Employment Practices That Were Unfair or Unjust, or That Would Inhibit Diversifying the Community

Hiring practices

Employment-related disciplinary actions

Procedures or practices related to

promotion/tenure/ reclassification

n % n % n % No 4,291 77.5 4,782 86.5 3,993 72.5

Faculty 1,564 77.3 1,726 85.6 1,382 68.7 Postdoctoral Associate 101 87.1 110 94.0 101 87.1

Staff 2,480 76.5 2,793 86.3 2,376 73.8 University Athletic Association 146 8.2 152 95.6 134 84.3 Yes 1,249 22.5 749 13.5 1,512 27.5

Faculty 458 22.7 291 14.4 630 31.3 Postdoctoral Associate 15 12.9 7 6.0 15 12.9

Staff 763 23.5 444 13.7 842 26.2 University Athletic Association 13 8.2 7 4.4 25 15.7



94

Of those respondents who indicated that they had observed discriminatory hiring at UF, 49% (n

= 615) noted that it was based on friendship, 19% (n = 245) on ethnicity, 18% (n = 227) on

gender/gender identity, 18% (n = 222) on age, and 17% (n = 217) on nepotism.

Subsequent analyses55 indicated the following:

• By gender identity: 24% (n = 757) of Women respondents, 21% (n = 461) of Men

respondents, and 30% (n = 10) of Transgender/Genderqueer/Other respondents indicated

that they had observed discriminatory hiring practices.xxxii

• By race/ethnicity: 22% (n = 87) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 38% of

Black/African American respondents, 28% (n = 70) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 29% (n = 14) of Other Respondents of Color, 20% (n = 850) of White

respondents, and 27% (n = 59) of Mixed Race respondents indicated that they had

observed discriminatory hiring practices.xxxiii

• By sexual identity: 32% (n = 115) of LGBQ respondents, 22% (n = 1,052) of

Heterosexual respondents, and 30% (n = 16) of Other respondents indicated that they had

observed discriminatory hiring practices.xxxiv

• By disability status: 35% (n = 182) of respondents with Disabilities and 21% (n = 1,061)

of respondents with No Disability indicated that they had observed discriminatory hiring

practices.xxxv

Four hundred twenty-six respondents elaborated on their observations of unjust hiring practices.

Three main themes emerged from the responses: favoritism, process, and characteristics.

Characteristics. Forty-seven percent of respondents elaborated on the characteristics of

candidates that led to unjust hiring practices. Among the characteristics for which candidates

were discriminated against (or sometimes actively recruited for) were race, gender, sexuality,

international status, age, ethnicity, religion, and education level. Respondents represented all

sides of issues related to diversity hiring. Some felt that the University was not focused enough

on diversity. One Faculty respondent stated, “There does not appear to be any real commitment

55Chi-square analyses were conducted by position status, gender identity, racial identity, age, sexual identity, faith-based affiliation, and disability status; only significant differences are reported.



95

to faculty diversity, especially in regard to race and ethnicity. I have not witnessed any

willingness to make structural adjustments in the way positions are conceived or searches are

conducted.” Others felt that diversity was too much of a focus, eliminating qualified candidates

from the pool. One respondent wrote, “Certain gender and racial groups are preferred at UF

without regard to relative merit.” For almost every characteristic, there were respondents who

felt the focus either favored or was deleterious to a candidate. For example, one respondent

wrote, “Age seems to be a huge discriminator here. Younger people are dusted off as not being

capable, despite portfolios and relevant experience,” while another stated, “Department prefers to

hire younger employees.” In addition, several respondents expressed concern about ‘reverse

discrimination’ such as the individual who stated, “We made hiring and tenure decisions where

white males were excluded seemingly to advance less-qualified minorities.”

Favoritism. Twenty-four percent of respondents commented that they had seen instances of

favoritism in hiring practices at the University of Florida. The respondents offered that it was

very much “who you know” that got a person a job. One respondent shared, “I see a huge

amount of hiring people based on ‘who you know.’ I think that it is tough to get an interview in

many places on campus unless you have an “in” by knowing someone.” Some respondents felt

that this favoritism was a result of an “ole boy network” such as the respondent who commented,

“I have witnessed many occasions where the ‘good 'ole boy’ hiring and promotion system was

used here at UF.” While many more staff commented on rampant favoritism, faculty respondents

noticed it as well. One respondent stated, “I have seen both new hires and in department

promotion/opportunities given to candidates with friendly relationships with the department

chair. Both occurred without other faculty input.”

Process. Twenty-one percent of respondents commented on the hiring process. Several

respondents focused on the fact that they felt the interview process was a waste of time, because

the selected candidate was pre-determined. One respondent shared, “Searches are mandated at

significant cost in time and money when the candidate is pre-selected. It is a waste of resources

and unfair to candidates applying. HR should re-evaluate valid reasons for search waivers,

especially in highly scientific and technical positions.” Others commented on ways they had seen

the process compromised. One respondent wrote, “In hiring meetings, faculty talk openly about a



96

candidate's political views, political associations, their race, their sexual orientation, their family

status. It’s disgusting and nothing is ever done when its complained about.” Another noted,

“Hiring practices are not monitored at all. There is no oversight or accountability.” Several

respondents were concerned with the lack of input into the selection process. One respondent

stated, “Hiring committee recommendations are ignored. People selected seem to be safe--

acquaintances or in agreement with leaderships goals and approach.” Another group of

respondents debated the role of internal candidates in the process. Some felt that only internal

candidates were considered, while others felt that internal candidates were often passed over.

One respondent wrote, “Hiring internally is one of UF's biggest problems because it prevents a

healthy exchange of ideas,” while another expressed the opposite idea, “People, especially

internal candidates, who are more qualified are being passed over for positions.”

Fourteen percent (n = 749) of respondents indicated that they had observed unfair, unjust, or

discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal, within the

past year/hiring cycle at UF. Subsequent analyses indicated that of those individuals, 21% (n =

156) noted that they believed that the discrimination was based on position status, 13% (n = 99)

on age, 13% (n = 96) on philosophical views, and 11% (n = 81) on ethnicity.

Subsequent analyses56 also indicated the following:

• By position status: 14% (n = 291) of Faculty respondents, 6% (n = 7) of Postdoctoral

Associate respondents, 14% (n = 444) of Staff respondents, and 4% (n = 7) of University

Athletic Association respondents observed discriminatory disciplinary actions.xxxvi

• By racial identity: 13% (n = 535) of White respondents, 13% (n = 38) of Asian/Asian

American respondents, 18% (n = 63) of Black/African American respondents, 12% (n =

30) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 21% (n = 10) of Other Respondents of

Color, and 16% (n = 34) of Mixed Race respondents observed discriminatory disciplinary

actions.xxxvii




97

• By age: 7% (n = 7) of respondents age 22 to 24, 11% (n = 103) of respondents 25 to 34

years old, 11% (n = 136) of respondents age 35 to 44, 13% (n = 174) of respondents age

45 to 54, 16% (n = 207) of respondents age 55 to 64, and 15% (n = 47) of respondents

age 65 and over reported that they had witnessed discriminatory disciplinary actions.xxxviii

• By disability status: 24% (n = 121) of respondents with Disabilities versus 13% (n = 626)

of respondents with No Disability reported that they had witnessed discriminatory

disciplinary actions.xxxix

Two hundred twenty-five respondents chose to elaborate on their observations of employment-

related discipline or action. Four themes emerged from the responses.

Authority as Offender. Twenty-two percent of respondents reported that the employment-related

discipline or action was perpetrated by someone in authority (e.g., supervisor, manager,

administrator). Many respondents described misconduct by a supervisor. One respondent wrote,

“The supervisor is looking for ways to discredit the employee and thus make a lower review on

the yearly evaluation and hopefully terminate and rehire for the position.” Others focused on

how administrators abused their power. One respondent shared, “Upper administration beyond

the department level is a good ole’ boys network. If you displease someone, you don't get

resources or promotions. I can't figure out how some highly performing faculty don't get upper

administration support, while those less deserving don't get promotion or tenure. This comment

is based on many years of working with faculty across all units campus wide.” Changes,

including reassignment and termination, often happen upon the arrival of a new

supervisor/administrator. One respondent reported, “Several pre-midterm tenure-track faculty in

the college of medicine were fired by a new chair before they were even given a mid-term

review. Tenured senior faculty attempting to intervene were ostracized.” One respondent

summed up the abuse of power by noting, “I have experiences with many prestigious universities

and institutions during my education and training. I was very shocked to observe the darkness

and abusing power at UF that I never experienced before.”

Characteristics. Eighteen percent of respondents commented on the characteristics of the

individuals who were subjected to employment-related discipline or action. These characteristics



98

varied and included race, gender, sexuality, age, and disability. One respondent shared, “In the

most recent cases it was African American employees receiving discipline based on behavior

issues that white employees acting the same way have not.” Another wrote, “I've actually

witnessed an older person's job threatened because of their age alone. This person is an

extremely respected person that has educated 100's of students for UF.” Some respondents also

described incidents of “reverse” discrimination when “Extreme reluctance to hold minorities or

homosexuals to same standards of others because of fear of lawsuits” existed.

Fear of Consequences. Eleven percent of respondents reported that their observations of

employment-related discipline or action were a result of someone speaking up and making their

voice heard, often disagreeing with a higher-up. One respondent shared, “One particular

{employee} stood up to chair and ended up resigning. Has been marginalized and bad mouthed

by chair.” Another commented, “It seemed that the behavior in question was triggered by

someone not hearing the answer that they wanted.” This behavior leads to the feeling that

“Anyone who actively disagrees with the higher administration suffers serious consequences

including removal from an administrative position and loss of office space. As a consequence

everyone keeps their head down and avoids sharing their opinions with others for fear of

reprisal.” One respondent wrote, “We have a good ole’ boys network at UF. People who speak

out and are not insiders are not tolerated.”

Favoritism. Thirteen percent of respondents felt that the observed conduct was a result of a

culture of favoritism that “dominates the workplace”. One respondent observed, “I have seen too

many colleagues get disciplined or rebuked for things that were purely personal and done in a

way that was completely unprofessional (i.e. someone cursing, shouting, etc.).” Another noted,

“Very competent people may be moved or dismissed because of one person's dislike of an

individual - usually in situations where there is money and stature involved.” One respondent

shared, “I believe there to be a lack of employee discipline in my workplace because the

individuals have personal relationships/friendships with members of upper administration.”

Twenty-eight percent of respondents (n = 1,512) observed unfair or unjust practices related to

promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification at UF. Subsequent analyses indicated that



99

respondents believed that this was based on friendship (42%, n = 631), position status (14%, n =

217), gender/gender identity (12%, n = 183), and length of service at UF (11%, n = 173).

Subsequent analyses57 also indicated the following:

• By position: 31% (n = 630) of Faculty respondents, 13% (n = 15) of Postdoctoral

Associate respondents, 26% (n = 842) of Staff respondents, and 16% (n = 25) of

University Athletic Association respondents indicated that they had observed unfair or

unjust practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification.xl

• By age: 15% (n = 14) of respondents age 22 to 24, 20% (n = 186) of respondents 25 to 34

years old, 25% (n = 304) of respondents age 35 to 44, 29% (n = 393) of respondents age

45 to 54, 31% (n = 392) of respondents age 55 to 64, and 29% (n = 89) of respondents

age 65 and over indicated that they had witnessed discriminatory

promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification.xli

• By sexual identity: 36% (n = 129) of LGBQ respondents, 26% (n = 1,277) of

Heterosexual respondents, and 28% (n = 15) of Other respondents witnessed such

conduct.xlii

• By faith-based affiliation: 26% (n = 753) of Christian-Affiliated respondents, 27% (n =

88) of respondents of Other Faiths, 30% (n = 533) of respondents with No Affiliation,

and 26% (n = 88) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations indicated that they had

observed discriminatory promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification.xliii


of respondents with No Disability indicated that they had observed unfair or unjust

practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification.xliv

Four hundred fifty-six respondents elaborated on their responses of unjust behavior related to

promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification. Four themes emerged from the responses and

are offered in the following paragraphs.




100

Unclear Tenure Process. Of the 201 faculty respondents, 20% commented on tenure. The

responses documented many instances in which the tenure process was unclear resulting in

someone had not received tenure despite having sufficient qualifications. One respondent wrote,

“Inconsistent tenure success with no clear pattern concerning what earns tenure for some and not

for others. Of particular concern are colleagues who appear to perform well being refused

tenure.” Another wrote, “The layered T&P is almost impenetrable. Why some people are not

promoted to Full or Distinguished professor feels political and arbitrary, and grossly unfair.”

Others were more concerned with individuals who did get tenure but were lacking some of the

criteria. One respondent shared, “Sometimes there have been issues with a packet (and I have

seen this at least 3 times) that is subpar and they are allowed to remain even when the votes do

not support promotion and/or permanent status.”

Favoritism. Nineteen percent of faculty and staff respondents observed favoritism in the

promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification process. One respondent shared, “I don't like to

harp on it, but people are treated differently in our office, based on whether you are liked or not.

I have heard a supervisor say, ‘We are up here on the totem pole, while you are way down here.’

Not everyone acts like that and there are many great, well deserving supervisors.” Some

commented on the continued existence of a “good ole boys” network. One respondent wrote,

“Everything that happens here is entirely dependent on who you know. If you are not part of the

private club, you cannot go anywhere. They routinely move people into positions they cannot

handle and expect those under them to pick up the slack. Work is for workers, but good pay is

for good ole boys.” Another noted simply, “People are given raises for who they know not the

work they do.”

Unfair Process. Eighteen percent of faculty and staff discussed the processes of advancement,

promotion, restructuring, and raises. Many felt that the processes were confusing, unfair,

unequally applied, and under the personal discretion of those in charge. One respondent wrote,

“Advancement does not take qualifications, productivity and work merit into account for select

individuals.” Another shared, “A promotion to a top level leadership position was provided in a

secretive manner, with the job posting lasting approximately 1 week, and no search committee. I

do not believe this is appropriate, and did not allow for a comprehensive search.” Another



101

respondent wrote, “It has been proven that the process is not clearly fair from my experience in

{department}. The votes are not kept confidential and the Dean is not fair.” Another shared,

“The APB decision-making process is NOT TRANSPARENT. NO justification is provided to a

professor rejected for WHY he/she was rejected. COMPLETELY ARBITRARY Proceedings.

This has left the victim EXTREMELY ANGRY. I've seen this happen many times.” Of

particular concern was restructuring and reassignment with not much input or information. One

respondent wrote, “Reorganization/reassignments could have been revealed in a more gradual

way, one with more input from the working class level. It seems as if the change was done like

‘ripping off a Band-Aid’ approach. That makes one feel as if they were not valuable enough to

have their opinion sought.”

Characteristics. Fourteen percent of faculty and staff respondents commented on the

characteristics that lead to unjust behavior. Some of the characteristics mentioned include

gender, sexuality, and race, often in combination. One respondent wrote, “It appears that men

have better opportunities for growth than women,” while another observed, “I know of 3 women

in my department that were not put up for tenure who were qualified by the standards.”

Sometimes respondents referred to characteristics and unjust behavior on a more global scale,

such as the respondent who wrote, “Generally, non-traditional faculty are subjected to a higher

level of scrutiny and evaluation than white men in our appointment and promotion processes.”

Others were more concerned with sharing specific stories. One respondent shared, “The faculty

T&P committee denied tenure to a faculty member of color citing a weak research record, but

voted in favor of a white woman with an equally weak record. She was better ‘liked’ than he

was. He left and received tenure easily at another highly ranked university.” A few respondents

also cited incidents of “reverse” discrimination, where minorities received preference over white

males. One respondent wrote, “People were promoted or hired due to their lesbian status as well

as their race. Do not be a white male around here.”

Unfair practices. Fourteen percent of respondents commented on various instances of unfair (and

unjust) behavior related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification that seemed to have

no explanation. Some described instances where an individual had been passed over for a raise or

promotion. One respondent wrote, “As I said before, I can't prove anything but when someone is



102

continually not notified of new positions and passed up for jobs for people they trained, it looks

suspicious.” Other respondents described examples where individuals who were incompetent,

unqualified, or otherwise difficult to work with still received raises and/or promotions. One

respondent shared, “I know of a couple of individuals who were demoted, reassigned, and then

received higher salaries. ‘Screw up, move up.’ The loud and obnoxious, with community

support, sometimes win.” Another stated, “Person was not qualified for the promotion, was often

a poor team player and instead of being reprimanded, was promoted to a different role.” Some

respondents simply commented on the inequity they saw in raises/promotions with no

explanation as to why. One Faculty respondent shared, “Some non-tenure-track faculty are

transitioned to tenure-track status based on criteria that are not clear and transparent--while

others do not have ever the same chance. Though I am happy for those being ‘promoted’ I think

this is unjust to those who are not so lucky: it lacks any systematic and widely applied rule--it is

haphazard.”

xxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory employment practices related to hiring at UF by position status: χ2 (3, N =5,540) = 26.7, p < .001. xxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory employment practices related to hiring at UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (2, N = 5,480) = 7.5, p < .05. xxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory employment practices related to hiring at UF by race/ethnicity: χ2 (5, N = 5,352) = 67.3, p < .001. xxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory employment practices related to hiring at UF by sexual identity: χ2 (2, N = 5,271) = 21.0, p < .001. xxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory employment practices related to hiring at UF by disability status: χ2 (1, N = 5,525) = 56.5, p < .001. xxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory disciplinary practices, up to and including dismissal, at UF by position status: χ2 (3, N = 5,530) = 18.5, p < .001. xxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory disciplinary practices, up to and including dismissal, at UF by racial identity: χ2 (5, N = 5,345) = 11.5, p < .05. xxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory disciplinary practices, up to and including dismissal, at UF by age: χ2 (6, N = 5,225) = 22.2, p < .001. xxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed discriminatory disciplinary practices, up to and including dismissal, at UF by disability status: χ2 (1, N = 5,516) = 51.2, p < .001. xlA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed unfair employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification at UF by position status: χ2 (3, N = 5,505) = 41.0, p < .001. xliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed unfair employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification at UF by age: χ2 (6, N = 5,201) = 50.4, p < .001. xliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed unfair employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification at UF by sexual identity: χ2 (2, N = 5,240) = 15.2, p < .001.



103

xliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed unfair employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification at UF by religious affiliation: χ2 (3, N = 5,324) = 11.1, p < .05. xlivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who observed unfair employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification at UF by disability status: χ2 (1, N = 5,487) = 34.8, p < .001.



104

Staff58 Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance

Several survey items queried Staff respondents about their opinions regarding work-life issues,

and support and resources available at UF. Frequencies and significant differences based on

position status, staff status, gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity,59 disability status,

military status, citizenship status, and faith-based affiliation are provided in Tables 23 through

26.

Seventy-five percent (n = 2,548) of Staff respondents believed that they had supervisors who

gave them job/career advice or guidance when they needed it (Table 23). Additionally, a

significantly higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (76%, n = 2,333) than

respondents with Disabilities (64%, n = 206) felt that they had supervisors who gave them career

advice. A higher percentage of respondents with Multiple Citizenship (92%, n = 54) and Non-

U.S. Citizens (83%, n = 78) than respondents who were U.S. Citizens (75%, n = 2,263) and

Naturalized U.S. Citizens (74%, n = 140) felt that they had this type of supervisor.

Eighty-three percent (n = 2,797) of Staff respondents thought they had colleagues/coworkers

who gave them job/career advice or guidance when they needed it. Similarly, a slightly higher,

yet statistically significant percentage of Men (82.9%, n = 880) than Women (82.5%, n =

1,864)60 respondents felt that they had colleagues/coworkers who provided this advice. Further

analysis revealed that Women respondents (31%, n = 709) were more likely to “strongly agree”

with this statement than Men respondents (28%, n = 294). A significantly higher percentage of

respondents with No Disability (84%, n = 2,557) than respondents with Disabilities (72%, n =

230) felt that they had a colleague/coworker who provided career advice. Likewise, a higher

percentage of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents (86%, n = 128) and Other Respondents of

Color (87%, n = 20) than Asian/Asian American respondents (79%, n = 82), Black/African

58Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff. If differences occurred between UF Staff and UAA staff the differences are offered in the tables. 59Other respondents in terms of sexual identity (n = 34) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few to maintain the confidentiality of their responses. 60The percentages were reported to the tenth of a percent because of the overall values for Men respondents and Women respondents were similar.



105

American respondents (78%, n = 225), and Mixed Race respondents (82%, n = 124) felt that they

had these types of colleagues/coworkers.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 2,264) of Staff respondents felt they were included in opportunities that

would help their careers as much as others in similar positions. A significantly higher percentage

of respondents with No Disability (69%, n = 2,086) than respondents with Disabilities (55%, n =

174) felt that they were included in opportunities to help their careers. Likewise, a higher

percentage of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations (71%, n = 102) felt that they had

these opportunities compared to respondents with a Christian Affiliation (67%, n = 1,361),

respondents with No Affiliation (68%, n = 650), and respondents with Multiple Affiliations

(58%, n = 89).

Table 23. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perception

Strongly

agree n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %

Strongly disagree n %

I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. 1,090 32.1 1,458 42.9 588 17.3 264 7.8

Position statusxlv Staff 1,016 31.3 1,394 43.0 573 17.7 259 8.0 University Athletic Association 74 46.8 64 40.5 15 9.5 5 3.2

Disability statusxlvi Disability 74 22.8 132 40.7 66 20.4 52 16.0 No Disability 1,014 33.1 1,319 43.0 520 17.0 211 6.9

Citizenship statusxlvii U.S. Citizen 972 32.1 1,291 42.6 530 17.5 237 7.8 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 62 32.6 78 41.1 34 17.9 16 8.4 Non-U.S. Citizen 36 38.3 42 44.7 13 13.8 < 5 --- Multiple Citizenship 16 27.1 38 64.4 < 5 --- < 5 ---



106

Note: Table includes Staff and University Athletic Association responses (n = 3,436) only. Table 24 illustrates that 75% (n = 2,527) of Staff respondents felt that the performance

evaluation process was clear. A higher percentage of Non-Exempt Staff (79%, n = 1,003) than

Exempt Staff (72%, n = 1,407) felt that this process was clear. Similarly, a higher percentage of

Women (77%, n = 1,725) than Men (71%, n = 751) respondents felt that the performance

evaluation process was clear. In addition, a higher percentage of respondents with No Disability

(76%, n = 2,305) than those respondents with Disabilities (66%, n = 215) felt that this process

was clear. A higher percentage of respondents with a Christian Affiliation (78%, n = 1,578) than

Table 23 (cont.)

Strongly

agree n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. 1,015 30.0 1,782 52.6 451 13.3 138 4.1

Position statusxlviii Staff 947 29.3 1,704 52.8 442 13.7 135 4.2 University Athletic Association 68 43.0 78 49.4 9 5.7 < 5 ---

Gender/Gender identityxlix Woman 709 31.4 1,155 51.1 294 13.0 103 4.6 Man 294 27.7 586 55.2 150 14.1 31 2.9

Disability statusl Disability 83 25.9 147 45.8 64 19.9 27 8.4 No Disability 930 30.5 1,627 53.3 385 12.6 110 3.6

Race/Ethnicityli Asian/Asian American 27 26.0 55 52.9 17 16.3 5 4.8 Black/African American 80 27.6 145 50.0 55 19.0 10 3.4

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 49 32.9 79 53.0 14 9.4 7 4.7 Other People of Color 10 43.5 10 43.5 < 5 --- < 5 --- White 774 30.1 1,371 53.4 319 12.4 104 4.0 Mixed Race 58 38.2 66 43.4 24 15.8 < 5 ---

I am included in opportunities that will help my career as much as others in similar positions. 811 24.0 1,453 43.0 827 24.5 285 8.4

Position statuslii Staff 759 23.6 1,382 42.9 802 24.9 276 8.6 University Athletic Association 52 33.1 71 45.2 25 15.9 9 5.7

Disability statusliii Disability 48 15.0 126 39.5 99 31.0 46 14.4 No Disability 761 25.0 1,325 43.5 724 23.8 237 7.8

Faith-based affiliationliv Christian Affiliation 511 25.3 850 42.1 503 24.9 153 7.6

Other Faith-Based Affiliation 32 22.2 70 48.6 33 22.9 9 6.3 No Affiliation 224 23.3 426 44.4 215 22.4 95 9.9

Multiple Affiliations 26 17.0 63 41.2 46 30.1 18 11.8



107

respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations (69%, n = 99), respondents with No Affiliation

(71%, n = 687), and respondents with Multiple Affiliations (64%, n = 99) felt that the

performance evaluation process was clear.

Seventy-two percent (n = 2,427) of Staff61 respondents believed that the performance evaluation

criteria were clear. Sixty-nine percent (n = 1,343) of Exempt Staff respondents versus 77% (n =

973) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents felt that the performance evaluation criteria were clear.

Respondents with No Disability (73%, n = 2,211) were more likely to feel that the criteria were

clear than were respondents with Disabilities (64%, n = 207). A higher percentage of respondents

with a Christian Affiliation (75%, n = 1,520) than those with Other Faith-Based Affiliations

(70%, n = 99), No Affiliation (68%, n = 650), or Multiple Affiliations (63%, n = 95) felt that the

performance evaluation criteria were clear.

Fifty-three percent (n = 1,785) of Staff61 respondents believed that the performance evaluation

process was productive. A higher percentage (58%, n = 733) of Non-Exempt Staff than Exempt

Staff (49%, n = 955) felt it was productive. Fifty-six percent (n = 1,242) of Women versus 49%

(n = 516) of Men respondents felt that this was the case. Fifty-four percent (n =1,642) of

respondents with No Disability versus 44% (n =138) of those with Disabilities felt the process

was productive. Finally, a higher percentage of respondents with a Christian Affiliation (57%, n

=1,128) and Other Faith-Based Affiliations (54%, n =78) than those with No Affiliation (49%, n

= 467) and Multiple Affiliations (45%, n =68) felt that the performance evaluation process was

productive.

Forty percent (n = 1,335) of Staff61 respondents felt that clear procedures existed on how to

advance at UF. In addition, a higher percentage of Women (41%, n = 915) than Men (38%, n =

395) respondents felt that the procedures were clear. A higher percentage of respondents with No

Disability (41%, n = 1,228) felt that the procedures on how to advance were clear compared to

those respondents with Disabilities (33%, n =103). Finally, a higher percentage of respondents

with a Christian Affiliation (43%, n = 868) and Other Faith-Based Affiliations (43%, n = 60)

61Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff. If differences occurred between UF Staff and UAA staff the differences are offered in the tables.



108

versus respondents with No Affiliation (35%, n = 328) and Multiple Affiliations (32%, n = 49)

felt that the procedures to advance were clear.


Perception

Strongly

agree n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


The performance evaluation process is clear. 810 23.9 1,717 50.7 639 18.9 221 6.5

Staff statuslv Exempt 437 22.3 970 49.6 409 20.9 140 7.2 Non-Exempt 326 25.6 677 53.3 199 15.7 69 5.4

Gender/Gender identitylvi Woman 556 25.0 1,169 51.6 398 17.6 134 5.9 Man 236 22.3 515 48.7 228 21.6 79 7.5

Disability statuslvii Disability 63 19.4 152 46.9 69 21.3 40 12.3 No Disability 745 24.4 1,560 51.1 569 18.6 178 5.8

Faith-based affiliationlviii Christian Affiliation 520 25.7 1,058 52.3 339 16.8 106 5.2 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 34 23.6 65 45.1 38 26.4 7 4.9

No Affiliation 207 21.5 480 49.8 190 19.7 86 8.9 Multiple Affiliations 31 20.1 68 44.2 42 27.3 13 8.4

The performance evaluation criteria are clear. 765 22.6 1,662 49.2 712 21.1 240 7.1

Staff statuslix Exempt 411 21.0 932 47.7 464 23.8 146 7.5 Non-Exempt 309 24.4 664 52.4 209 16.5 84 6.6

Disability statuslx Disability 57 17.6 150 46.3 73 22.5 44 13.6 No Disability 705 23.2 1,506 49.5 639 21.0 192 6.3

Faith-based affiliationlxi Christian Affiliation 486 24.0 1,034 51.2 386 19.1 115 5.7 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 34 23.9 65 45.8 33 23.2 10 7.0




109

Note: Table includes Staff and University Athletic Association responses (n = 3,436) only.

Table 24 (cont.)

Strongly

agree n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

The performance evaluation process is productive. 498 14.9 1,287 38.5 1,089 32.5 472 14.1

Position statuslxii Staff 459 14.4 1,231 38.6 1,042 32.7 459 14.4 University Athletic Association 39 25.2 56 36.1 47 30.3 13 8.4

Staff statuslxiii Exempt 259 13.4 696 36.0 670 34.7 306 15.8 Non-Exempt 200 15.9 533 42.4 372 29.6 151 12.0

Gender/Gender identitylxiv Woman 350 15.6 892 39.9 721 32.2 274 12.2 Man 144 13.7 372 35.5 345 32.9 187 17.8

Disability statuslxv Disability 26 8.2 112 35.3 107 33.8 72 22.7 No Disability 469 15.5 1,173 38.9 979 32.4 396 13.1

Faith-based affiliationlxvi Christian Affiliation 322 16.1 806 40.4 638 32.0 229 11.5

Other Faith-Based Affiliation 26 18.1 52 36.1 47 32.6 19 13.2 No Affiliation 124 13.0 343 36.0 312 32.7 174 18.3 Multiple Affiliations 17 11.2 51 33.6 57 37.5 27 17.8

There are clear procedures on how I can advance at UF. 329 9.8 1,006 30.1 1,427 42.7 579 17.3

Position statuslxvii Staff 303 9.5 945 29.7 1,378 43.3 560 17.6 University Athletic Association 26 16.8 61 31.6 49 31.6 19 12.3

Staff statuslxviii Exempt 153 7.9 528 27.3 884 45.7 369 19.1 Non-Exempt 149 11.9 416 33.4 492 39.5 190 15.2

Gender/Gender identitylxix Woman 224 10.0 691 31.0 957 42.9 357 16.0 Man 100 9.5 295 28.1 444 42.3 211 20.1

Disability statuslxx Disability 15 4.8 88 28.2 121 38.8 88 28.2 No Disability 312 10.3 916 30.4 1,302 43.2 487 16.1

Faith-based affiliationlxxi Christian Affiliation 222 11.1 646 32.3 828 41.5 301 15.1 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 17 12.1 43 30.5 57 40.4 24 17.0




110

Eighty-three percent (n = 2,802) of Staff62 respondents felt that their supervisors provided

adequate support for them to manage work-life balance (Table 25). Eighty-seven percent (n =

920) of Men and 82% (n =1,836) of Women respondents felt that their supervisors were

supportive of work-life balance. A higher percentage of Heterosexual respondents (84%, n =

2,466) than LGBQ respondents (75%, n = 176) felt that their supervisors were supportive in this

way. Finally, 91% (n = 95) of Asian/Asian American respondents felt that their supervisors were

supportive of work-life balance versus 85% (n = 126) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic, 79% (n =

231) of Black/African American respondents, 83% (n = 2,137) of White respondents, 79% (n =

19) of Other People of Color, and 80% (n = 121) of Mixed Race respondents.

Eighteen percent (n = 615) of Staff62 respondents felt 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. Twenty percent of Exempt Staff respondents versus 15% of Non-Exempt

Staff respondents felt this way. In terms of sexual identity, 28% (n = 63) of LGBQ respondents

versus 18% (n = 515) of Heterosexual respondents felt that people who do not have children

were burdened with work responsibilities. Those respondents with No Affiliation (23%, n = 216)

and Multiple Affiliations (20%, n = 30) versus those with Other Faith-Based Affiliations (19%, n

= 27) and a Christian Affiliation (16%, n = 323) felt this way. Finally, 27% (n = 40) of

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 18% (n = 466) of White respondents, 18% (n = 27) of

Mixed Race respondents, and 13% (n = 38) of Black/African American respondents felt that

people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do

have children.63

Twenty-two percent (n = 723) of Staff62 respondents felt they were burdened by work

responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g.,

committee memberships, departmental/program work assignments). Exempt Staff (25%, n =

479) were more likely to feel this way compared to Non-Exempt Staff respondents (18%, n =

218). In terms of gender/gender identity, a higher percentage of Men respondents (24%, n = 245)

62Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff. If differences occurred between UF Staff and UAA staff the differences are offered in the tables. 63Asian/Asian American respondents and Other People of Color respondents were excluded from this analysis due to low numbers.



111

felt burdened by these work responsibilities than did Women respondents (21%, n = 456).

Finally, 27% (n = 86) of respondents with Disabilities and 21% (n = 632) of respondents with No

Disability felt burdened by work responsibilities compared to colleagues with similar

performance expectations.

Forty-one percent (n = 1,356) of Staff64 respondents suggested 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). Exempt Staff

(44%, n = 845) were more likely to feel this way compared to Non-Exempt Staff respondents

(37%, n = 453).

Thirty-eight percent (n = 1,231) of Staff64 respondents felt that people who have children or elder

care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and evenings

programing, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district breaks).

Exempt Staff (42%, n = 769) were more likely to feel this way compared to Non-Exempt Staff

respondents (33%, n = 401). A higher percentage of Women respondents (39%, n = 830) than

Men respondents (38%, n = 38) felt that people with children or elder care were burdened with

these responsibilities. Fifty-one percent (n = 152) of respondents with Disabilities versus 37% (n

= 1,075) of respondents with No Disability felt this way. With regard to military status, 39% (n =

1,166) of respondents with No Military Service and 27% (n = 50) of respondents with Military

Service felt this burden. Finally, in terms of race/ethnicity, 31% (n = 86) of Black/African

American respondents, 36% (n = 50) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 26% (n = 6) of

Other People of Color, 39% (n = 955) of White respondents, and 42% of Mixed respondents felt

this burden.

Sixty-five percent (n = 2,073) of Staff64 respondents felt that UF provided adequate resources to

help them manage work-life balance (e.g., child care, wellness services, elder care, housing

location assistance, transportation). A higher percentage of Non-Exempt Staff respondents (68%,

n = 820) than Exempt Staff respondents (62%, n = 1,143) felt that UF provided these resources.




112

A higher percentage of Men respondents (72%, n = 713) felt that UF provided these resources

compared to Women respondents (63%, n = 1,330). Sixty-six percent (n = 1,839) of

Heterosexual respondents and 55% (n = 118) of LGBQ respondents felt that UF provided these

resources. A significantly higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (66%, n = 1,903)

than those with Disabilities (55%, n = 165) felt this way. Finally, in terms of faith-based

affiliation, 67% (n = 1,267) of those with a Christian Affiliation, 71% (n = 97) of respondents

with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 62% (n = 559) of those with No Affiliation, and 63% (n =

92) of those with Multiple Affiliations felt that UF provided these resources.

Table 25. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Work-Life Balance

Perception

Strongly

agree n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


My supervisor provides adequate support for me to manage work-life balance. 1,359 40.1 1,443 42.6 377 11.1 206 6.1

Position statuslxxii Staff 1,274 39.5 1,386 43.0 365 11.3 202 6.3 University Athletic Association 85 53.8 57 36.1 12 7.6 < 5 ---

Gender/Gender identitylxxiii Woman 893 39.5 943 41.7 277 12.3 146 6.5 Man 447 42.1 473 44.5 88 8.3 54 5.1

Sexual identitylxxiv LGBQ 85 36.3 91 38.9 38 16.2 20 8.5 Heterosexual 1,206 40.9 1,260 42.7 320 10.8 164 5.6

Race/Ethnicitylxxv Asian/Asian American 53 51.0 42 40.4 8 7.7 < 5 --- Black/African American 90 31.1 141 48.8 36 12.5 22 7.6

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 52 35.1 74 50.0 13 8.8 9 6.1 Other People of Color 8 33.3 11 45.8 < 5 --- < 5 --- White 1,075 41.9 1,062 41.4 279 10.9 151 5.9 Mixed Race 57 37.5 64 42.1 23 15.1 8 5.3



113

Table 25 (cont.)

Strongly

agree n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

People who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends) beyond those who do have children. 175 5.2 440 13.2 1,786 53.4 942 28.2

Staff statuslxxvi Exempt 105 5.4 285 14.8 1,065 55.2 476 24.7 Non-Exempt 54 4.3 131 10.5 641 51.2 425 34.0

Sexual identitylxxvii LGBQ 17 7.6 46 20.5 117 52.2 44 19.6 Heterosexual 147 5.0 368 12.6 1,566 53.5 846 28.9

Faith-based affiliationlxxviii Christian Affiliation 86 4.3 237 11.9 1,068 53.4 609 30.5 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 7 4.8 20 13.7 79 54.1 40 27.4


Race/Ethnicitylxxix Asian/Asian American < 5 --- 14 13.9 51 50.5 33 32.7 Black/African American 8 2.8 30 10.5 149 51.9 100 34.8 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 13 8.7 27 18.1 68 45.6 41 27.5 Other People of Color 0 0 < 5 --- 12 50.0 9 37.5 White 129 5.1 337 13.3 1,367 53.9 701 27.7 Mixed Race 11 7.2 16 10.5 89 58.6 36 23.7

Burdened by work responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments). 167 5.0 556 16.7 1,937 58.3 661 19.9

Staff statuslxxx Exempt 101 5.3 378 19.7 1,132 59.1 306 16.0 Non-Exempt 57 4.6 161 13.0 702 56.5 323 26.0

Gender/Gender identitylxxxi Woman 103 4.6 353 15.9 1,291 58.2 472 21.3 Man 58 5.6 187 18.0 613 58.9 182 17.5

Disability statuslxxxii Disability 31 9.8 55 17.4 173 54.7 57 18.0 No Disability 134 4.5 498 16.6 1,760 58.8 601 20.1

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). 357 10.8 999 30.3 1,567 47.5 337 11.4

Staff statuslxxxiii Exempt 225 11.8 620 32.5 892 46.7 172 9.0 Non-Exempt 118 9.6 335 27.2 598 48.6 180 14.6



114

Table 25 (cont.)

Strongly

agree n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

People who have children or elder care are burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and evenings programming, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district breaks). 240 7.5 991 30.9 1,592 49.7 382 11.9

Staff statuslxxxiv Exempt 145 7.9 624 33.9 910 49.4 162 8.8 Non-Exempt 83 6.9 318 26.4 607 50.4 197 16.3

Gender/Gender identitylxxxv Woman 183 8.5 647 30.1 1,056 49.1 263 12.2 Man 53 5.3 325 32.5 508 50.7 115 11.5

Disability statuslxxxvi Disability 36 12.0 116 38.8 120 40.1 27 9.0 No Disability 203 7.0 872 30.1 1,467 50.7 353 12.2

Military statuslxxxvii Military Service 9 4.8 41 22.0 113 60.8 23 12.4 No Military Service 225 7.6 941 31.6 1,457 48.9 357 12.0

Race/Ethnicitylxxxviii Asian/Asian American < 5 --- 34 35.4 47 49.0 11 11.5 Black/African American 23 8.3 63 22.7 150 54.0 42 15.1

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 11 7.8 39 27.7 66 46.8 25 17.7 Other People of Color 0 0 6 26.1 13 56.5 < 5 --- White 175 7.2 780 32.1 1,199 49.4 274 11.3 Mixed Race 19 13.0 42 28.8 68 46.6 17 11.6

UF provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.). 307 9.7 1,766 55.5 875 27.5 233 7.3

Position statuslxxxix Staff 281 9.3 1,674 55.3 846 27.9 226 7.5 University Athletic Association 26 16.9 92 59.7 29 18.8 7 4.5

Staff statusxc Exempt 144 7.8 999 54.3 543 29.5 153 8.3 Non-Exempt 137 11.6 673 56.8 303 25.6 71 6.0

Gender/Gender identityxci Woman 209 9.8 1,121 52.7 620 29.2 176 8.3 Man 94 9.4 619 62.1 231 23.2 53 5.3

Sexual identityxcii LGBQ 14 6.5 104 48.6 77 36.0 19 8.9 Heterosexual 275 9.9 1,564 56.3 744 26.8 197 7.1

Disability statusxciii Disability 20 6.6 145 48.2 93 30.9 43 14.3 No Disability 287 10.0 1,616 56.3 778 27.1 188 6.6



115


Seventy-five percent (n = 2,544) of Staff65 respondents reported that they were able to complete

their assigned duties during scheduled hours (Table 26). A higher percentage of Non-Exempt

Staff respondents (87%, n = 1,105) than Exempt Staff respondents (67%, n = 1,312) felt that they

could complete their assigned duties during scheduled hours. Seventy-six percent (n = 2,321) of

respondents with No Disability and 66% (n = 215) of those with Disabilities felt this way.

Finally, in terms of race/ethnicity, 90% (n = 94) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 83% (n =

240) of Black/African American respondents, 77% (n = 116) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 87% (n = 20) of Other People of Color, 74% (n = 1,902) of White respondents, and

72% (n = 108) of Mixed Race respondents felt this way.

Twenty-seven percent (n = 916) of Staff65 respondents felt they were pressured by

departmental/program work requirements that occurred outside of normally scheduled hours. A

higher percentage of Exempt Staff respondents (34%, n = 667) than Non-Exempt Staff

respondents (16%, n = 200) felt that this was the case. In addition, more Men respondents (31%,

n = 336) than Women respondents (25%, n = 559) felt this way. Thirty-four percent (n = 109) of

respondents with Disabilities felt this pressure versus 26% (n = 802) of respondents with No

Disability. Finally, in terms of race/ethnicity, 20% (n = 21) of Asian/Asian American

respondents, 19% (n = 55) of Black/African American respondents, 29% (n = 43) of

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 28% (n = 715) of White respondents, and 29% (n = 43)

of Mixed Race respondents66 felt they were pressured by departmental/program work

requirements that occurred outside of normally scheduled hours.

65Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff. If differences occurred between UF Staff and UAA staff the differences are offered in the tables. 66Other People of Color respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers and to ensure confidentiality.

Table 25 (cont.)

Strongly

agree n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Faith-based affiliationxciv Christian Affiliation 205 10.8 1,062 55.7 514 27.0 124 6.5 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 8 5.8 89 65.0 31 22.6 9 6.6




116

Eighty-four percent (n = 2,865) of Staff67 respondents believed that they were given a reasonable

time frame to complete assigned responsibilities. Eighty-nine percent (n = 1,133) were Non-

Exempt Staff and 81% (n = 1,587) were Exempt Staff respondents. A higher percentage of


248) felt that they were given a reasonable time frame to complete their assigned responsibilities.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 1,337) of Staff67 respondents felt that a hierarchy existed within staff

positions that allowed some voices to be valued more than others. A higher percentage of

Exempt Staff (69%, n = 1,337) versus Non-Exempt Staff (65%, n = 809) respondents felt that

this hierarchy existed. The same was true for respondents with Disabilities (77%, n = 251)

compared to respondents with No Disability (66%, n = 1,992).


Table 26. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workload

Perception

Strongly

agree n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


I am able to complete my assigned duties during scheduled hours. 931 27.4 1,613 47.5 623 18.4 226 6.7

Staff statusxcv Exempt 420 21.4 892 45.5 478 24.4 171 8.7 Non-Exempt 454 35.7 651 51.3 118 9.3 47 3.7

Disability statusxcvi Disability 72 22.2 143 44.1 74 22.8 35 10.8 No Disability 858 28.1 1,463 47.9 547 17.9 188 6.2

Race/Ethnicityxcvii Asian/Asian American 44 42.3 50 48.1 7 6.7 < 5 --- Black/African American 91 31.6 149 51.7 35 12.2 13 4.5

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 41 27.3 75 50.0 25 16.7 9 6.0 Other People of Color 9 39.1 11 47.8 < 5 --- < 5 --- White 679 26.3 1,223 47.5 500 19.4 175 6.8 Mixed Race 46 30.5 62 41.1 26 17.2 17 11.3



117


Table 26 (cont.)

Strongly

agree n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

I am pressured by departmental/program work requirements that occur outside of my normally scheduled hours. 255 7.5 661 19.5 1,736 51.1 745 21.9

Staff statusxcviii Exempt 194 9.9 473 24.1 993 50.6 304 15.5 Non-Exempt 43 3.4 157 12.3 665 52.3 407 32.0

Gender/Gender identityxcix Woman 146 6.5 413 18.3 1,172 51.8 531 23.5 Man 102 9.5 234 21.9 531 49.6 203 19.0

Disability statusc Disability 30 9.3 79 24.6 142 44.2 70 21.8 No Disability 223 7.3 579 18.9 1,588 51.8 673 22.0

Race/Ethnicityci Asian/Asian American 7 6.7 14 13.5 62 59.6 21 20.2 Black/African American 18 6.2 37 12.8 153 52.8 82 28.3

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 7 4.7 36 24.0 71 47.3 36 24.0 Other People of Color < 5 --- 7 29.2 11 45.8 5 20.8 White 194 7.5 521 20.2 1,312 51.0 548 21.3 Mixed Race 18 11.8 27 17.6 72 47.1 36 23.5

I am given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities. 825 24.3 2,040 60.0 439 12.9 97 2.9

Position statuscii Staff 767 23.6 1,955 60.3 428 13.2 94 2.9 University Athletic Association 58 36.9 85 54.1 11 7.0 < 5 ---

Staff statusciii Exempt 391 19.9 1,196 60.9 3009 15.7 68 3.5 Non-Exempt 376 29.5 757 59.3 118 9.2 25 2.0

Disability statusciv Disability 58 18.1 190 59.4 54 16.9 18 5.6 No Disability 767 25.0 1,842 60.0 382 12.4 78 2.5

There is a hierarchy within staff positions that allows some voices to be valued more than others. 801 23.9 1,451 43.2 885 26.4 218 6.5

Staff statuscv Exempt 460 23.7 877 45.1 516 26.5 91 4.7 Non-Exempt 309 24.7 500 40.0 324 25.9 117 9.4

Disability statuscvi Disability 119 36.7 132 40.7 58 17.9 15 4.6 No Disability 675 22.4 1,317 43.6 825 27.3 202 6.7



118

Eight hundred fifty-three Staff68 participants responded to the question to elaborate on issues of

evaluation, support, work-life balance, resources, and hierarchy.

Lack of Work-Life Balance. Twenty-eight percent of respondents expressed concerns about

issues related to work-life balance. Many commented that high workload expectations was

“stressful.” One respondent observed, “There is a significant amount of pressure to work more

than the typical 40 hours work week very frequently. As an exempt employee there is a belief in

my department that I should expect at least a 45 to 50 hours work week as the norm.” Several

respondents discussed flex time and telecommuting. Some respondents had a work place that

allowed flexibility while others simply wished it were possible. One respondent wrote, “Flexible

schedules would help the staff balance work/life better. Offering 10 hour days or flexible

start/end times,” while another shared, “More flexibility with work hours and working from

home option would be great.” Respondents also discussed how the freedom to use accumulated

leave varied. One respondent shared, “Some supervisors are more strict than others about using

sick leave (making you feel guilty for staying home if you aren't feeling well), or not allowing

you to take breaks or flexible lunches.” Another noted, “I ask for time off and I can hardly get it.

I have accumulated quite a bit of time, but there is nothing I can do.” Many respondents

commented on the difficulty of finding a work-life balance in general, which was helped or

hindered depending on their current workplace climate. One respondent shared, “Work and life

balance is difficult in any position. My area is reasonable in our approach to allowing for as

much balance as possible. It has gotten much better during the past year. It would help if we had

a better telecommuting policy/program as much work can be completed from alternative work

location and cut down on traffic/drive time for employees. This also supports work-life balance.

Overall, supervisors must ensure fairness in providing these types of opportunities to all staff

regardless of their status as a caregiver.”

Unequal Treatment. Twenty-two percent of responses were concerned with issues of inequity.

Respondents were concerned about different treatment between staff/faculty, new staff/old staff,

part-time/full-time status, different departments/disciplines, and people with children and people




119

without children. One respondent noted simply, “It varies on each position/College/Department.”

The issues that respondents included (but were not limited to) salary, raises, leave, work

distribution, accountability, management style, voice in decision-making, and on-call duties. One

respondent wrote, “Staff who do not have skills or are not motivated fail to meet their

responsibilities, other staff pick up the slack. Poor performance of those staff is not addressed

and there is inequitable distribution of work load.” Another shared, “There is definitely a

hierarchy that allows some voices to be valued more than others within my department and

division.” Another respondent offered, “Some areas of the university offer employees great

work/life balance opportunities and benefits, others don't. Working in an area that is essential

service means that we don't get the usual flexibility of time off that other university departments

get and being understaffed requires overtime on a regular basis.” One respondent concerned

about child/no child differences wrote, “People with children are allowed a LOT of leeway for

coming in late, vacations, etc. whereas people without children are not.” One respondent wrote,

“The ‘regular’ staff in our department do not receive any respect from upper level management.

In fact, we are often treated as unimportant or less important.”

Sometimes this concern about inequity was based on favoritism in the department, which some

saw as a result of the “good ole boy” network. One respondent wrote, “I feel there are gross pay

disparities all over campus and that seniority means nothing…if you are not a good ole boy you

don't get merit raises and if you are not in the click in other parts of campus you may or may not

get raises when others who do less work than you get raises, but when you inquire about them

‘Money isn't available now or we aren't authorized to give raises right now.’ when coworkers

received them shortly before. Work distribution is not equal in many parts of campus.” One

theme that came up several times within the equity theme was that those who do well, get more

work, which leads to inequity in workload. As one respondent described it, “Strong performers

are given more work with higher expectations rather than dealing with poor performers.

Individuals who are problematic across organizational lines are similarly ignored and there are

no apparent consequences.”

Inadequate Performance Evaluations. Evaluation was the subject of 14% of respondents. Many

felt that evaluation was “a joke” and subject to great variation depending on supervisor and/or



120

department. One respondent wrote, “The performance evaluation process is too subjective. One

supervisor may interpret level 5 performance different from another supervisor such that an

employee's evaluation is entirely dependent upon the supervisor's interpretation.” Others felt that

the evaluation was “useless” because it wasn’t tied to any form of promotion or pay raise. One

respondent stated, “The performance evaluation process here is meaningless and is not related to

raises/salary.” Some respondents were frustrated that there seemed to be a cap on performance

ratings. One respondent explained, “I was told by one supervisor that nobody can be rated

“exceeds expectations” because there is always room for improvement. Another supervisor told

me that they were lowering all the ratings this year, because too many high ratings were given

last year. I get good reviews, but I feel that the review process is too subjective.” Another

concern was that the evaluation fails to take into account requirements of specific jobs, as this

respondent noted, “The division I work for does not utilize the standard UF evaluation form. The

form used is vague and does not easily translate to my duties or the duties of the employees who

I supervise.”

Family Concerns. Fifteen percent of respondents wrote about family-related concerns such as

child care, elder care, FMLA, and family responsibilities. Many commented on child care, noting

that “Baby Gator” was very difficult to get into (a waitlist of one year or more) and expensive.

One respondent wrote, “Baby Gator Village Drive is nearly impossible to get into and then the

ones close to the Health Science Center want to charge staff members the same rates for

childcare as faculty members making it exclusionary due to affordability.” Others commented on

the extent to which they had received support from the university when dealing with issues of

elder care or child care responsibilities. Some had had very positive experiences such as the

respondent who shared, “The department has been very good to me regarding end-care for my

mother several years ago. Then again when my grandmother had surgery and required extensive

home care they flexed my schedule and made arrangements so I could work from home for a

small period of time while my grandmother recovered.” Another respondent wrote, “I feel that

UF gives me plenty of time off for times when my child is sick or something happens and I need

to go home.” Others had more negative experiences, such as the individual who shared, “How

we treat absences and how we treat family care is so subjective at UF. If you work in a

supportive department, our leave policies are interpreted more beneficially. If you have



121

supervisors who are less understanding, it can be a real problem since HR sees 3 absences in a

month as excessive and it can cause HR issues because of being in violation of the leave policy. I

have a coworker with limited childcare options who has been penalized for needing to take the

days off that the Alachua County School Board and her daycare have off so she can watch her

children.”

Several respondents expressed concern over the way UF handles maternity-related issues. One

respondent noted that, “While it is great that UF offers some type of maternity leave, the fact that

it is unpaid provides no help to a working mother. Without pay or benefits during that period,

how is a mom supposed to be able to care for her new child without the stresses and pressure of

returning to work?” Others, even those without children, were more concerned with the need to

match University vacation days with the schedule of the local school system. One respondent

wrote, “County school holidays when UF is open puts an increased burden on staff without

children to cover the workload of those who need to take leave when schools are closed.”

xlvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had supervisors who gave them career advice by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,400) = 21.9, p < .001. xlviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had supervisors who gave them career advice by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,388) = 43.6, p < .001. xlviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had supervisors who gave them career advice by citizenship status: χ2 (9, N = 3,373) = 18.2, p < .05. xlviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had colleagues/coworkers who gave them career advice by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,386) = 18.9, p < .001. xlixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had colleagues/coworkers who gave them career advice by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,322) = 11.0, p < .05. lA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had colleagues/coworkers who gave them career advice by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,373) = 33.4, p < .001. liA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had colleagues/coworkers who gave them career advice by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,286) = 25.2, p < .05. liiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt included in opportunities to help their career by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,376) = 12.2, p < .01. liiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt included in opportunities to help their career by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,366) = 34.3, p < .001. livA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt included in opportunities to help their career by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,274) = 17.8, p < .05. lvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,227) = 20.4, p < .001. lviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,325) = 12.1, p < .01.



122

lviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,376) = 24.4, p < .001. lviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,284) = 39.8, p < .001. lixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation criteria were clear by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,219) = 27.3, p < .001. lxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation criteria were clear by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,366) = 27.0, p < .001. lxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation criteria were clear by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,276) = 38.3, p < .001. lxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was productive by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,346) = 15.8, p < .001. lxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was productive by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,187) = 25.2, p < .001. lxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was productive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,285) = 21.3, p < .001. lxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was productive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,334) = 30.2, p < .001. lxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was productive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,244) = 35.7, p < .001. lxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,341) = 19.6, p < .001. lxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,181) = 35.6 p < .001. lxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,279) = 9.1 p < .05. lxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,329) = 34.3, p < .001. lxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,239) = 35.9, p < .001. lxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor provided adequate support by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,385) = 14.7, p < .01. lxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor provided adequate support by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,321) = 15.2, p < .01. lxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor provided adequate support by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,184) = 10.8, p < .05. lxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor provided adequate support by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,284) = 28.8, p < .05. lxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people without children are burdened with work responsibilities by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,182) = 38.1, p < .001. lxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people without children are burdened with work responsibilities by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,151) = 19.1, p < .001. lxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people without children are burdened with work responsibilities by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,245) = 26.7, p < .01. lxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people without children are burdened with work responsibilities by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,247) = 25.9, p < .05. lxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt burdened by work responsibilities by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,160) = 59.9, p < .001.



123

lxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt burdened by work responsibilities by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,259) = 8.2, p < .05. lxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt burdened by work responsibilities by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,309) = 17.8, p < .001. lxxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they performed more work than their colleagues by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,140) = 31.7, p < .001. lxxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people with children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,046) = 49.6, p < .001. lxxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people with children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,150) = 11.4, p < .01. lxxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people with children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,194) = 24.1, p < .001. lxxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people with children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family by military status: χ2 (3, N = 3,166) = 11.8, p < .01. lxxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people with children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,112) = 27.9, p < .05. lxxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provides resources to manage work/life balance by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,181) = 15.4, p < .001. xcA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provides resources to manage work/life balance by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,023) = 20.9, p < .001. xciA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provides resources to manage work/life balance by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,123) = 27.9, p < .001. xciiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provides resources to manage work/life balance by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 2,994) = 11.4, p < .01. xciiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provides resources to manage work/life balance by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,170) = 30.2, p < .001. xcivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provides resources to manage work/life balance by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,090) = 18.2, p < .05. xcvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they could complete their duties during scheduled hours by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,231) = 187.8, p < .001. xcviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they could complete their duties during scheduled hours by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,380) = 18.0, p < .001. xcviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they could complete their duties during scheduled hours by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,293) = 42.9, p < .001. xcviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured by work requirements outside of scheduled hours by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,236) = 195.5, p < .001. xcixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured by work requirements outside of scheduled hours by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,332) = 21.5, p < .001. cA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured by work requirements outside of scheduled hours by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,384) = 9.8, p < .05. ciA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured by work requirements outside of scheduled hours by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,296) = 27.9, p < .05. ciiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had a reasonable time frame to complete responsibilities by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,401) = 16.8, p < .001.



124

ciiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had a reasonable time frame to complete responsibilities by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,240) = 60.9, p < .001. civA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had a reasonable time frame to complete responsibilities by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,389) = 19.8, p < .001 cvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt a hierarchy existed within staff positions by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,194) = 30.7, p < .001. cviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt a hierarchy existed within staff positions by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,343) = 37.8, p < .001.



125

Staff69 Respondents’ Feelings of Value at the University of Florida One question in the survey queried Staff respondents about their opinions on a variety of topics,

including their support from supervisors and the institution, and UF’s benefits and salary. Tables

27 through 31 illustrate Staff responses to these items. Analyses were conducted by position

status, staff status (Exempt or Non-Exempt), gender/gender identity, sexual identity,70 disability

status, faith-based affiliation, citizenship status, military status, and race/ethnicity; significant

differences are presented in the tables.

Eighty-five percent (n = 2,861) of Staff respondents believed that UF provided them with

resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities (Table 27). A significantly

higher percentage of Exempt Staff respondents (83%, n = 1,624) versus 39% (n = 491) of Non-

Exempt Staff respondents felt that UF provided these resources. Among Women respondents,

86% (n = 1,934) felt this way versus 83% (n = 877) of Men respondents. By sexual identity, 86%

(n = 2,521) of Heterosexual respondents and 78% (n = 181) of LGBQ respondents felt this way.

Eight-six (n = 2,603) of respondents with No Disability versus 78% (n = 248) of those with

Disabilities felt that UF provided these resources. Finally, by faith-based affiliation, 87% (n =

1,685) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 88% (n =127) of those with Other Faith-Based

Affiliations, 83% (n =796) of those with No Affiliation, and 77% (n = 120) of those with

Multiple Affiliations felt that UF provided resources to pursue training/professional development

opportunities.

Seventy-two percent (n = 2,429) of Staff respondents thought their supervisors provided them

with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities. Seventy-three percent

(n = 2,223) of respondents with No Disability felt that their supervisors provided these resources

versus 63% (n = 200) of those respondents with Disabilities.

Ninety percent (n = 2,877) of Staff respondents indicated that UF was supportive of taking

extended leave (e.g., FMLA, parental). Ninety-one percent (n = 2,546) of Heterosexual

69Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff. If differences occurred between UF Staff and UAA staff the differences are offered in the tables. 70Other respondents in terms of sexual identity (n = 34) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few to maintain the confidentiality of their responses.



126

respondents felt that UF was supportive versus 83% (n = 176) of LGBQ respondents. With

regard to faith-based affiliation, 91% (n = 1,768) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation,

90% (n = 123) of those with Other-Faith-Based Affiliations, 87% (n = 778) of those with No

Affiliation, and 89% (n = 131) of those with Multiple Affiliations felt that UF was supportive of

taking extended leave.

Eighty-nine percent (n = 2,986) of Staff respondents believed that their supervisors were

supportive of their taking leave (e.g., vacation, parental, personal, short-term disability). A

higher percentage of Men respondents (91%, n = 967) versus Women respondents (88%, n =

1,964) felt that their supervisors were supportive of leave. With regard to sexual identity, 89% (n

= 2,622) of Heterosexual respondents and 84% (n = 192) of LGBQ respondents felt this way.

With regard to disability status, 90% (n = 2,725) of respondents with No Disability and 80% (n =

250) of respondents with Disabilities felt that their supervisors were supportive of taking leave.

Eighty-five percent (n = 2,649) of Staff respondents agreed that UF policies (e.g., FMLA) were

applied fairly across UF. Eighty-five percent of Heterosexual respondents (n = 2,344) and 76%

(n = 160) of LGBQ respondents felt that this was the case. With regard to disability status, 86%

(n = 2,411) of respondents with No Disability and 76% (n = 229) of respondents with Disabilities

felt that UF policies are applied fairly. Among faith-based affiliations, 88% (n = 1,663) of those

with a Christian Affiliation, 84% (n = 112) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations,

81% (n = 700) of those with No Affiliation, and 75% (n = 108) of those with Multiple

Affiliations felt that this was the case. Finally, 85% (n = 2,472) of those respondents with No

Military Service versus 81% (n = 148) of those with Military Service felt that UF policies were

applied fairly across UF.

Sixty-nine percent (n = 2,264) of Staff respondents believed that UF was supportive of flexible

work schedules. A higher percentage of Non-Exempt Staff respondents (71%, n = 868) felt that

UF was supportive of flexible schedules versus Exempt Staff respondents (67%, n = 1,260).

Seventy-three percent (n = 749) of Men and 67% (n = 1,470) of Women respondents felt this

way. Additionally, a higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (70%, n = 2,059)

compared to respondents with Disabilities (65%, n = 198) felt that UF was supportive of flexible



127

work schedules. Among faith-based affiliations, 71% (n = 1,398) of respondents with a Christian

Affiliation, 70% (n = 97) of those with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 66% (n = 611) of those

with No Affiliation, and 63% (n = 95) of those with Multiple Affiliations felt that UF was

supportive in this way. Finally, with regard to race/ethnicity, 77% (n = 74) of Asian/Asian

American respondents, 77% (n = 217) of Black/African American respondents, 69% (n = 102) of

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 69% (n = 1,705) of White respondents, and 65% (n =

96) of Mixed Race respondents felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules.

Seventy-three percent (n = 2,389) of Staff respondents thought that their supervisors were

supportive of flexible work schedules. A higher percentage of Men respondents (77%, n = 800)

than Women respondents (70%, n = 1,544) felt this way. Seventy-three percent (n = 2,170) of

those respondents with No Disability versus 68% (n = 210) of those with Disabilities felt that

their supervisors were supportive of flexible work schedules. Finally, with regard to

race/ethnicity, 86% (n = 85) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 77% (n = 215) of

Black/African American respondents, 76% (n = 113) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents,

50% (n = 12) of Other People of Color, 72% (n = 1,800) of White respondents, and 70% (n =

105) of Mixed Race respondents felt this way.



128


Perception of workplace climate

Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


UF provides me with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities. 896 26.6 1,965 58.4 421 12.5 84 2.5

Position statuscvii Staff 840 26.2 1,883 58.6 407 12.7 81 2.5 University Athletic Association 56 36.1 82 52.9 14 9.0 < 5 ---

Staff statuscviii Exempt 479 24.6 1,145 58.7 275 14.1 51 2.6 Non-Exempt 361 28.7 130 10.4 130 10.4 30 2.4

Gender/Gender identitycix Woman 624 27.8 1,310 58.4 254 11.3 54 2.4 Man 263 24.8 614 57.8 158 14.9 27 2.5

Sexual identitycx LGBQ 52 22.5 129 55.8 37 16.0 13 5.6 Heterosexual 807 27.4 1,714 58.2 355 12.1 67 2.3

Disability statuscxi Disability 73 22.9 175 54.9 56 17.6 14 4.7 No Disability 822 27.1 1,781 58.7 363 12.0 69 2.3

Faith-based affiliationcxii Christian Affiliation 568 28.3 1,117 58.3 228 11.3 43 2.1 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 51 35.2 76 52.4 16 11.0 < 5 --- No Affiliation 228 23.9 568 59.5 125 13.1 34 3.6 Multiple Affiliations 33 21.3 87 56.1 31 20.0 < 5 ---

My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities. 824 24.6 1,605 47.8 730 21.8 197 5.9

Position statuscxiii Staff 773 24.1 1,533 47.9 700 21.9 195 6.1 University Athletic Association 51 32.9 72 46.5 30 19.4 < 5 ---

Disability statuscxiv Disability 54 17.1 146 46.2 82 25.9 34 10.8 No Disability 769 25.4 1,454 48.0 646 21.3 161 5.3

UF is supportive of taking extended leave (e.g., FMLA, parental). 911 28.5 1,966 61.5 253 7.9 67 2.1

Sexual identitycxv LGBQ 51 24.1 125 59.0 28 13.2 8 3.8 Heterosexual 817 29.1 1,729 61.7 204 7.3 53 1.9

Faith-based affiliationcxvi Christian Affiliation 587 30.3 1,181 61.0 131 6.8 36 1.9 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 38 27.9 85 62.5 12 8.8 < 5 ---

No Affiliation 230 25.8 548 61.6 88 9.9 24 2.7 Multiple Affiliations 36 24.3 95 64.2 13 8.8 < 5 ---



129

Table 27 (cont.)

Strongly agree

n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

My supervisor is supportive of my taking leave (e.g., vacation, parental, personal, short-term disability). 1,289 38.4 1,697 50.5 258 7.7 115 3.4

Gender/Gender identitycxvii Woman 845 37.8 1,119 50.1 190 8.5 81 3.6 Man 427 40.2 540 50.9 64 6.0 30 2.8

Sexual identitycxviii LGBQ 91 39.6 101 43.9 25 10.9 13 5.7 Heterosexual 1,131 38.5 1,491 50.7 220 7.5 96 3.3

Disability statuscxix Disability 103 32.8 147 46.8 36 11.5 28 8.9 No Disability 1,182 39.0 1,543 50.9 220 7.3 87 2.9

UF policies (e.g., FMLA) are fairly applied across UF. 696 22.3 1,953 62.6 353 11.3 120 3.8

Position statuscxx Staff 653 22.0 1,854 62.4 346 11.6 118 4.0 University Athletic Association 43 28.5 99 65.6 7 4.6 < 5 ---

Sexual identitycxxi LGBQ 31 14.8 129 61.4 34 16.2 16 7.6 Heterosexual 627 22.9 1,717 62.8 293 10.7 97 3.5

Disability statuscxxii Disability 57 19.0 172 57.3 46 15.3 25 8.3 No Disability 638 22.7 1,773 63.1 307 10.9 93 3.3

Faith-based affiliationcxxiii Christian Affiliation 460 24.3 1,203 63.4 177 9.3 56 3.036 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 36 26.9 76 56.7 17 12.7 5 3.7


Military statuscxxiv Military Service 24 13.2 124 68.1 22 12.1 12 6.6 No Military Service 663 22.8 1,809 62.3 327 11.3 106 3.6

UF is supportive of flexible work schedules. 570 17.4 1,694 51.8 751 23.0 257 7.9

Position statuscxxv Staff 519 16.6 1,611 51.7 731 23.4 257 8.2 University Athletic Association 51 33.1 83 53.9 20 13.0 0 0

Staff statuscxxvi Exempt 277 14.7 983 52.2 461 24.5 163 8.7 Non-Exempt 242 19.7 626 50.9 269 21.9 93 7.6

Gender/Gender identitycxxvii Woman 373 17.1 1,097 50.3 529 24.2 183 8.4 Man 187 18.2 562 54.6 214 20.8 66 6.4

Disability statuscxxviii Disability 39 12.8 159 52.1 68 22.3 39 12.8 No Disability 530 17.9 1,529 51.7 680 23.0 218 7.4



130

Note: Table includes Staff and University Athletic Association respondents (n = 3,436) only.

Less than half of Staff respondents (42%, n = 1,392) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that staff

salaries were competitive (Table 28). Among staff, 44% (n = 541) of Non-Exempt Staff and 39%

(n = 750) of Exempt Staff respondents believed this was the case. Forty-three percent (n = 1,283)

of respondents with No Disability and 34% (n = 105) of respondents with Disabilities felt this

way. Finally, with regard to faith-based affiliation, 44% (n = 878) of respondents with a

Christian Affiliation, 52% (n = 74) of those with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 38% (n = 358)

of those with No Affiliation, and 36% (n = 55) of those with Multiple Affiliations felt that

salaries at UF were competitive.

Table 27 (cont.)

Strongly agree

n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Faith-based affiliationcxxix Christian Affiliation 380 19.4 1,018 51.9 431 22.0 134 6.8 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 31 22.5 66 47.8 30 21.7 11 8.0


Race/Ethnicitycxxx Asian/Asian American 23 24.0 51 53.1 19 19.8 < 5 ---

Black/African American 64 22.8 153 54.4 47 16.7 17 6.0 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 29 19.7 73 49.7 31 21.1 14 9.5 Other People of Color < 5 --- 13 59.1 6 27.3 < 5 --- White 417 16.8 1,288 51.8 591 23.8 189 7.6 Mixed Race 27 18.4 69 46.9 33 22.4 18 12.2

My supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. 872 26.5 1,517 46.0 629 19.1 277 8.4

Position statuscxxxi Staff 805 25.6 1,449 46.1 609 19.4 277 8.8 University Athletic Association 67 43.2 68 43.9 20 12.9 0 0

Gender/Gender identitycxxxii Woman 571 26.0 973 44.3 447 20.3 207 9.4 Man 286 27.6 514 49.7 172 16.6 63 6.1

Disability statuscxxxiii Disability 61 19.7 149 48.1 52 16.8 48 15.5 No Disability 808 27.2 1,362 45.8 577 19.4 228 7.7

Race/Ethnicitycxxxiv Asian/Asian American 32 32.3 53 53.5 11 11.1 < 5 ---

Black/African American 76 27.2 139 49.8 41 14.7 23 8.2 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 45 30.2 68 45.6 24 16.1 12 8.1 Other People of Color 5 20.8 7 29.2 11 45.8 < 5 --- White 660 26.5 1,140 45.7 490 19.6 205 8.2 Mixed Race 43 28.7 62 41.3 24 16.0 21 14.0



131

Ninety-two percent (n = 3,095) of Staff respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that vacation

and personal time benefits were competitive. Among staff, 93% (n = 1,811) of Exempt Staff and

91% (n = 1,137) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents felt that vacation and personal time benefits

were competitive. A higher percentage of Men respondents (93%, n = 984) than Women

respondents (92%, n = 2,055) felt this was the case. Among that group, 42% (n = 445) of the

Men and 35% (n = 769) of the Women “strongly agreed” with the statement. With regard to

sexual identity, 93% (n = 2,719) of Heterosexual respondents and 87% (n = 201) of LGBQ

respondents felt that this was the case. Ninety-three percent (n = 1,865) of respondents with a

Christian Affiliation, 89% (n = 130) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 91% (n

= 858) of those with No Affiliation, and 97% (n = 150) of those with Multiple Affiliations

believed this was the case. Finally, 92% (n = 92) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 86% (n

= 241) of Black/African American respondents, 92% (n = 135) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 83% (n = 20) of Other Respondents of Color, 94% (n = 2,388) of White

respondents, and 89% (n = 134) of Mixed Race respondents felt that vacation and personal time

benefits were competitive.

Ninety-three percent (n = 3,117) of Staff respondents thought that health insurance benefits were

competitive. Additionally, 94% (n = 2,823) of respondents with No Disability and 90% (n = 283)

of those with Disabilities felt that the health insurance benefits were competitive. With regard to

citizenship status, 94% (n = 2,786) of respondents who were U.S. Citizens, 89% (n = 166) of

Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, 91% (n = 82) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents, and 95%

(n = 57) of respondents with Multiple Citizenships thought that the health insurance benefits

were competitive. Respondents with Military Service (94%, n = 179) and respondents with No

Military Service (93%, n = 2,899) had similar percentages regarding whether health insurance

benefits were competitive. However, further analysis revealed that a significantly higher

percentage of those with No Military Service (36%, n = 1,130) “strongly agreed” with the

statement versus those with Military Service (28%, n = 54). Finally, 92% (n = 91) of

Asian/Asian American respondents, 91% (n = 256) of Black/African American respondents,

86% (n = 125) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 96% (n = 23) of Other Respondents of

Color, 94% (n = 2,390) of White respondents, and 94% (n = 143) of Mixed Race respondents

believed that health care benefits were competitive.



132

Seventy-four percent (n = 1,995) of Staff respondents indicated that child care benefits were

competitive. Among staff, 76% (n = 229) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 71% (n = 1,092)

of Exempt Staff respondents felt that child care benefits were competitive. A significantly higher

percentage of Men respondents (80%, n = 690) than Women respondents (71%, n = 1,276)

thought that child care benefits were competitive. Finally, 74% (n = 1,817) of respondents with

No Disability and 68% (n = 172) of respondents with Disabilities felt that child care benefits

were competitive.

Eighty-three percent (n = 2,671) of Staff respondents felt that retirement benefits were

competitive. By staff status, 85% (n = 1,022) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 81% (n =

1,505) of Exempt Staff respondents felt that the retirement benefits were competitive. Eighty-

four percent (n = 2,434) of respondents with No Disability and 78% (n = 230) of respondents

with Disabilities felt that this was the case. Finally, 85% (n = 16) of respondents with Military

Service and 83% (n = 2,486) of respondents with No Military Service believed this to be the

case. Further analysis revealed that 15% (n = 28) of respondents with Military Service “strongly

agreed” with the statement versus 22% (n = 649) of respondents with No Military Service.



133

Table 28. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Salary and Benefits


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Staff salaries are competitive. 224 6.8 1,168 35.4 1,196 36.2 715 21.6

Position statuscxxxv

Staff 195 6.2 1,098 34.9 1,155 36.7 701 22.3 University Athletic Association 29 18.8 70 45.5 41 26.6 14 9.1

Staff statuscxxxvi Exempt 92 4.8 658 34.4 742 38.8 422 22.0 Non-Exempt 103 8.4 438 35.6 412 33.5 277 22.5

Disability statuscxxxvii Disability 17 5.5 88 28.4 112 36.1 93 30.0 No Disability 207 6.9 1,076 36.1 1,079 36.2 619 20.8

Faith-based affiliationcxxxviii Christian Affiliation 150 7.6 728 36.8 695 35.2 404 20.4

Other Faith-Based Affiliation 8 5.6 66 46.2 41 28.7 28 19.6 No Affiliation 51 5.5 307 32.9 358 38.4 216 23.2 Multiple Affiliations 11 7.2 44 28.8 59 38.6 39 25.5

Vacation and personal time benefits are competitive. 1,232 36.7 1,863 55.6 217 6.5 41 1.2

Position statuscxxxix Staff 1,158 36.2 1,792 56.0 209 6.5 40 1.3 University Athletic Association 74 48.1 71 46.1 8 5.2 < 5 ---

Staff statuscxl Exempt 725 37.3 1,086 55.9 116 6.0 16 0.8 Non-Exempt 432 34.5 705 56.3 92 7.3 23 1.8

Gender/Gender identitycxli Woman 769 34.5 1,286 57.7 142 6.4 33 1.5 Man 445 42.0 539 50.8 68 6.4 8 0.8

Sexual identitycxlii LGBQ 69 30.0 132 57.4 25 10.9 < 5 --- Heterosexual 1,115 38.1 1,604 54.8 176 6.0 34 1.2

Faith-based affiliationcxliii Christian Affiliation 712 35.5 1,153 57.4 119 5.9 23 1.1 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 54 37.0 76 52.1 15 10.3 < 5 --- No Affiliation 376 40.0 482 51.2 70 7.4 13 1.4 Multiple Affiliations 61 39.4 89 57.4 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Race/Ethnicitycxliv Asian/Asian American 30 30.0 62 62.0 8 8.0 0 0

Black/African American 86 30.7 155 55.4 32 11.4 7 2.5 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 52 35.4 83 56.5 10 6.8 < 5 --- Other People of Color 8 33.3 12 50.0 < 5 --- 0 0 White 972 38.1 1,416 55.5 141 5.5 23 0.9 Mixed Race 61 40.7 73 48.7 11 7.3 5 3.3



134

Table 28 (cont.)

Strongly agree

n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Health insurance benefits are competitive. 1,197 35.8 1,920 57.4 187 5.6 42 1.3

Position statuscxlv Staff 1,105 34.6 1,893 58.4 182 5.7 42 1.3 University Athletic Association 92 59.7 57 37.0 5 3.2 0 0

Disability statuscxlvi Disability 101 32.0 182 57.6 22 7.0 11 3.5 No Disability 1,093 36.2 1,730 57.3 164 5.4 31 1.0

Citizenship statuscxlvii U.S. Citizen 1,100 36.9 1,686 56.6 160 5.4 35 1.2 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 51 27.3 115 61.5 18 9.6 < 5 --- Non-U.S. Citizen 24 26.7 58 64.4 < 5 --- < 5 --- Multiple Citizenships 14 23.3 43 71.7 < 5 --- 0 0

Military statuscxlviii Military Service 54 28.3 125 65.4 12 6.3 0 0 No Military Service 1,130 36.3 1,769 56.8 173 5.6 42 1.3

Race/Ethnicitycxlix Asian/Asian American 26 26.3 65 65.7 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Black/African American 83 29.4 173 61.3 19 6.7 7 2.5 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 47 32.2 78 53.4 19 13.0 < 5 --- Other People of Color 8 33.3 15 62.5 < 5 --- 0 0 White 945 37.1 1,445 56.8 130 5.1 24 0.9 Mixed Race 67 44.1 76 50.0 5 3.3 < 5 ---

Child care benefits are competitive. 384 14.2 1,611 59.6 554 20.5 154 5.7

Position statuscl Staff 339 13.2 1,534 59.8 540 21.1 152 5.9 University Athletic Association 45 32.6 77 55.8 14 10.1 < 5 ---

Staff statuscli Exempt 195 12.7 897 58.3 353 22.9 94 6.1 Non-Exempt 144 14.1 635 62.1 187 18.3 57 5.6

Gender/Gender identityclii Woman 226 12.6 1,050 58.6 389 21.7 128 7.1 Man 155 18.0 535 62.1 150 17.4 22 2.6

Disability statuscliii Disability 23 9.2 149 59.4 56 22.3 23 9.2

No Disability 360 14.7 1,457 59.6 498 20.4 131 5.4

Retirement benefits are competitive. 684 21.3 1,987 61.8 449 14.0 95 3.0

Position statuscliv Staff 611 19.9 1,917 62.5 442 14.4 95 3.1 University Athletic Association 73 48.7 70 46.7 7 4.7 0 0

Staff statusclv Exempt 342 18.4 1,163 62.5 296 15.9 61 3.3 Non-Exempt 269 22.4 753 62.8 144 12.0 33 2.8



135


Fifty-nine percent (n = 1,804) of Staff respondents believed that staff opinions are valued on UF

committees (Table 29). Among staff, 58% (n = 1,030) of Exempt Staff and 57% (n = 647) of

Non-Exempt Staff respondents believed this to be the case. A significantly higher percentage of

Heterosexual respondents (60%, n = 1,620) than LGBQ respondents (53%, n = 109) believed

that staff opinions were valued on committees. When considering disability status, 60% (n =

1,665) of respondents with No Disability and 48% (n = 138) of respondents with Disabilities

believed this to be the case. Finally, 62% (n = 1,150) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation,

58% (n = 80) of those respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 54% (n = 464) of those

with No Affiliation, and 54% (n = 75) of those with Multiple Affiliations believed that staff

opinions were valued in UF committees.

Fifty-two percent (n =1,602) of Staff respondents believed that staff opinions were valued by UF

faculty and administration. Among staff, 52% (n = 604) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and

49% (n = 878) of Exempt Staff respondents believed this to be the case. Heterosexual

respondents (53%, n = 1,436) were more likely than LGBQ respondents (42%, n = 87) to believe

that UF faculty and administration valued staff opinions. Fifty-four percent (n = 1,496) of those

with No Disability and 36% (n = 87) of those respondents with Disabilities believed this to be

the case. Finally, 56% (n = 1,042) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 57% (n = 78) of

respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 44% (n = 288) of those with No Affiliation, and

45% (n = 64) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations felt that staff opinions were valued by UF

faculty and administration.

Eighty-three percent (n = 2,749) of Staff respondents believed that clear expectations of their

responsibilities existed. Regarding staff status, 84% (n = 1,057) of Non-Exempt Staff

Table 28 (cont.)

Strongly agree

n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Disability statusclvi Disability 52 17.6 178 60.3 48 16.3 17 5.8

No Disability 632 21.7 1,802 61.9 398 13.7 77 2.6

Military statusclvii Military Service 28 14.8 132 69.8 27 14.3 < 5 --- No Military Service 649 21.7 1,837 61.5 413 13.8 90 3.0



136

respondents and 81% (n = 1,544) of Exempt Staff respondents felt that clear expectations of their

work responsibilities existed. Eighty-four percent (n = 2,515) of respondents with No Disability

versus 72% (n = 226) of those with Disabilities believed this to be the case. Finally, 85% (n =

1,691) of those with a Christian Affiliation, 85% (n = 123) of those respondents with Other

Faith-Based Affiliations, 80% (n = 754) of those with No Affiliation, and 73% (n = 109) of those

with Multiple Affiliations believed that UF faculty and administration value staff opinions.

Forty percent (n = 1,335) of Staff respondents thought clear procedures on how they could

advance at UF existed. By staff status, 45% (n = 565) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 35%

(n = 691) of Exempt Staff respondents thought that clear procedures on how to advance existed.

A higher percentage of Women respondents (41%, n = 915) versus Men respondents (38%, n =

395) felt that this was the case. Forty-one percent (n = 1,228) of respondents with No Disability

and 33% (n = 103) of respondents with Disabilities believed that clear procedures existed.

Finally, 43% (n = 868) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 43% (n = 60) of those with

Other-Faith-Based Affiliations, 35% (n = 328) of respondents with No Affiliation, and 32% (n =

39) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations believed that clear procedures on how to advance at

the institution existed.



137



Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Staff opinions are valued on UF committees. 275 9.0 1,529 49.9 913 29.8 346 11.3

Position statusclviii Staff 241 8.3 1,437 49.3 896 30.7 343 11.8 University Athletic Association 34 23.3 92 63.0 17 11.6 < 5 ---

Staff statusclix Exempt 128 7.2 902 51.0 539 30.5 198 11.2 Non-Exempt 113 9.9 534 46.6 357 31.2 142 12.4

Sexual identityclx LGBQ 14 6.8 95 46.1 60 29.1 37 18.0 Heterosexual 252 9.4 1,368 50.8 792 29.4 282 10.5

Disability statusclxi Disability 17 5.9 121 41.9 91 31.5 60 20.8 No Disability 258 9.3 1,407 50.8 819 29.6 283 10.2

Faith-based affiliationclxii Christian Affiliation 190 10.3 960 52.1 518 28.1 174 9.4 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 16 11.7 64 46.7 46 33.6 11 8.0 No Affiliation 55 6.4 409 47.3 275 31.8 125 14.5 Multiple Affiliations 11 7.9 64 45.7 43 30.7 22 15.7

Staff opinions are valued by UF faculty and administration. 267 8.6 1,335 43.1 1,030 33.3 462 14.9

Position statusclxiii Staff 231 7.8 1,252 42.4 1,012 34.3 457 15.5 University Athletic Association 36 25.4 83 58.5 18 12.7 5 3.5

Staff statusclxiv Exempt 121 6.7 757 42.2 644 35.9 273 15.2 Non-Exempt 110 9.5 494 42.8 368 31.9 181 15.7

Sexual identityclxv LGBQ 12 5.8 75 36.1 74 35.6 47 22.6 Heterosexual 246 9.1 1,190 43.8 899 33.1 380 14.0

Disability statusclxvi Disability 14 4.8 90 31.1 108 37.4 77 26.6 No Disability 253 9.1 1,243 44.5 918 32.8 381 13.6

Faith-based affiliationclxvii Christian Affiliation 187 10.1 855 46.2 580 31.4 228 12.3 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 15 10.9 63 45.7 45 32.6 15 10.9 No Affiliation 50 5.7 338 38.5 317 36.1 172 19.6 Multiple Affiliations 12 8.5 52 36.6 49 34.5 29 20.4



138


Table 29 (cont.)

Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 726 21.8 2,023 60.8 464 13.9 117 3.5

Position statusclxviii Staff 670 21.1 1,933 60.9 458 14.4 115 3.6 University Athletic Association 56 36.4 90 58.4 6 3.9 < 5 ---

Staff statusclxix Exempt 368 19.2 1,176 61.3 304 15.9 69 3.6 Non-Exempt 301 24.0 756 60.2 153 12.2 45 3.6

Disability statusclxx Disability 55 17.5 171 54.5 57 18.2 31 9.9 No Disability 670 22.3 1,845 61.4 404 13.4 85 2.8

Faith-based affiliationclxxi Christian Affiliation 467 23.4 1,224 61.4 246 12.3 58 2.9 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 31 21.4 92 63.4 18 12.4 < 5 --- No Affiliation 190 20.3 564 60.1 146 15.6 38 4.1 Multiple Affiliations 25 16.1 84 54.2 33 21.3 13 8.4


Position statusclxxii Staff 303 9.5 945 29.7 1,378 43.3 560 17.6 University Athletic Association 26 16.8 61 31.6 49 31.6 19 12.3

Staff statusclxxiii Exempt 153 7.9 528 27.3 884 45.7 369 19.1 Non-Exempt 149 11.9 416 33.4 492 39.5 190 15.2

Gender/Gender identityclxxiv Woman 224 10.0 691 31.0 957 42.9 357 16.0 Man 100 9.5 295 28.1 444 42.3 211 20.1

Disability statusclxxv Disability 15 4.8 88 28.2 121 38.8 88 28.2 No Disability 312 10.3 916 30.4 1,302 43.2 487 16.1

Faith-based affiliationclxxvi Christian Affiliation 222 11.1 646 32.3 828 41.5 301 15.1 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 17 12.1 43 30.5 57 40.4 24 17.0




139

Six hundred eighty-seven Staff respondents elaborated about statements and issues related to

professional development, leave taking, flex time, salary, and staff input. Three themes emerged

from the responses.

Lack of Compensation: Thirty percent of respondents wrote about compensation (i.e. salary and

benefits) in their responses. Many commented on the low salaries at the University of Florida,

and how they are not competitive with other institutions or private industry. One respondent

noted, “Salaries are not competitive, especially when you factor in increased living expenses

every year (due to inflation) with a lack (usually) of any increase to combat that.” Another

commented on salary compression, “Salary compression is a significant issue for staff with long-

term service at UF.” Some respondents suggested that salaries are not the same across

departments/colleges. One respondent observed, “Salaries vary by college/division. I could be

paid more for the same title if I transferred.”

Some respondents felt that the benefits made up for the limited salary. One respondent shared,

“Salaries are not really competitive; however, the benefits are strong enough to compensate.”

Another observed, “UF's benefits package is one of the best that I've encountered.” However, a

number of respondents were concerned with recent cuts made to benefits, especially retirement.

One respondent noted, “They need to stop taking away benefits. Since we are no longer able to

cash out sick leave, you will have people taking sick leave to be able to use it. Low pay

compared to private world in some cases but we used to have great benefits, as you keep taking

them away, you better increase salaries to compensate.” Another respondent elaborated, “I didn't

agree with rolling over vacation time to sick leave time and upon retirement not being about to

receive pay for any percentage of the sick leave. My thought is that it rewards those who abuse

sick leave and not the employees that only use it when needed. There should have been

something grandfathered in to those who have been vested for 10-15 years with UAA or UF.”

Several respondents commented separately on child care benefits. While some did not even

know about child care benefits (“Child care benefits? Really? Where?”), others felt that the child

care benefits were limited since the wait list is long and cost is high. One respondent observed,



140

“BabyGator is a great service but I wouldn't classify it as competitive. We applied for a position

9 months before we anticipated enrollment and we were very far down the list.”

Concerns with “Taking Leave”. Twenty-eight percent of respondents addressed issues of leave

taking and flex time in their responses. Many felt that the University of Florida had generous

leave policies but that it was difficult to take advantage of them. As one respondent observed, “I

feel there are ample opportunities to earn vacation and leave but severely limited options for

using that leave.” Some respondents felt that it was hard to take leave because no one was

available for coverage if they were gone. One respondent shared, "the disagreement on the

questions regarding leave and policies have to do with the fact that the staffing is so thin in many

departments. Supervisors are reluctant regarding leave, not because of disagreement with policy,

but because so often if a staff person takes vacation or leave, there isn't anyone else to cover their

responsibilities.” Other respondents felt leave taking depended highly on the supervisor. One

respondent noted, “The ability of staff to take time off differs between units.”

Many comments also were made about FMLA policy. Generally, respondents felt that the

University was very supportive about taking FMLA. However, employees who remained at work

resented the extra work they had to cover. One respondent shared, “I feel that UF uses the FMLA

too freely. We have had 2 employees out with FMLA this year. We only have 6 employees total

at our unit. Really hard to get as much done as needs to be when that percent of your crew is

gone. I can't take sick or vacation leave because everyone else is always gone!” Some

respondents were concerned that despite getting to use FMLA, their jobs might not be there

when they got back. One respondent wrote, “UF puts out what I call propaganda about being

family oriented and offering extended family leave during child birth, and so forth. In practice

this is not true across the board. In some departments people who choose to take time after the

birth of a child (or for a family illness) are often penalized and sometimes ultimately lose their

jobs.”

Respondents also commented on the desire for more flexible working arrangements. Again the

extent that this was possible depended heavily on the supervisor. One respondent explained, “My

current supervisor is a great supporter of flexible work hours but the head of my previous office



141

was not. UF is marketed as being supportive of flexible work schedules but that doesn't mean

that individual office directors/heads are supportive of flexible work hours.” Some respondents

felt disparities existed in the way flex time was allowed. One lamented, “People with children

are treated with more flexibility and expected to work less and be paid more because they have a

family. They are afforded more understanding and respect of their personal lives. It feels like I

am treated as though my life isn't as important because I don't have children and I should always

be the one here late and on holidays as if I don't have family also.”

Staff Devalued in University Hierarchy. Twenty-one percent of respondents commented on the

extent to which a hierarchy exists within the university that typically positions staff at the bottom

and minimizes staff input into the decision-making process. One respondent summarized the

feeling of many by noting, “Staff are not valued at all. Our work experience and knowledge is

not valued. We are easily replaceable so we know not to ask for a raise for any reason because

you will not get it.” Another indicated, “I don't think staff opinions are valued at all by faculty or

administration it is just formality.” Faculty were especially targeted as being dismissive of staff.

One respondent wrote, “Faculty often treat staff like second-class citizens.” Others commented

on the status of staff within the whole university system, noting “As an institution, UF focuses on

students and faculty. Staff are not a part of the mission of the University. There are faculty and

student awards aplenty, but few staff awards.” The staff-faculty divide was sometimes blamed on

education status. One respondent observed, “I do not like the attitude that if you don't have your

masters or PhD you have somehow ‘failed at life’ and that you are lesser and have less of an

ability to someone that does. I strongly do not believe that ‘book knowledge’ is everything and I

do believe that life and work experience can be just as strong.”

Respondents were frustrated by the fact that the hierarchy often led to unequal application of

university policies. One respondent observed, “I have found that as a staff member my opinion

or ideas are not as highly valued as a faculty member's opinion. I feel that staff on the whole are

treated as second class citizens. Faculty are given more flexibility in work hours and staff are

held to a higher work standard than faculty.” It was not only the hierarchy that caused inequity;

favoritism also contributed to inequity. One respondent shared, “Where I am, popularity with

administration determines promotion.”



142

Eighty-two percent (n = 2,804) of Staff respondents felt valued by coworkers in their department

(Table 30). By staff status, 84% (n = 1,661) of Exempt Staff and 78% (n = 999) of Non-Exempt

Staff respondents felt that they were valued by coworkers. A higher percentage of Men

respondents (86%, n = 923) than Women respondents (80%, n = 1,830) felt this way. Finally,

83% (n = 2,556) of respondents with No Disability and 73% (n = 238) of respondents with

Disabilities felt valued by their coworkers in their department.

Seventy-six percent (n = 2,595) of Staff respondents felt valued by their supervisor/manager. By

staff status, 78% (n = 1,530) of Exempt Staff respondents and 73% (n = 925) of Non-Exempt

Staff respondents felt valued by their supervisor/manager. Men respondents (80%, n = 851) were

more likely to feel this way than Women respondents (75%, n = 1,699). A higher percentage of


206) believed this to be the case. By citizenship status, 76% (n = 2,299) of U.S. Citizen

respondents, 79% (n = 151) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, 84% (n = 78) of Non-U.S.

Citizens, and 87% (n = 52) of respondents with Multiple Citizenships felt this way. Finally, by

race/ethnicity, 80% (n = 82) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 66% (n = 188) of Black

/African American respondents, 80% (n = 120) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 77%

(n = 1,995) of White respondents, and 81% (n = 124) of Mixed Race respondents felt that they

were valued by their supervisor/manager.

Fifty-five percent (n = 1,802) of Staff respondents felt valued by faculty at UF. By staff status,

58% (n = 717) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 53% (n = 996) of Exempt Staff respondents

believed this to be the case. Men respondents (57%, n = 589) were more likely to feel this way

than Women respondents (55%, n = 1,187). A higher percentage of respondents with No

Disability (56%, n = 1,662) compared to respondents with Disabilities (44%, n = 136) felt this

way. Finally, by faith-based affiliation, 58% (n = 1,126) of respondents with a Christian

Affiliation, 59% (n = 81) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 52% (n = 484) of

respondents with No Affiliation, and 45% (n = 69) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations felt

valued by UF faculty.



143

Fifty-four percent (n = 1,722) of Staff respondents felt valued by UF students. By staff status,

55% (n = 671) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 52% (n = 953) of Exempt Staff respondents

felt that they were valued by UF students. A higher percentage of respondents with No Disability

(55%, n = 1,581) versus respondents with Disabilities (44%, n = 134) believed this to be the

case. Finally, by faith-based affiliation, 57% (n = 1,084) of respondents with a Christian

Affiliation, 58% (n = 77) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 48% (n = 441) of

respondents with No Affiliation, and 47% (n = 73) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations felt

that they were valued by UF students.

Thirty-eight percent (n = 1,241) of Staff respondents felt valued by UF senior administrators

(e.g., dean, vice president, provost). Among staff, 38% (n = 731) of Exempt Staff respondents

felt valued by UF senior administrators versus 34% (n = 421) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents.

Men respondents (41%, n = 429) were more likely than Women respondents (36%, n = 795) to

believe this was the case. Thirty-nine percent (n = 1,160) of respondents with No Disability and

24% (n = 77) of those with Disabilities felt valued by senior administrators. Finally, by



38% (n = 958) of White respondents, and 34% (n = 50) of Mixed Race respondents felt valued

by UF senior administrators.71

Sixty-nine percent (n = 2,352) of Staff respondents felt that their skills were valued. Among

staff, 71% (n = 1,395) of Exempt Staff respondents and 65% (n = 830) of Non-Exempt Staff

believed this to be the case. By sexual identity, 70% (n = 2,064) of Heterosexual respondents and

67% (n = 159) of LGBQ respondents felt that their skills were valued. Seventy-one percent (n =

2,161) of respondents with No Disability and 57% (n = 185) of respondents with Disabilities felt

that their skills were valued. By citizenship status, 69% (n = 2,087) of U.S. Citizen respondents,

73% (n = 137) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, 74% (n = 68) of Non-U.S. Citizen

respondents, and 80% (n = 47) of those with Multiple Citizenships felt this way. Finally, by

race/ethnicity, Asian/Asian American respondents (72%, n = 72), Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

71Other People of Color respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their own numbers (n < 5) in the “agree” category.



144

respondents (69%, n = 104), and White respondents (71%, n = 1,835) were more likely to feel

this way than Black/African American respondents (62%, n = 175), Other People of Color (52%,

n = 12), and Mixed Race respondents (63%, n = 95).

Table 30. Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Feelings of value n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by co-workers in my department. 1,267 37.1 1,537 45.1 352 10.3 179 5.2 76 2.2

Position statusclxxvii Staff 1,188 36.5 1,477 45.4 341 10.5 174 5.3 174 5.3 University Athletic Association 79 50.3 60 38.2 11 7.0 5 3.2 < 5 ---

Staff statusclxxviii Exempt 726 36.9 935 47.5 186 9.4 90 4.6 32 1.6 Non-Exempt 460 35.9 539 42.1 155 12.1 84 6.6 42 3.3

Gender/Gender identityclxxix Woman 808 35.5 1,022 44.9 250 11.0 137 6.0 59 2.6 Man 439 41.0 484 45.2 94 8.8 39 3.6 14 1.3

Disability statusclxxx Disability 106 32.5 132 40.5 47 14.4 25 7.7 16 4.9

No Disability 1,155 37.6 1,401 45.6 304 9.9 153 5.0 60 2.0



145

Table 30 (cont.)

Strongly agree Agree


Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by my supervisor/manager. 1,380 40.6 1,215 35.7 361 10.6 251 7.4 196 5.8

Position statusclxxxi Staff 1,301 40.1 1,159 35.7 349 10.8 245 7.6 191 5.9 University Athletic Association 79 50.0 56 35.4 12 7.6 6 3.8 5 3.2

Staff statusclxxxii Exempt 805 40.9 725 36.9 190 9.7 152 7.7 94 4.8 Non-Exempt 494 38.8 431 33.8 159 12.5 93 7.3 97 7.6

Gender/Gender identityclxxxiii Woman 910 40.1 789 34.8 254 11.2 176 7.8 141 6.2 Man 449 42.0 402 37.6 101 9.5 69 6.5 47 4.4

Disability statusclxxxiv Disability 107 32.7 99 30.3 48 14.7 28 8.6 45 13.8

No Disability 1,268 41.4 1,113 36.3 310 10.1 222 7.2 150 4.9

Citizenship statusclxxxv U.S. Citizen 1,230 40.6 1,069 35.3 318 10.5 229 7.6 184 6.1 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 86 45.0 65 34.0 19 9.9 16 8.4 5 2.6 Non-U.S. Citizen 35 37.6 43 46.2 10 10.8 < 5 --- < 5 --- Multiple Citizenships 21 35.0 31 51.7 7 11.7 < 5 --- 0 0

Race/Ethnicityclxxxvi Asian/Asian American 51 49.5 31 30.1 13 12.6 6 5.8 < 5 --- Black/African American 94 32.8 94 32.8 47 16.4 28 9.8 24 8.4 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 62 41.3 58 38.7 14 9.3 8 5.3 8 5.3 Other People of Color 6 27.3 10 45.4 < 5 --- < 5 --- < 5 --- White 1,076 41.6 919 35.5 262 10.1 182 7.0 147 5.7 Mixed Race 66 43.1 58 37.9 11 7.2 12 7.8 6 3.9

I feel valued by faculty. 634 19.4 1,168 35.7 1,004 30.7 333 10.2 131 4.0

Position statusclxxxvii Staff 592 18.9 1,122 35.9 954 30.5 326 10.4 131 4.2 University Athletic Association 42 29.0 46 31.7 50 34.5 7 4.8 0 0

Staff statusclxxxviii Exempt 323 17.2 673 35.9 600 32.0 209 11.1 71 3.8 Non-Exempt 268 21.5 449 36.1 353 28.4 115 9.2 59 4.7

Gender/Gender identityclxxxix Woman 398 18.3 789 36.2 697 32.0 216 9.9 79 3.6 Man 223 21.7 366 35.5 283 27.5 111 10.8 47 4.6

Disability statuscxc Disability 44 14.1 92 29.5 104 33.3 46 14.7 26 8.3

No Disability 588 19.9 1,074 36.4 899 30.5 283 9.6 104 3.5

Faith-based affiliationcxci Christian Affiliation 394 20.2 732 37.5 576 29.5 181 9.3 67 3.4 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 28 20.3 53 38.4 44 31.9 13 9.4 0 0 No Affiliation 164 17.5 320 34.1 294 31.3 107 11.4 53 5.7 Multiple Affiliations 31 20.4 38 25.0 59 38.8 18 11.8 6 3.9



146

Table 30 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n n % n %

I feel valued by UF students. 642 20.0 1,080 33.6 1,251 39.0 162 5.0 76 2.4

Position statuscxcii Staff 599 19.5 1,026 33.5 1,206 39.4 159 5.2 74 2.4 University Athletic Association 43 29.3 54 36.7 45 30.6 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Staff statuscxciii Exempt 337 18.3 616 33.5 749 40.7 106 5.8 33 1.8 Non-Exempt 261 21.4 410 33.7 454 37.3 53 4.4 40 3.3

Disability statuscxciv Disability 46 14.9 88 28.5 138 44.7 22 7.1 15 4.9

No Disability 593 20.5 988 34.2 1,110 38.4 139 4.8 61 2.1

Faith-based affiliationcxcv Christian Affiliation 399 20.8 685 35.8 702 36.7 92 4.8 37 1.9 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 27 20.3 50 37.6 45 33.8 11 8.3 0 0 No Affiliation 167 18.2 274 29.8 394 42.9 52 5.7 32 3.5 Multiple Affiliations 29 18.8 44 28.6 70 45.5 5 3.2 6 3.9

I feel valued by UF senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 404 12.2 837 25.4 1,251 37.9 546 16.5 263 8.0

Position statuscxcvi Staff 366 11.6 788 25.0 1,207 38.3 534 16.9 260 8.2 University Athletic Association 38 26.0 49 33.6 44 30.1 12 8.2 < 5 ---

Staff statuscxcvii Exempt 211 11.1 520 27.3 667 35.0 355 18.6 153 8.0 Non-Exempt 155 12.5 266 21.4 539 43.3 178 14.3 106 8.5

Gender/Gender identitycxcviii Woman 250 11.4 545 24.9 877 40.0 352 16.1 168 7.7 Man 149 14.2 280 26.8 349 33.4 184 17.6 84 8.0

Disability statuscxcix Disability 18 5.7 59 18.6 132 41.6 65 20.5 43 13.6

No Disability 385 12.9 775 26.1 1,117 376 478 16.1 218 7.3

Race/Ethnicitycc Asian/Asian American 16 16.7 29 30.2 34 35.4 14 14.6 < 5 --- Black/African American 38 13.8 61 22.2 116 42.2 39 14.2 21 7.6 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 19 12.9 36 24.5 59 40.1 26 17.7 7 4.8 Other People of Color 6 27.3 < 5 --- < 5 --- 8 36.4 < 5 --- White 300 11.9 658 26.2 952 37.9 403 16.0 201 8.0 Mixed Race 15 10.1 35 23.5 49 32.9 33 22.1 17 11.4



147

Table 30 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n n % n %

I feel that my skills are valued. 852 25.1 1,500 44.2 462 13.6 377 11.1 204 6.0

Position statuscci Staff 795 24.5 1,432 44.2 451 13.9 361 11.1 201 6.2 University Athletic Association 57 36.8 68 43.9 11 7.1 16 10.3 < 5 ---

Staff statusccii Exempt 476 24.3 919 46.9 246 12.6 214 10.9 103 5.3 Non-Exempt 319 25.0 511 40.0 205 16.1 145 11.4 97 7.6

Sexual identitycciii LGBQ 66 28.0 93 39.4 24 10.2 33 14.0 20 8.5 Heterosexual 731 24.6 1,333 44.9 416 14.0 314 10.6 172 5.8

Disability statuscciv Disability 59 18.0 126 38.5 44 13.5 56 17.1 42 12.8 No Disability 790 25.9 1,371 44.9 416 13.6 320 10.5 159 5.2

Citizenship statusccv U.S. Citizen 753 24.9 1,334 44.1 400 13.2 351 11.6 188 6.2 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 52 27.5 85 45.0 28 14.8 16 8.5 8 4.2 Non-U.S. Citizen 27 29.3 41 44.6 18 19.6 < 5 --- 5 5.4 Multiple Citizenships 14 23.7 33 55.9 9 15.3 < 5 --- 0 0

Race/Ethnicityccvi Asian/Asian American 36 36.0 36 36.0 14 14.0 10 10.0 < 5 --- Black/African American 63 22.3 112 39.6 55 19.4 30 10.6 23 8.1 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 41 27.3 63 42.0 26 17.3 13 8.7 7 4.7 Other People of Color 5 21.7 7 30.4 < 5 --- 5 21.7 < 5 --- White 650 25.1 1,185 45.8 325 12.6 278 10.8 147 5.7 Mixed Race 37 24.3 58 38.2 25 16.4 23 15.1 9 5.9


Table 31 depicts Staff respondents’ attitudes about UF work-life policies. Subsequent analyses

were conducted to identify significant differences in responses by gender identity, racial identity,

disability status, sexual identity, age, and faith-based affiliation; only significant differences are

reported.

Thirty-one percent (n = 978) of Staff respondents thought that faculty in their departments pre-

judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. By staff status, 32%

(n = 383) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 30% (n = 542) of Exempt Staff respondents

believed this to be the case. A higher percentage of LGBQ respondents (41%, n = 90) felt this

way compared to Heterosexual respondents (30%, n = 830). By disability status, 30% (n = 851)

of respondents with No Disability and 39% (n = 120) of respondents with Disabilities felt this



148

way. Finally, by race/ethnicity, 36% (n = 34) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 42% (n =

111) of Black/African American respondents, 28% (n = 39) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 29% (n = 705) of White respondents, and 37% (n = 52) of Mixed Race

respondents72 felt that faculty in their departments pre-judged their abilities based on their

identity/background.

Twenty-four percent (n = 782) of Staff respondents thought that their coworkers pre-judged their

abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. By staff status, 25% (n = 309) of

Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 23% (n = 431) of Exempt Staff respondents felt this way. By

gender, Men respondents (26%, n = 277) were more likely than Women respondents (22%, n =

488) to believe this was the case. Twenty-three percent (n = 680) of respondents with No

Disability felt this way versus 31% (n = 97) of respondents with Disabilities. By citizenship

status, 23% (n = 695) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 23% (n = 41) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen

respondents, 25% (n = 23) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents, and 22% (n = 13) of respondents

with Multiple Citizenships believed this to be the case. Finally, by race/ethnicity, 33% (n = 33)

of Asian/Asian American respondents, 30% (n = 84) of Black/African American respondents,

23% (n = 33) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 22% (n = 557) of White respondents,

and 29% (n = 43) of Mixed Race respondents73 felt that their coworkers pre-judged their abilities

based on their perceptions of their identity/background.

Twenty-three percent (n = 748) of Staff respondents thought that their supervisor/manager pre-

judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background. Among staff, 23% (n

= 286) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 22% (n = 422) of Exempt Staff respondents felt

this way. Further analysis revealed that 7% (n = 89) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 5% (n

= 89) of Exempt Staff respondents “strongly agreed” with the statement. By sexual identity, 27%

(n = 63) of LGBQ respondents and 22% (n = 645) of Heterosexual respondents believed that

their supervisor/manager pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their

identity/background. A higher percentage of respondents with Disabilities (33%, n = 107) versus

72Other People of Color respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” category. 73Other People of Color respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” category.



149

respondents with No Disability (21%, n = 638) felt that their supervisor/manager pre-judged their

abilities. By citizenship status, 23% (n = 674) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 23% (n = 42) of

Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 13% (n = 11) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents74 felt

this way. Finally, by race/ethnicity, 24% (n = 24) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 34% (n

= 93) of Black/African American respondents, 18% (n = 26) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 21% (n = 534) of White respondents, and 25% (n = 37) of Mixed Race

respondents75 believed that their supervisor/manager pre-judged their abilities based on their

perception of their identity/background.

Forty-six percent (n = 1,570) of Staff respondents believed that their department encouraged free

and open discussion of difficult topics. Among staff, 46% (n = 583) of Non-Exempt Staff

respondents and 46% (n = 884) of Exempt Staff respondents believed this to be the case. Further

analysis revealed that 17% (n = 216) of Non-Exempt Staff respondents and 14% (n = 267) of

Exempt Staff respondents “strongly agreed” with the statement. By gender, Men respondents

(52%, n = 549) were more likely than Women respondents (44%, n = 996) to feel that their

department encouraged free and open discussion of difficult topics . Forty-eight percent (n =

1,468) of respondents with No Disability and 31% (n = 99) of respondents with Disabilities felt

that their department encouraged free and open discussion. By faith-based affiliation, 49% (n =

980) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 47% (n = 67) of respondents with Other Faith-

Based Affiliations, 43% (n = 418) of respondents with No Affiliation, and 44% (n = 68) of

respondents with Multiple Affiliations believe this to be the case. Finally, by citizenship status,

47% (n = 1,399) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 51% (n = 95) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen

respondents, 33% (n = 30) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents, and 65% (n = 38) of respondents

with Multiple Citizenships felt that their department encouraged free and open discussion of

difficult topics.

74Respondents with Multiple Citizenship were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” category. 75Other People of Color respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” and “agree” categories.



150

Table 31. Staff Respondents’ Perception of Climate

Strongly

agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Perception n % n % n % n % n %

I think that faculty in my department/program pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 281 8.9 697 22.0 1,184 37.4 694 21.9 314 9.9

Position statusccvii Staff 257 8.5 669 22.1 1,141 37.7 659 21.8 298 9.9 University Athletic Association 24 16.4 28 19.2 43 29.5 35 24.0 16 11.0

Staff statusccviii Exempt 135 7.5 407 22.5 704 39.0 404 22.4 156 8.6 Non-Exempt 122 10.0 261 21.5 434 35.7 255 21.0 142 11.7

Sexual identityccix LGBQ 34 15.4 56 25.3 83 37.6 39 17.6 9 4.1 Heterosexual 229 8.2 601 21.6 1,040 37.3 622 22.3 295 10.6

Disability statusccx Disability 39 12.7 81 26.4 116 37.8 50 16.3 21 6.8 No Disability 238 8.3 613 21.5 1067 37.4 643 22.5 293 10.3

Race/Ethnicityccxi Asian/Asian American 12 12.8 22 23.4 33 35.1 18 19.1 9 9.6 Black/African American 41 15.4 70 26.2 93 34.8 51 19.1 12 4.5 Latin@/Chican@/ Hispanic 12 8.5 27 19.0 52 36.6 30 21.1 21 14.8 Other People of Color < 5 --- 8 38.1 7 33.3 < 5 --- < 5 --- White 191 7.9 514 21.3 902 37.4 555 23.0 252 10.4 Mixed Race 13 9.2 39 27.5 49 34.5 27 19.0 14 9.9

I think that co-workers in my work unit pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 194 5.8 588 17.7 979 29.5 1,049 31.6 513 15.4

Staff statusccxii Exempt 89 4.7 342 17.9 568 29.8 636 33.4 272 14.3 Non-Exempt 89 7.1 220 17.4 371 29.4 369 29.3 212 16.8

Gender/Gender identityccxiii Woman 126 5.7 362 16.4 642 29.0 727 32.9 355 16.0 Man 65 6.2 212 20.2 310 29.5 310 29.5 153 14.6

Sexual identityccxiv LGBQ 22 9.5 49 21.1 65 28.0 67 28.9 29 12.5 Heterosexual 159 5.5 505 17.4 855 29.4 927 31.9 463 15.9

Disability statusccxv Disability 28 8.8 69 21.7 89 28.0 96 30.2 36 11.3 No Disability 162 5.4 518 17.3 886 29.6 952 31.8 476 15.9

Citizenship statusccxvi U.S. Citizen 178 6.0 517 17.4 848 28.6 944 31.9 476 16.1 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 7 3.8 34 18.7 61 33.5 59 32.4 21 11.5

Non-U.S. Citizen 6 6.6 17 18.7 36 39.6 26 28.6 6 6.6 Multiple Citizenships 0 0 13 22.0 23 39.0 14 23.7 9 15.3



151

Table 31 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

Race/Ethnicityccxvii Asian/Asian American 9 8.9 24 23.8 34 33.7 24 23.8 10 9.9 Black/African American 30 10.7 54 19.2 85 30.2 88 31.3 24 8.5 Latin@/Chican@/ Hispanic 7 4.8 26 17.8 47 32.2 43 29.5 23 15.8 Other People of Color < 5 --- 5 23.8 5 23.8 7 33.3 < 5 --- White 131 5.2 426 16.9 740 29.3 809 32.0 422 16.7 Mixed Race 9 6.1 34 23.0 23 23.0 47 31.8 24 162

I think that my supervisor/manager pre-judges my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 204 6.1 544 16.4 863 26.0 1,059 31.9 653 19.7

Staff statusccxviii Exempt 96 5.0 326 17.1 496 26.0 629 33.0 358 18.8 Non-Exempt 94 7.5 192 15.2 332 26.3 379 30.1 263 20.9

Sexual identityccxix LGBQ 28 12.2 35 15.2 52 22.6 76 33.0 39 17.0 Heterosexual 162 5.6 483 16.6 751 25.8 930 32.0 583 20.0

Disability statusccxx Disability 27 8.4 80 24.8 79 24.5 89 27.6 47 14.6 No Disability 176 5.9 462 15.4 782 26.1 967 32.3 604 20.2

Citizenship statusccxxi U.S. Citizen 186 6.3 488 16.4 744 25.1 961 32.4 590 19.9

U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 8 4.4 34 18.6 50 27.3 52 28.4 39 21.3 Non-U.S. Citizen 6 7.1 5 6.0 36 42.9 27 32.1 10 11.9 Multiple Citizenships < 5 --- 14 23.3 19 31.7 15 25.0 11 18.3

Race/Ethnicityccxxii Asian/Asian American 9 9.1 15 15.2 30 30.3 25 25.3 20 20.2 Black/African American 30 10.8 63 22.7 70 25.2 78 28.1 37 13.3 Latin@/Chican@/ Hispanic 9 6.1 17 11.6 42 28.6 49 33.3 30 20.4 Other People of Color < 5 --- < 5 --- 6 27.3 8 36.4 < 5 --- White 137 5.4 397 15.7 654 25.8 825 32.6 519 20.5 Mixed Race 8 5.4 29 19.5 27 18.1 50 33.6 35 23.5

I believe that my department encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. 528 15.6 1,042 30.8 792 23.4 614 18.2 402 11.9

Position statusccxxiii Staff 483 15.0 985 30.6 766 23.8 598 18.6 389 12.1 University Athletic Association 45 28.7 57 36.3 26 16.6 16 10.2 13 8.3

Staff statusccxxiv Exempt 267 13.7 617 31.8 442 22.8 390 20.1 226 11.6 Non-Exempt 216 17.0 367 28.8 323 25.4 207 16.2 161 12.6

Gender/Gender identityccxxv Woman 338 15.0 658 29.2 559 24.8 420 18.6 278 12.3 Man 184 17.3 365 34.4 218 20.5 182 17.2 112 10.6



152

Table 31 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

Disability statusccxxvi Disability 26 8.0 73 22.5 74 22.8 86 26.5 66 20.3 No Disability 501 16.5 967 31.8 715 23.5 525 17.3 333 11.0

Faith-based affiliationccxxvii Christian Affiliation 339 16.8 641 31.8 478 23.7 336 16.7 221 11.0 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 26 18.3 41 28.9 33 23.2 30 21.1 12 8.5 No Affiliation 128 13.3 290 30.0 219 22.7 202 20.9 127 13.1 Multiple Affiliations 21 13.5 47 30.3 35 22.6 26 16.8 26 16.8

Citizenship statusccxxviii U.S. Citizen 467 15.5 932 30.9 702 23.3 549 18.2 364 12.1 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 36 19.4 59 31.7 38 20.4 37 19.9 16 8.6 Non-U.S. Citizen 12 13.3 18 20.0 33 36.7 18 20.0 9 10.0 Multiple Citizenships 11 18.6 27 45.8 9 15.3 7 11.9 5 8.5


cviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided resources for training/professional development by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,366) = 8.1, p < .05. cviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided resources for training/professional development by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,206) =13.8, p < .01. cixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided resources for training/professional development by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,304) =9.9, p < .05. cxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided resources for training/professional development by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,174) =14.4, p < .01. cxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided resources for training/professional development by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,354) =16.7, p < .001. cxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided resources for training/professional development by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3265) =26.9, p < .001. cxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor provided opportunities for training/professional development by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,356) = 10.9, p < .05. cxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor provided opportunities for training/professional development by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,346) = 25.6, p < .001. cxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of taking extended leave by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,015) =14.5, p < .01. cxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of taking extended leave by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,109) =17.0, p < .05. cxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of taking leave by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,296) =8.3, p < .05. cxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of taking leave by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,168) =8.7, p < .05.



153

cxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of taking leave by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,346) =40.6, p < .001. cxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF policies were fairly applied across UF by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,122) = 11.8, p < .01. cxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF policies were fairly applied across UF by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 2,944) = 19.6, p < .001. cxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF policies were fairly applied across UF by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,111) = 25.8, p < .001. cxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF policies were fairly applied across UF by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (3, N = 3,039) = 46.8, p < .001. cxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF policies were fairly applied across UF by military status: χ2 (3, N = 3,087) = 12.1, p < .01. cxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,272) = 42.7, p < .001. cxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,114) = 14.5, p < .01. cxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,211) = 10.1, p < .05. cxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,262) = 14.6, p < .01. cxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,175) = 24.8, p < .01. cxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF was supportive of flexible work schedules by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,178) = 25.0, p < .05. cxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of flexible work schedules by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,295) = 34.4, p < .001. cxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of flexible work schedules by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,233) = 19.6, p < .001. cxxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of flexible work schedules by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,285) = 27,7, p < .001. cxxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor was supportive of flexible work schedules by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,196) = 33.5, p < .01. cxxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries were competitive by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,303) = 55.1, p < .001. cxxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries were competitive by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,144) = 21.4, p < .001. cxxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries were competitive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,291) = 16.7, p < .001. cxxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries were competitive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,205) = 121.6, p < .01. cxxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that vacation and personal time were competitive by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,353) = 9.1, p < .05. cxlA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that vacation and personal time were competitive by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,195) = 10.3, p < .05. cxliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that vacation and personal time were competitive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,290) = 20.0, p < .001. cxliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that vacation and personal time were competitive by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,159) = 12.5, p < .01.



154

cxliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that vacation and personal time were competitive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,249) = 19.8, p < .05. cxlivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that vacation and personal time were competitive by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,253) = 40.5, p < .001. cxlvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,346) = 41.2, p < .001. cxlviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,334) = 16.3, p < .001. cxlviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by citizenship status: χ2 (9, N = 3,318) = 27.6, p < .001. cxlviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by military status: χ2 (3, N = 3,305) = 8.3, p < .05. cxlixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by race/ethnicity: χ2 (15, N = 3,247) = 46.6, p < .001. clA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by position status: χ2 (3, N = 2,703) = 47.2, p < .001. cliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 2,562) = 9.0, p < .05. cliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 2,655) = 39.9, p < .001. cliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 2,697) = 11.1, p < .05. clivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement benefits were competitive by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,215) = 75.7, p < .001. clvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement benefits were competitive by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,061) = 14.4, p < .01. clviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement benefits were competitive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,204) = 8.4, p < .05. clviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement benefits were competitive by military status: χ2 (3, N = 3,178) = 12.4, p < .01. clviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued on UF committees by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,063) = 68.7, p < .001. clixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued on UF committees by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 1,913) = 9.5, p < .05. clxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued on UF committees by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 2,900) = 12.0, p < .01. clxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued on UF committees by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,056) = 33.8, p < .001. clxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued on UF committees by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 2,983) = 35.7, p < .001. clxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued by UF faculty and administration by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,094) = 88.3, p < .001. clxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued by UF faculty and administration by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 2,948) = 10.4, p < .05. clxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued by UF faculty and administration by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 2,923) = 15.2, p < .01. clxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued by UF faculty and administration by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,084) = 47.6, p < .001.



155

clxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that staff opinions were valued by UF faculty and administration by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,007) = 58.9, p < .001. clxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that clear expectations existed of their responsibilities by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,330) = 29.8, p < .001. clxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that clear expectations existed of their responsibilities by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,172) = 15.5, p < .001. clxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that clear expectations existed of their responsibilities by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,318) = 50.1, p < .001. clxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that clear expectations existed of their responsibilities by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,233) = 32.4, p < .001. clxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by position status: χ2 (3, N = 3,341) = 19.6, p < .001. clxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by staff status: χ2 (3, N = 3,181) = 35.6 p < .001. clxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 3,279) = 9.1 p < .05. clxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 3,329) = 34.3, p < .001. clxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the procedures to advance at UF by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 3,239) = 35.9, p < .001. clxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by coworkers by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,311) = 13.2, p < .05. clxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by coworkers by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,249) = 25.5, p < .001. clxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by coworkers by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,346) = 22.7, p < .001. clxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by coworkers by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,399) = 25.2, p < .001. clxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their supervisor/manager by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,403) = 9.9, p < .05. clxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their supervisor/manager by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,240) = 19.3, p < .001. clxxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their supervisor/manager by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,338) = 10.3, p < .05. clxxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their supervisor/manager by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,390) = 55.4, p < .001. clxxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their supervisor/manager by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 3,374) = 24.0, p < .05. clxxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their supervisor/manager by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 3,301) = 35.9, p < .05. clxxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,270) = 18.9, p < .001. clxxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,120) = 14.8, p < .01. clxxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,209) = 11.0, p < .05. cxcA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their faculty by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,260) = 33.2, p < .001. cxciA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their faculty by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (12, N = 3,178) = 31.4, p < .01



156

cxciiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by students by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,211) = 13.2, p < .01. cxciiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by students by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,059) = 15.5, p < .01. cxcivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their students by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,200) = 21.7, p < .001. cxcvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their students by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (12, N = 3,121) = 34.8, p < .001 cxcviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by senior administrators by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,301) = 43.3, p < .001. cxcviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by senior administrators by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,150) = 33.9, p < .001. cxcviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by senior administrators by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,238) = 15.0, p < .01. cxcixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by senior administrators by disability status: χ2 (12, N = 3,205) = 47.2, p < .001. ccA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by senior administrators by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 3,203) = 33.7, p < .05. cciA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their skills were valued by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,395) = 18.5, p < .001. cciiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their skills were valued by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,235) = 22.2, p < .001. cciiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their skills were valued by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,202) = 9.8, p < .05. ccivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their skills were valued by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,383) = 50.7, p < .001. ccvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their skills were valued by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 3,366) = 23.1, p < .05. ccviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their skills were valued by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 3,293) = 35.8, p < .05. ccviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,170) = 13.5, p < .01. ccviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,020) = 15.5, p < .01. ccixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,008) = 24.0, p < .001. ccxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,161) = 17.3, p < .01. ccxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 3,080) = 41.2, p < .01. ccxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that coworkers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,168) = 15.1, p < .01. ccxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that coworkers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,262) = 9.8, p < .05.



157

ccxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that coworkers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,141) = 10.1, p < .05. ccxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that coworkers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,312) = 13.3, p < .01. ccxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that coworkers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by citizenship status: χ2

(12, N = 3,295) = 21.1, p < .05. ccxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that coworkers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 3,225) = 11.1, p < .01. ccxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor/manager pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,165) = 12.8, p < .05. ccxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor/managers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,139) = 17.6, p < .001. ccxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisors/managers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,313) = 25.6, p < .001. ccxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisor/managers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 3,296) = 26.8, p < .01. ccxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their supervisors/managers pre-judged their abilities based on perceptions of identity/background by race/ethnicity: χ2 (20, N = 3,227) = 43.2, p < .01. ccxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that their department encouraged free and open discussion by position status: χ2 (4, N = 3,378) = 30.4, p < .001. ccxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that their department encouraged free and open discussion by staff status: χ2 (4, N = 3,216) = 16.3, p < .01. ccxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that their department encouraged free and open discussion by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 3,314) = 17.2, p < .01. ccxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that their department encouraged free and open discussion by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 3,366) = 57.2, p < .001. ccxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that their department encouraged free and open discussion by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (4, N = 3,278) = 22.3, p < .05. ccxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that their department encouraged free and open discussion by citizenship status: χ2 (12, N = 3,349) = 23.6, p < .01.



158

Faculty Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance Three survey items queried Faculty respondents (n = 2,037) and one survey item surveyed both

Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents (n = 2,154) about their opinions regarding

various issues specific to workplace climate and faculty work (Tables 32 through 44). Question

20 queried Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, Question 22 addressed Non-

Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty

respondents, Question 24 addressed all Faculty respondents, and Question 69 addressed all

Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents. Chi-square analyses76 were conducted by

position status,77 faculty status,78 gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, sexual identity, military

status, citizenship status, faith-based affiliation, and disability status; only significant differences

are reported.79

Table 32 illustrates that the majority of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents

“agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the criteria for tenure were clear (75%, n = 847) and that

tenure standards/promotion standards were applied equally to all faculty in their schools/division

(60%, n = 667).

Sixty-six (n = 701) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly

agreed” that they felt supported and mentored during the tenure-track years. Subsequent analysis

revealed that 66% (n = 533) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 55% (n = 88) of Naturalized U.S.

Citizen respondents, and 75% (n = 67) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt supported and

mentored through the tenure-track years. Additionally, 61% (n = 49) of Asian/Asian American

respondents, 58% (n = 27) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, and 67% (n = 552) of

76Per the CSWG, no secondary analyses were conducted for Faculty or Postdoctoral Associates in Questions 20 and 22 because of the low numbers of respondents within faculty subcategories. 77Analysis by position status was only done for Question 69 and was conducted by Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate. 78Analysis for Faculty status was only conducted for Question 24 and was conducted by Tenured, Tenure-Accruing, and Non-Tenure-Accruing. 79For all analyses in this section on Faculty perceptions, Transgender/Genderqueer/Other Faculty respondents (n = 6), Other Faculty respondents (n =17) in terms of gender identity, Other People of Color Faculty respondents (n = 20), and Faculty respondents with Multiple Citizenships (n =21) were not included because their numbers were too few to maintain the confidentiality of their responses.



159

White respondents80 felt this way. Subsequent analysis revealed that 46% (n = 37) of

Asian/Asian American respondents, 52% (n = 15) of Black/African American respondents, 36%

(n = 17) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 45% (n = 374) of White respondents, and

65% (n = 17) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with the statement.

Seventy-three (n = 798) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt that they

understood the UF policies for delaying the tenure-clock. By race/ethnicity, 74% (n = 60) of



84% (n = 21) of Mixed Race respondents felt this way.

80Black/African American respondents and Mixed Race respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” category.



160

Table 32. Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Note: Table includes Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents (n = 1,141) only.

Table 33 illustrates that the majority (88%, n = 999) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty

respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that research was valued by UF. A higher percentage

of Women respondents (92%, n = 371) than Men respondents (86%, n = 613) felt this way. By

citizenship status, 90% (n = 768) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 80% (n = 136) of Naturalized U.S.

Citizen respondents, and 87% (n = 81) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt this way. Finally, by



90% (n = 787) of White respondents, and 81% (n = 22) of Mixed Race respondents felt that

research was valued at UF.

Sixty-six percent (n = 741) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt teaching

was valued by UF. Subsequent analysis revealed that 68% (n = 685) of respondents with No


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


The criteria for tenure are clear. 264 23.3 583 51.4 227 20.0 60 5.3

The tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to faculty in my school/division. 213 19.1 454 40.8 304 27.4 142 12.7

Supported and mentored during the tenure-track years 212 19.8 489 45.6 270 25.2 102 9.5

Citizenship statusccxxix U.S. Citizen 170 21.1 363 45.0 201 24.9 72 8.9 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 21 13.0 67 41.6 50 31.1 23 14.3 Non-U.S. Citizen 19 21.3 48 53.9 17 19.1 5 5.6

Race/Ethnicityccxxx Asian/Asian American 12 14.8 37 45.7 23 28.4 9 11.1 Black/African American < 5 --- 15 51.7 6 20.7 7 24.1 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 10 21.3 17 36.2 16 34.0 < 5 --- White 178 21.5 374 45.2 203 24.5 73 8.8 Mixed Race < 5 --- 17 65.4 < 5 --- < 5 ---

I understand UF policies for delaying the tenure-clock. 226 20.7 572 52.3 238 21.8 57 5.2

Race/Ethnicityccxxxi Asian/Asian American 15 18.5 45 55.6 12 14.8 9 11.1 Black/African American 0 0 19 70.4 6 22.2 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 11 22.4 20 40.8 15 30.6 < 5 --- White 189 22.3 433 51.0 191 22.5 36 4.2 Mixed Race 6 24.0 15 60.0 < 5 --- < 5 ---



161

Disability and 51% (n = 52) of respondents with Disabilities felt this way. By citizenship status,

64% (n = 546) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 70% (n = 116) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen

respondents, 76% (n = 68) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt this way.

Forty-nine percent (n = 548) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt their

service contributions were valued by UF. Subsequent analysis revealed that 28% (n = 29) of

respondents with Disabilities and 40% (n = 408) of respondents with No Disability “agreed”

with the statement. By faith-based affiliation, 48% (n = 213) of respondents with a Christian

Affiliation, 48% (n = 43) of those with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, and 51% (n = 240) of

those with No Affiliation81 felt this way. Additional analysis showed that 40% (n = 175) of

respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 33% (n = 29) of those with Other Faith-Based

Affiliations, 41% (n = 194) of those with No Affiliation, and 44% (n = 25) of those with

Multiple Affiliations “agreed” with the statement. Finally, 46% (n = 39) of Asian/Asian

American respondents, 53% (n = 16) of Black/African American respondents, 48% (n = 23) of


of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” that service contributions were valued by UF.

Thirty percent (n = 321) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt pressured to

change their research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. Women respondents

(31%, n = 118) were more likely to feel this way than Men respondents (28%, n = 191). A higher

percentage of respondents with Disabilities (52%, n = 51) compared to respondents with No

Disability (28%, n = 269) felt this way. By faith-based affiliation, 31% (n = 135) of those with a

Christian Affiliation, 25% (n = 21) of those with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 29% (n = 132)

of those with No Affiliation, and 32% (n = 17) of those with Multiple Affiliations believed this

was the case. Finally, by race/ethnicity, 40% (n = 31) of Asian/Asian American respondents,

35% (n = 17) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, and 27% (n = 225) of White

respondents82 felt this pressure. Additional analysis revealed that 13% (n = 10) Asian/Asian

American respondents, 15% (n = 7) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 7% (n = 61) of

81Respondents with Multiple Affiliations were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” category. 82Black/African American and Mixed Race respondents were excluded from this analysis because of their low numbers (n < 5) in the “strongly agree” or “agree” categories.



162

White respondents, and 19% (n = 5) of Mixed Race respondents “strongly agreed” with the

statement. Additionally, 26% (n = 21) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 28% (n = 8) of


and 20% (n = 164) of White respondents “agreed” with the statement.


Perception of workplace climate Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Research is valued by UF. 613 53.9 386 33.9 97 8.5 41 3.6

Gender/Gender identityccxxxii Woman 222 55.2 149 37.1 27 6.7 < 5 --- Man 383 53.6 230 32.2 66 9.2 36 5.0

Citizenship statusccxxxiii U.S. Citizen 487 56.8 281 32.8 65 7.6 24 2.8 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 68 40.0 68 40.0 22 12.9 12 7.1 Non-U.S. Citizen 51 54.8 30 32.3 7 7.5 5 5.4

Race/Ethnicityccxxxiv Asian/Asian American 30 35.7 35 41.7 12 14.3 7 8.3 Black/African American 15 48.4 14 45.2 < 5 --- < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 25 50.0 18 36.0 6 12.0 < 5 --- White 504 57.5 283 32.3 63 7.2 27 3.1 Mixed Race 12 44.4 10 37.0 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Teaching is valued by UF. 234 20.8 507 45.1 285 25.4 97 8.6

Disability statusccxxxv Disability 17 16.5 35 34.0 40 38.8 11 10.7 No Disability 215 21.2 470 46.3 244 24.0 86 8.5

Citizenship statusccxxxvi U.S. Citizen 160 18.8 386 45.4 224 26.4 79 9.3 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 37 22.2 79 47.3 39 23.4 12 7.2 Non-U.S. Citizen 31 34.4 37 41.1 17 18.9 5 5.6

Service contributions are valued by UF. 109 9.7 439 39.2 366 32.7 205 18.3

Disability statusccxxxvii Disability < 5 --- 29 27.9 40 38.5 31 29.8 No Disability 103 10.2 408 40.4 326 32.3 173 17.1

Faith-based affiliationccxxxviii Christian Affiliation 38 8.6 175 39.5 143 32.3 87 19.6 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 14 15.7 29 32.6 34 38.2 12 13.5 No Affiliation 46 9.7 194 41.1 143 30.3 89 18.9 Multiple Affiliations < 5 --- 25 43.9 26 45.6 < 5 ---



163


Forty-two percent (n = 468) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing 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 34). Women respondents (51%, n = 202) were more

likely to feel this way than Men respondents (36%, n = 253). Fifty-five percent (n = 57) of

respondents with Disabilities and 40% (n = 409) of respondents with No Disability felt this way.

Table 33 (cont.)

Strongly agree n %

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Citizenship statusccxxxix U.S. Citizen 66 7.8 313 37.0 290 34.3 176 20.8 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 23 13.8 71 42.5 53 31.7 20 12.0 Non-U.S. Citizen 17 18.9 47 52.2 18 20.0 8 8.9

Race/Ethnicityccxl Asian/Asian American 15 17.9 39 46.4 23 27.4 7 8.3 Black/African American < 5 --- 16 53.3 6 20.0 7 23.3 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 7 14.6 23 47.9 11 22.9 7 14.6 White 76 8.8 326 37.8 289 33.5 172 19.9 Mixed Race < 5 --- 11 40.7 11 40.7 < 5 ---

Pressured to change my research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure/promotion 95 8.8 226 20.9 475 44.0 283 26.2

Gender/Gender identityccxli Woman 38 9.9 80 20.8 185 48.2 81 21.1 Man 54 8.0 137 20.3 285 42.2 199 29.5

Disability statusccxlii Disability 12 12.2 39 39.8 30 30.6 17 173 No Disability 83 8.5 186 19.1 443 45.4 264 27.0

Faith-based affiliationccxliii Christian Affiliation 43 10.0 92 21.3 194 45.0 102 23.7 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 5 5.9 16 18.8 36 42.4 28 32.9 No Affiliation 38 8.3 94 20.5 193 42.0 134 29.2 Multiple Affiliations 6 11.3 11 20.8 32 60.4 < 5 ---

Race/Ethnicityccxliv Asian/Asian American 10 12.5 21 26.3 38 47.5 11 13.8 Black/African American < 5 --- 8 27.6 15 51.7 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 7 14.6 10 20.8 15 31.3 16 33.3 White 61 7.3 164 19.7 367 44.2 239 28.8 Mixed Race 5 18.5 < 5 --- 14 51.9 < 5 ---



164

By military status, 27% (n = 286) of respondents with No Military Service and 24% (n = 12) of

respondents with Military Service “agreed” with the statement.83

Fifty percent (n = 555) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents thought 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.

Seventeen percent (n = 172) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents thought that

faculty members in their departments/programs who used family accommodation (FMLA)

policies (e.g., child care, elder care) were disadvantaged in promotion/tenure. Women

respondents (24%, n = 87) were more likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” with this statement

compared to Men respondents (12% n = 79). Twenty-three percent (n = 22) of respondents with

Disabilities and 12% (n = 112) of respondents with No Disability “agreed” with the statement.84

83Respondents with Military Service who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 84Respondents with Disabilities who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



165



Forty-two percent (n = 460) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” that faculty opinions were taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g.,

dean, vice president, provost) (Table 35). By military status, 55% (n = 27) of those with Military

Service and 34% (n = 350) of respondents with No Military Service “agreed” with the

statement.85

Fifty-nine percent (n = 644) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents believed that

faculty opinions were valued within UF committees.

85Respondents with Military Service who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments) 168 15.0 300 26.8 545 48.7 105 9.4

Gender/Gender identityccxlv Woman 78 19.7 124 31.4 165 41.8 28 7.1 Man 84 11.9 169 24.0 375 53.3 75 10.7

Disability statusccxlvi Disability 21 20.4 36 35.0 36 35.0 10 9.7 No Disability 146 14.4 263 26.0 508 50.2 94 9.3

Military statusccxlvii Military Service < 5 --- 12 23.5 23 45.1 12 23.5 No Military Service 160 15.2 286 27.2 514 48.9 91 8.7

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). 220 19.9 335 30.3 481 43.5 70 6.3

Faculty members in my department/program who use family accommodation policies are disadvantaged in promotion/tenure (e.g., child care, elder care). 38 3.7 134 13.0 677 65.7 182 17.7

Gender/Gender identityccxlviii Woman 26 7.2 61 16.8 224 61.7 52 14.3 Man 11 1.7 68 10.5 444 68.3 127 19.5

Disability statusccxlix Disability < 5 --- 22 22.7 61 62.9 10 10.3 No Disability 34 3.7 112 12.0 613 65.9 171 18.4



166

Thirty-seven percent (n = 399) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents wanted

more opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. By citizenship status,


respondents, and 38% (n = 33) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents “agreed” with the statement.86

By race/ethnicity, 57% (n = 46) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 25% (n = 7) of


29% (n = 243) of White respondents, and 24% (n =6) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with

the statement.87

Seventy-four percent (n = 807) of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt that

they had opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. By citizenship status,


respondents, and 73% (n = 64) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents “agreed” with the statement.88

By race/ethnicity, 60% (n = 48) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 66% (n = 19) of


60% (n = 506) of White respondents, and 44% (n =11) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with

the statement.89

86Non-U.S. Citizen respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 87Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic, and Mixed Race respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 88Non-U.S. Citizen respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 89Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic, and Mixed Race respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



167



Three hundred respondents elaborated on their experiences and responses with tenure, research,

teaching, and service. Three main themes emerged.

Lack of Respect. Forty percent of respondents discussed issues with administration and decision-

making in their responses. Most of the respondents were quite critical of the extent to which

“shared governance” was actually implemented at the University of Florida. One respondent

wrote, “In my experience, shared governance of the University of Florida is a joke. The faculty


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 80 7.2 380 34.4 312 28.3 332 30.1

Military statusccl Military Service < 5 --- 27 55.1 8 16.3 12 24.5 No Military Service 78 7.5 350 33.8 298 28.7 311 30.0

Faculty opinions are valued within UF committees. 77 7.1 567 52.2 283 26.0 160 14.7

I would like more opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. 51 4.7 348 32.1 591 54.5 95 8.8

Citizenship statusccli U.S. Citizen 39 4.8 241 29.5 462 56.5 75 9.2 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 9 5.4 69 41.3 80 47.9 9 5.4 Non-U.S. Citizen < 5 --- 33 38.4 40 46.5 10 11.6

Race/Ethnicitycclii Asian/Asian American < 5 --- 46 56.8 28 34.6 6 7.4 Black/African American < 5 --- 7 25.0 17 60.7 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic < 5 --- 16 32.0 24 48.0 7 14.0 White 37 4.4 243 29.0 484 57.8 73 8.7 Mixed Race < 5 --- 6 24.0 15 60.0 < 5 ---

I have opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. 168 15.3 639 58.2 236 21.5 55 5.0

Citizenship statusccliii U.S. Citizen 145 17.5 480 57.8 167 20.1 38 4.6 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 15 9.1 89 54.3 48 29.3 12 7.3 Non-U.S. Citizen < 5 --- 64 72.7 17 19.3 < 5 ---

Race/Ethnicityccliv Asian/Asian American < 5 --- 48 60.0 22 27.5 6 7.5 Black/African American < 5 --- 19 65.5 5 17.2 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 7 14.0 23 46.0 15 30.0 5 10.0 White 143 16.8 506 59.5 165 19.4 36 4.2 Mixed Race < 5 --- 11 44.0 9 36.0 < 5 ---



168

governance process is a sham designed so administration can say they value faculty input.

Basically, the University of Florida administration does whatever it wants to do regardless of

what the faculty thinks or suggests.” Another stated, “There are lots of opportunities to

participate, but many times faculty input is overridden or not taken into account. You start to feel

as though it is a waste of time to participate.” Some respondents detailed experiences with

committees where faculty made recommendations but were then ignored. Respondents suggested

that faculty and administration rarely see eye-to-eye on issues. The focus on funding was

particularly contentious. One respondent wrote, “All UF cares about is how much grant money

you bring in. Everything else (research that does not bring in grant money, teaching, service) is

inconsequential.” Decision-making was seen as a top-down affair, with little input accepted from

faculty. One respondent explained, “The questions ask about substantive committee assignments,

which assumes there are substantive committees. In my experience (20+ years), there are no

committees that deal with substantive issues. When we have had some that could have been

substantive (e.g. advisory and budget committees), nothing substantive gets discussed or done. I

think there has been a long-standing top-down culture at UF that does not allow for meaningful

engagement with faculty.”

Difficulty Balancing Research, Service, and Teaching. Related to the broader issues of the tenure

and promotion process was discussion of research, service, and teaching. Twenty-two percent of

respondents had responses that touched on research, service, teaching, or the intersection of these

areas. Respondents often lamented the amount of time required by one area to the detriment of

another. One respondent wrote, “Teaching responsibilities 1) exceed the valuing of teaching by

T&P process; 2) are unbalanced with the time allowed to prepare and perform adequate teaching

(which means time subtracted for research, grant and paper writing).” Another discussed service

by noting, “Service work-loads within departments are not equal. ‘Star’ researchers are not asked

to do basic service but they highly benefit by those efforts of others. Those doing the service do

not have the opportunity to build their research portfolios that would make it easier for

promotion.” Often the discussion was related to success or failure in the tenure process. One

respondent wrote, “Teaching is valued at UF, but research is valued more. Excellent researchers

who don't excel in the classroom will be tenured but the reverse will not happen.” Another

stated, “Sometimes people are better at service or teaching than others. But as a result, some



169

people are asked to do more of those things, when the salary raises, awards, and respect follows

the research. Even at the department level (or especially at this level) we give productive

researchers more time to do their own thing.”

Unclear Tenure and Promotion Process. Eighteen percent of respondents elaborated on issues

related to the tenure and promotion process. Most thought that the standards were either unclear

or at least unequally applied. One respondent stated, “Criteria for promotion are not clear; I

fulfilled the requirements but was denied promotion without any justification whatsoever.”

Another respondent summarized, “The criteria for tenure and promotion is never clear and

unfairly applied among faculty members.” A small number of respondents were satisfied that the

tenure and promotion process was fair, but some still had concerns. One respondent wrote, “In

general, I find the expectations for tenure and promotion fair within UF. I do have to say that

there are colleagues that should not be granted tenure because of their passive and absent

behavior relative to their responsibilities and expectations.” Others had more specific concerns

regarding the appropriateness of the standards to their particular field or discipline. One

respondent explained, “Tenure and promotion requirements do not reflect the nature of my field

which places more emphasis on service to the University and profession than publishing.”

Service was especially discussed as something that was necessary but not equally assigned and

not often given much support and importance. One respondent wrote, “Service is very time

consuming and is not valued beyond lip service in decisions about tenure, promotion, and merit

raises. Faculty who have poor interpersonal skills are not asked to take on leadership positions in

service, so the burden falls to the same small group of faculty who can get along with others.”

The survey queried Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, and

Adjunct Faculty respondents about their perceptions as employees with Non-Tenure-Track

appointments. Table 36 indicates that 71% (n = 629) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent

Status, Permanent Status Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly

agreed” that the criteria used for job retention were clear.

Fifty-nine percent (n = 503) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents indicated that the criteria used for job retention were



170

applied equally to all faculty. A higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (61%, n =

475) than respondents with Disabilities (43%, n = 27) felt this way. Additionally, respondents

with Military Service (78%, n = 43) were more likely to feel this way compared to respondents

with No Military Service (58%, n = 457).

Sixty-two percent (n = 5,550) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents indicated that the criteria used for promotion were

clear. Respondents with Military Service (80%, n = 45) were more likely to feel this way than

respondents with No Military Service (61%, n = 501).

Seventy-six percent (n = 665) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents believed that clear expectations existed of their

responsibilities. Respondents with Military Service (90%, n = 52) were more likely to feel this

way compared to respondents with No Military Service (75%, n = 608).



171

Table 36. Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, and Adjunct Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Note: Table includes Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, or Adjunct Appointments respondents (n = 896) only.

Table 37 illustrates that 92% (n = 806) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent

Status Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that research

was valued by UF. By gender/gender identity, 95% (n = 455) of Women respondents and 90% (n

= 344) of Men respondents felt this way. A higher percentage of US. Citizen respondents (93%,

n = 652) than Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents (89%, n = 85) and Non-U.S. Citizen

respondents (80%, n = 52) felt that research was valued at UF. Finally, by race/ethnicity, 91% (n

= 66) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 97% (n = 31) of Black/African American

respondents, 81% (n = 38) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 83% (n = 616) of White

respondents, and 94% (n = 29) of Mixed Race respondents felt that research was valued at UF.

Seventy-three percent (n =630) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents felt that teaching was valued by UF. A higher

percentage of Men respondents (76%, n = 283) than Women respondents (71%, n = 340) felt this

way. By faith-based affiliation, 78% (n = 345) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 76%

(n = 55) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 69% (n = 196) of respondents with


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


The criteria for job retention are clear. 176 19.9 453 51.2 207 23.4 49 5.5

The criteria used for job retention are applied equally to all faculty. 106 12.5 397 46.8 249 29.3 97 11.4

Disability statuscclv Disability 7 11.1 20 31.7 29 46.0 7 11.1 No Disability 99 12.6 376 47.9 220 28.0 90 11.5

Military statuscclvi Military Service 15 27.3 28 50.9 9 16.4 < 5 --- No Military Service 91 11.6 366 46.6 235 29.9 93 11.8

The criteria for promotion are clear.] 149 16.9 401 45.4 254 28.8 79 8.9

Military statuscclvii Military Service 13 23.2 32 57.1 8 14.3 < 5 --- No Military Service 136 16.6 365 44.6 241 29.5 76 9.3

There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 189 21.5 476 54.0 179 20.3 37 4.2

Military statuscclviii Military Service 24 41.4 28 48.3 < 5 --- < 5 --- No Military Service 165 20.3 443 54.4 171 21.0 35 4.3



172

No Affiliation, and 68% (n = 23) of those with Multiple Affiliations felt that teaching was valued

at UF.

Table 37. Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate


Thirty-eight percent (n = 325) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents felt burdened by service responsibilities beyond

those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships,

departmental/program work assignments) (Table 38). By race/ethnicity, 51% (n = 35) of


(n = 17) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, and 35% (n = 230) of White respondents


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %



Gender/Gender identitycclix Woman 277 56.9 178 36.6 24 4.9 8 1.6 Man 185 48.6 159 41.7 21 5.5 16 4.2

Citizenship statuscclx U.S. Citizen 386 55.3 266 38.1 29 4.2 17 2.4 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 40 41.7 45 46.9 6 6.3 5 5.2 Non-U.S. Citizen 26 40.0 26 40.0 10 15.4 < 5 4.6

Race/Ethnicitycclxi Asian/Asian American 28 38.4 38 52.1 6 8.2 < 5 --- Black/African American 22 68.8 9 28.1 0 0 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 19 40.4 19 40.4 7 14.9 < 5 --- White 369 55.9 247 27.4 28 4.2 16 2.4 Mixed Race 18 58.1 11 35.5 < 5 --- < 5 ---


Gender/Gender identitycclxii Woman 116 24.1 224 46.6 104 21.6 37 7.7 Man 78 21.0 205 55.1 52 14.0 37 9.9

Faith-based affiliationcclxiii Christian Affiliation 125 28.1 220 49.4 74 16.6 26 5.8 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 14 19.4 41 56.9 9 12.5 8 11.1 No Affiliation 46 16.1 150 52.6 59 20.7 30 10.5 Multiple Affiliations 8 23.5 15 44.1 7 20.6 < 5 ---



173

“strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this was the case.90 Further analysis revealed that 41% (n =

28) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 22% (n = 7) of Black/African American respondents,

22% (n = 10) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 23% (n = 153) of White respondents,

and 20% (n = 6) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with the statement.

Forty percent (n = 336) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing,

and Adjunct Faculty respondents felt 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. By race/ethnicity, 41% (n = 28) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 38% (n = 17)

of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, and 41% (n = 258) of White respondents “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” that this was the case.91

Forty-eight percent (n = 422) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents felt pressured to do extra work that was

uncompensated. By gender/gender identity, 53% (n = 258) of Women respondents and 41% (n =

155) of Men respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement. Respondents with No

Military Service (29%, n = 234) were more likely to “agree” with the statement than respondents

with Military Service (19%, n = 11).

Fifty-five percent (n =467) of Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status

Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty respondents felt that Non-Tenure-Track Faculty opinions were

taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., chair, dean, provost).

90Mixed Race respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 91Black/African American and Mixed Race respondents who “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



174

Table 38. Non-Tenure-Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, and Adjunct Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate


Two hundred forty-seven respondents chose to elaborate on their responses to Question 22. Four

themes emerged. In addition, a few respondents from both this question and the previous

qualitative question were concerned that issues of extension were not included in these survey

items; this concern is discussed below.

Lack of Compensation for Workload Expectations. Twenty-three percent of respondents

described concerns about the extent to which they were overworked and underpaid in their

current position. Many described the expectation that they work more hours than were included


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments) 109 12.7 215 25.0 449 52.1 88 10.2

Race/Ethnicitycclxiv Asian/Asian American 7 10.1 28 40.6 33 47.8 < 5 --- Black/African American 8 25.0 7 21.9 15 46.9 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 7 15.2 10 21.7 25 54.3 < 5 --- White 78 12.0 152 23.4 346 53.2 74 11.4 Mixed Race < 5 --- 6 20.0 19 63.3 < 5 ---


Race/Ethnicitycclxv Asian/Asian American 5 7.2 23 33.3 40 58.0 < 5 --- Black/African American 9 29.0 < 5 --- 19 61.3 0 0 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 5 11.1 12 26.7 26 57.8 < 5 --- White 98 15.6 160 25.4 317 50.4 54 8.6 Mixed Race < 5 --- < 5 --- 16 59.3 5 18.5

Pressured to do extra work that is uncompensated. 175 20.0 247 28.3 368 42.2 83 9.5

Gender/Gender identitycclxvi Woman 114 23.6 144 29.8 175 36.2 50 10.4 Man 59 15.6 96 25.3 191 50.4 33 8.7

Military statuscclxvii Military Service < 5 --- 11 19.3 38 66.7 < 5 --- No Military Service 169 20.9 234 29.0 326 40.4 78 9.7

Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., chair, dean, provost). 59 6.9 408 47.9 268 31.5 116 13.6



175

in their official job requirements. One respondent shared, “The volume of work is untenable -

working on average 10 hours a day and then additional work on the weekends.” Another stated,

“Time demands do not come close to matching pay.” Several lamented the fact that extra work,

often in the form of tedious administrative burdens or service requirements, kept them from

pursuing research or other career-related tasks. One respondent wrote, “All faculty that I know of

are overburdened by the mundane administrative and secretarial tasks which take time away

from clinical and teaching duties.”

Unclear Criteria for Advancement. Of the respondents, 19% wrote about the criteria for

advancement, including promotions, raises, retention, or tenure. Most felt that the criteria

available to them were unclear. One respondent explained, “I do not think that the promotion

process is very clear and seems to change every year despite the fact that we are told that the

process is supposed to be ‘easier’ and ‘more clear.’ I have worked here for 5 years and still not

sure when I should apply for promotion and when I ‘will meet criteria.’ Also not clear as to what

constitutes job retention/firing criteria, although I am not concerned about losing my job but

have seen others fired/asked to leave in the department.” Some simply had no idea what the

criteria were, such as the respondent who stated, “Research Scientists have no idea about the

prospects for us to be promoted.” Others expressed concerns that criteria were applied unequally

to different people, if they were applied at all. One respondent wrote, “People are often given

promotions without an opportunity for others equally or more qualified to apply for the same

position.” Some were concerned that the same criteria were applied to people from very different

positions/disciplines. One respondent shared, “No clear merit or promotion criteria. NTT Faculty

lines are evaluated by faculty along with other TT faculty without consideration of different job

duties.” A shared sentiment existed that, “There should be more clear guidelines for colleges and

department chairs regarding promotion and advancement of non-tenure track faculty, as well as

regarding ‘fair’ work-load balances and expectations of performance.”

Value of Research over Teaching.. Seventeen percent of respondents discussed issues related to

research and teaching in their responses. Many felt that research was the main focus to the

detriment of teaching quality at the university. One respondent wrote, “Teachers at UF must

publish or perish because we are a research university, and the students suffer for it.” Several



176

expressed the sentiment that “in general, teaching is undervalued.” Others expressed concern

about the new push for online teaching and a focus on revenue. One respondent summed up the

issues succinctly by noting, “Little emphasis is placed on quality teaching. Tenure is based

almost exclusively on research. An extreme emphasis is now placed on online teaching and

increased revenue.” Those that commented more on research were concerned that research was a

main focus of the tenure criteria to the exclusion of other areas, despite the fact that not all

positions are research-based. One respondent noted, “Promotion is strongly biased towards

research. Other areas of contribution, especially administrative, are not valued.” Another shared,

“As a lecturer, the criteria for promotion is service and teaching. However, when going up for

promotion, the packet clearly shows an interest in any research and scholarship - we get a mixed

message.”

Faculty Voices Ignored. Fourteen percent of respondents described concerns about the extent to

which faculty had a voice in the decision-making process. Most felt that faculty were not listened

to, and that administration had no interest in their input. One respondent described a specific

incident saying, “This past year saw the {name} form a workload guidelines revision task force.

The task force met several times and then presented the initial and a second draft to faculty. A

number of faculty indicated how the guidelines were not consistent with UF rules regarding

working with doctoral students. They were ignored.” Another noted, “Senior level leadership

does not seem in touch or responsive to faculty concerns.” Additionally, some respondents

expressed concern that if faculty did not echo the opinions of the administration, they would be

subject to retaliation. One respondent wrote, “I have been told that I should never go to {name}

even if I have serious issues that I don't feel are being addressed. I have been told that {name}

would (and has) fired people at UF and my job would be at risk,” while another stated, “Faculty

opinions that don't agree with the views of senior administration are discouraged.”

De-Valuing Extension. Several faculty respondents to this question as well as to Question 21

were upset that extension was not included among the survey items. As one respondent wrote,

“Very cute that you don't seem to care that Extension is valued by UF!!! I guess you forgot this

was a land-grant and teaching and research are not the only things that should be valued.”

Several respondents had similar statements about how telling it was that extension was left off



177

the list, despite the fact that the University of Florida is a land-grant institution. One respondent

elaborated, “This survey is problematic in that it does not address the various categories on non-

tenured, but permanent status employees, and more disturbing, thus far completely neglects a

major component of what makes the University of Florida at land-grant: Extension. The

omission of Extension is documentation of UF's seemingly marginalizing attitude toward a large

segment of the faculty more than any of the other questions in the survey so far. Anyone with an

Extension appointment knows that it will be a challenge to produce a successful T&P packet

because the rest of the University does not understand/appreciate Extension objectives and

efforts.” One respondent observed, “Extension and the Land Grant Mission are the backbone of

this University and are what helped make it great. If you are serious about campus climate, there

should be training for on-campus faculty regarding the Land Grant Mission and the Extension

Service. Your own faculty don't know what Extension is or that every County has an office to

help local residents with issues that affect them daily.” Another commented, “Very upset that UF

and this survey would dismiss Extension when over half the faculty at UF have an Extension

role. Talk about being treated differently. I guess ignored is okay...as long as you are not

ignoring teaching and research.”

Additionally, all Faculty respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed to a

series of 13 statements related to faculty workplace climate (Table 39 through Table 41). Chi-

square analyses were conducted by faculty status, gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, sexual

identity, military status, citizenship status, faith-based affiliation, and disability status; only

significant differences are reported.

Fifty-four percent (n = 1,007) of all Faculty respondents believed that salaries for Tenure-Track

Faculty positions were competitive. Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents (68%, n = 367)

were more likely to feel this way compared to Tenure-Accruing (59%, n = 124) and Tenured

Faculty (42%, n =383) respondents. By faith-based affiliation, 58% (n = 469) of respondents

with a Christian Affiliation, 56% (n = 85) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations,

52% (n = 376) of those with No Affiliation, and 57% (n = 29) of those with Multiple Affiliations

felt this way. With regard to military service, 66% (n = 65) of those with Military Service and



178

54% (n = 934) of respondents with No Military Service felt that salaries for Tenure-Track

Faculty positions were competitive.

Forty-four percent (n = 702) of all Faculty respondents thought that salaries for adjunct

professors were competitive. Among faculty, 36% (n = 265) of Tenured Faculty respondents and

51% (n = 249) of Non-Tenure-Accruing respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed.”92 Additional

analysis revealed that 33% (n = 242) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 46% (n = 72) of Tenure-

Accruing respondents, and 47% (n = 234) of Non-Tenure-Accruing respondents “agreed” with

the statement. In addition, respondents with No Disability (42%, n = 601) were more likely than

respondents with Disabilities (32%, n = 46) to “agree” with the statement.93 Respondents with

Military Service (52%, n = 46) were also more likely than respondents with No Military Service

(41%, n = 596) to “agree” with the statement.94 Heterosexual respondents (45%, n = 622) were

more likely than LGBQ respondents (39%, n = 42) to feel this way. By faith-based affiliation,

51% (n = 365) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 46% (n = 59) of respondents with

Other Faith-Based Affiliations, and 39% (n = 231) of respondents with No Affiliation “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” that salaries for adjunct faculty are competitive.95 Further analysis showed

that 47% (n = 339) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 38% (n = 48) of respondents with

Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 37% (n = 217) of respondents with No Affiliation, and 33% (n =

26) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations “agreed” with the statement.

Forty-six percent (n = 807) of all Faculty respondents thought that salaries for Non-Tenure-Track

Faculty were competitive. Men respondents (49%, n = 468) were more likely than Women

respondents (42%, n = 328) to “strongly agree” or “agree” that this was the case. Respondents

with No Disability (43%, n = 693) were more likely than respondents with Disabilities (32%, n =

92Tenure-Accruing respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 93Faculty respondents with Disabilities who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 94Faculty respondents with Military Service who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 95Faculty respondents with Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



179

47) to “agree” with the statement.96 Respondents with Military Service (55%, n = 52) were also

more likely than respondents with No Military Service (43%, n = 693) to “agree” with the

statement.97

Seventy-five percent (n = 1,458) of all Faculty respondents reported that health insurance

benefits were competitive. Among faculty, 69% (n = 613) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 78%

(n = 165) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, and 49% (n = 500) of Non-Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents felt this way. Women respondents (79%, n = 675) were more likely than

Men respondents (72%, n = 765) to believe that health insurance benefits were competitive.

Finally, by citizenship status, 77% (n = 1,151) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 67% (n = 172) of

Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 73% (n = 113) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents

believed that this was the case.

Fifty-six percent (n = 867) of all Faculty respondents indicated that child care benefits were

competitive. Men respondents (60%, n = 500) were more likely than Women respondents (52%,

n = 356) to feel this way. By sexual identity, 56% (n = 770) of Heterosexual respondents and

53% (n = 52) of LGBQ respondents believed this to be the case. By citizenship status, 57% (n =

683) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 52% (n = 106) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and

46% (n = 60) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt that child care benefits were competitive.

Additionally, 59% (n = 424) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 65% (n = 85) of

respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, and 52% (n = 299) of respondents with No

Affiliation “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.98 Additional analysis revealed that

54% (n = 391) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 54% (n = 71) of respondents with

Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 47% (n = 272) of respondents with No Affiliation, and 47% (n =

32) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations “agreed” with the statement. Finally, 72% (n = 62)

96Faculty respondents with Disabilities who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 97Faculty respondents with Military Service who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 98Faculty respondents with Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



180

of respondents with Military Service and 50% (n = 718) of respondents with No Military Service

“agreed” with the statement.99

Fifty-five percent (n = 1,020) of all Faculty respondents felt that retirement/supplemental

benefits were competitive. Among faculty, 42% (n = 355) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 59%

(n = 119) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, and 65% (n = 392) of Non-Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents felt this way. Women respondents (63%, n = 512) were more likely than

Men respondents (49%, n = 496) to believe that retirement/supplemental benefits were

competitive. By citizenship status, 57% (n = 818) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 48% (n = 117) of

Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 46% (n = 67) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents

believed that this was the case. Finally, 60% (n = 508) of respondents with a Christian

Affiliation, 48% (n = 73) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, and 52% (n = 367)

of respondents with No Affiliation “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.100

Additional analysis revealed that 52% (n = 435) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 41%

(n = 62) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 45% (n = 321) of respondents with

No Affiliation, and 47% (n = 38) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations “agreed” with the

statement. Table 39. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Salary and Benefits

99Faculty respondents with Military Service who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 100Faculty respondents with Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


Salaries for Tenure-Track Faculty positions are competitive. 97 5.2 910 49.1 586 31.6 259 14.0

Faculty statuscclxviii Tenured 45 4.9 338 37.1 330 36.3 197 21.6 Tenure-Accruing 12 5.7 112 52.8 60 28.3 28 13.2 Non-Tenure-Accruing 29 5.4 338 62.8 143 26.6 28 5.2

Faith-based affiliationcclxix Christian Affiliation 40 4.9 429 52.6 252 30.9 95 11.6 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 15 9.9 70 46.4 50 33.1 16 10.6 No Affiliation 38 5.3 338 46.9 237 32.9 107 14.9 Multiple Affiliations 0 0 49 57.0 22 25.6 15 17.4



181

Table 39 (cont.)

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Strongly agree

n %

Military statuscclxx

Military Service 5 5.1 60 61.2 28 28.6 5 5.1

No Military Service 92 5.3 842 48.7 552 31.9 242 14.0

Salaries for adjunct professors are competitive. 53 3.4 649 41.0 628 39.7 252 15.9

Faculty statuscclxxi Tenured 23 3.1 242 33.0 324 44.1 145 19.8 Tenure-Accruing < 5 --- 72 45.6 62 39.2 21 13.3 Non-Tenure-Accruing 15 4.0 234 47.2 187 37.7 60 12.1

Sexual identitycclxxii LGBQ 7 6.5 35 32.4 37 34.3 29 26.9 Heterosexual 42 3.0 580 41.8 561 40.4 205 14.8

Disability statuscclxxiii Disability < 5 --- 46 31.7 62 42.8 35 24.1 No Disability 51 3.6 601 41.9 565 39.4 216 15.1

Faith-based affiliationcclxxiv Christian Affiliation 26 3.6 339 47.1 271 37.7 83 11.5 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 11 8.6 48 37.5 53 41.4 16 12.5 No Affiliation 14 2.4 217 36.5 245 41.2 119 20.0 Multiple Affiliations < 5 --- 26 33.3 34 43.6 17 21.8

Military statuscclxxv Military Service < 5 --- 46 51.7 35 39.3 5 5.6 No Military Service 50 3.4 596 40.5 587 39.9 237 16.1

Salaries for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty positions are competitive. 65 3.7 742 42.4 688 39.4 253 14.5

Gender/Gender identitycclxxvi Woman 30 3.9 298 38.4 309 39.8 140 18.0 Man 35 3.7 433 45.7 370 39.1 109 11.5

Disability statuscclxxvii Disability < 5 --- 47 31.8 62 41.9 36 24.3 No Disability 62 3.9 693 43.4 625 39.1 217 13.6

Military statuscclxxviii Military Service < 5 --- 52 54.7 35 36.8 < 5 --- No Military Service 61 3.7 683 41.9 646 39.6 241 14.8

Health insurance benefits are competitive. 265 13.6 1193 61.1 364 18.7 129 6.6

Faculty statuscclxxix Tenured 78 8.8 535 60.1 195 21.9 82 9.2 Tenure-Accruing 31 14.6 134 62.9 42 19.7 6 2.8 Non-Tenure-Accruing 108 17.0 392 31.6 102 16.0 34 5.3

Gender/Gender identitycclxxx Woman 136 15.9 539 62.8 133 15.5 50 5.8 Man 125 11.8 640 60.2 224 21.1 74 7.0



182

Table 39 (cont.)

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Strongly agree

n %

Citizenship statuscclxxxi

U.S. Citizen 206 13.7 945 62.8 256 17.0 97 6.4

U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 25 9.7 147 56.8 65 25.1 22 8.5

Non-U.S. Citizen 28 18.1 85 54.8 35 22.6 7 4.5

Child care benefits are competitive. 79 5.1 788 50.8 506 32.6 179 11.5

Gender/Gender identitycclxxxii Woman 41 6.0 315 45.9 235 34.3 95 13.8 Man 37 4.4 463 55.2 262 31.2 77 9.2

Sexual identitycclxxxiii LGBQ 10 10.2 42 42.9 30 30.6 16 16.3 Heterosexual 66 4.8 704 51.5 450 32.9 147 10.8

Faith-based affiliationcclxxxiv Christian Affiliation 33 4.6 391 54.2 228 31.6 69 9.6 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 14 10.7 71 54.2 34 26.0 12 9.2 No Affiliation 27 4.7 272 47.1 201 34.8 77 13.3 Multiple Affiliations < 5 --- 32 47.1 28 41.2 6 8.8

Citizenship statuscclxxxv U.S. Citizen 56 4.7 627 52.7 381 32.0 126 10.6 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 11 5.4 95 47.0 69 34.2 27 13.4 Non-U.S. Citizen 10 7.6 50 37.9 51 38.6 21 15.9

Military servicecclxxxvi Military Service < 5 --- 62 72.1 20 23.3 < 5 --- No Military Service 76 5.3 718 49.7 481 33.3 171 11.8

Retirement/supplemental benefits are competitive. 138 7.4 882 47.3 589 31.6 256 13.7

Faculty statuscclxxxvii Tenured 36 4.2 319 37.3 321 37.5 179 20.9 Tenure-Accruing 19 9.5 100 49.8 62 30.8 20 10.0 Non-Tenure-Accruing 56 9.2 336 55.4 166 27.4 48 7.9

Gender/Gender identitycclxxxviii Woman 75 9.2 437 53.6 229 28.1 75 9.2 Man 63 6.2 433 42.4 353 34.5 173 16.9

Sexual identitycclxxxix LGBQ 19 16.2 47 40.2 32 27.4 19 16.2 Heterosexual 114 6.9 791 48.1 529 32.2 209 12.7

Faith-based affiliationccxc Christian Affiliation 73 8.6 435 51.5 238 28.2 98 11.6 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 11 7.2 62 40.5 54 35.3 26 17.0 No Affiliation 46 6.5 321 45.1 245 34.4 100 14.0 Multiple Affiliations < 5 --- 38 46.9 27 33.3 12 14.8



183

Note: Table includes Faculty respondents (n = 2,037) only.

Twenty-one percent (n = 380) of all Faculty respondents believed that people who do not have

children were burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children (e.g., stay

late, off-hour work, work weekends) (Table 40). Among faculty, 18% (n = 151) of Tenured

Faculty respondents, 21% (n = 41) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, and 23% (n = 132)

of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt this way. LGBQ respondents (42%, n = 49)

were more likely to feel this way compared to Heterosexual respondents (19%, n = 306).

Sixty-five percent (n = 1,179) of all Faculty respondents believed that people who have children

or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and

evenings programing, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district

breaks). Among faculty, 66% (n = 551) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 68% (n = 130) of

Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, and 63% (n = 365) of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty

respondents felt this way. Women respondents (72%, n = 581) were more likely than Men

respondents (60%, n = 580) to believe this was the case. Additionally, 76% (n = 121) of

respondents with Disabilities and 64% (n = 1,056) of respondents with No Disabilities felt this

way. By faith-based affiliation, 63% (n = 519) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 61%

(n = 89) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 69% (n = 467) of those with No

Affiliation, and 72% (n = 62) of those with Multiple Affiliations believed this was the case.

Finally, a higher percentage of respondents with No Military Service (66%, n = 1,116) than

respondents with Military Service (53%, n = 50) felt that people with children or elder care were

burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities.

Forty-one percent (n = 719) of all Faculty respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that UF

provided adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance (e.g., child care, wellness

Table 39 (cont.)

Agree

n % Disagree n %


Strongly agree

n % Citizenship Statusccxci

U.S. Citizen 114 7.9 704 48.8 428 29.7 197 13.7 U.S. Citizen,

Naturalized 7 2.8 110 44.7 93 37.8 36 14.6 Non-U.S.

Citizen 11 7.5 56 38.4 64 43.8 15 10.3



184

services, elder care, housing location assistance, transportation). Men respondents (47%, n =

447) were more likely than Women respondents (33%, n = 262) to feel this way. Forty-two

percent (n = 330) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 50% (n = 72) of respondents with

Other Faith-Based Affiliations, and 40% (n = 267) of respondents with No Affiliation “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.101 Further analysis revealed that 39% (n = 306) of

respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 42% (n = 61) of respondents with Other Faith-Based

Affiliations, 38% (n = 253) of respondents with No Affiliation, and 28% (n = 22) of those with

Multiple Affiliations “agreed” with the statement. Respondents with No Disability (39%, n =

625) were more likely than respondents with Disabilities (26%, n = 39) to “agree” with the

statement. Similarly, a higher percentage of respondents with Military Service (56%, n = 49)

than respondents with No Military Service (37%, n = 612) “agreed” with the statement. Finally,

by race/ethnicity, 44% (n = 60) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 42% (n = 36) of


of Mixed Race respondents felt that this was the case.102 Further analysis revealed that 40% (n =

55) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 23% (n = 12) of Black/African American

respondents, 35% (n = 30) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 39% (n = 520) of White

respondents, and 31% (n = 17) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with the statement.

Table 40. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Work-Life Balance

101Respondents with Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 102Black/African American Faculty respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


People who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends). 120 6.6 260 14.2 1,074 58.7 377 20.6

Faculty statusccxcii Tenured 50 5.9 101 12.0 495 58.8 196 23.3 Tenure-Accruing 15 7.5 26 13.1 111 55.8 47 23.6 Non-Tenure-Accruing 37 6.4 95 16.4 350 60.4 97 16.8

Sexual identityccxciii LGBQ 23 19.8 26 22.4 52 44.8 15 12.9 Heterosexual 88 5.5 218 13.5 967 59.9 341 21.1



185


Table 40 (cont.)

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Strongly agree

n %

People who have children or elder care are burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities 320 17.7 859 47.5 547 30.3 81 4.5

Faculty statusccxciv Tenured 125 14.9 426 50.8 239 28.5 49 5.8 Tenure-Accruing 51 26.7 79 41.4 53 27.7 8 4.2 Non-Tenure-Accruing 101 17.5 264 45.7 194 33.6 19 3.3

Gender/Gender identityccxcv Woman 195 24.1 386 47.8 197 24.4 30 3.7 Man 121 12.4 459 47.1 347 35.6 47 4.8

Disability statusccxcvi Disability 34 21.5 87 55.1 33 20.9 < 5 --- No Disability 286 17.4 770 46.8 514 31.3 74 4.5

Faith-based affiliationccxcvii Christian Affiliation 140 17.0 379 46.1 268 32.6 36 4.4 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 21 14.3 68 46.3 45 30.6 13 8.8 No Affiliation 124 18.2 343 50.4 191 28.1 22 3.2 Multiple Affiliations 22 25.6 40 46.5 21 24.4 < 5 ---

Military statusccxcviii Military 9 9.6 41 43.6 41 43.6 < 5 --- No Military Service 305 18.0 811 48.0 299 29.5 76 4.5

UF provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation). 52 2.9 667 37.8 779 44.2 265 15.0

Gender/Gender identityccxcix Woman 22 2.8 240 30.3 384 48.4 146 18.5 Man 29 3.1 418 44.3 382 40.5 114 12.1

Disability statusccc Disability < 5 --- 39 25.7 75 49.3 36 23.7 No Disability 39 3.0 625 38.9 704 43.8 229 14.3

Faith-based affiliationccci Christian Affiliation 24 3.0 306 38.6 346 43.7 116 14.6 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 11 7.6 61 42.1 53 36.6 20 13.8 No Affiliation 14 2.1 253 37.5 308 45.7 99 14.7 Multiple Affiliations < 5 --- 22 27.5 43 53.8 13 16.3

Military statuscccii Military Service < 5 --- 49 55.7 32 36.4 5 5.7 No Military Service 50 3.0 612 37.0 738 44.6 255 15.4

Race/Ethnicityccciii Asian/Asian American 5 3.6 55 40.1 58 42.3 19 13.9 Black/African American < 5 --- 12 22.6 25 47.2 13 24.5 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 6 7.1 30 35.3 31 36.5 18 21.2 White 29 2.2 520 38.7 598 44.6 195 14.5 Mixed Race 5 9.1 17 30.9 26 47.3 7 12.7



186

As noted in Table 41, 74% (n = 1,417) of all Faculty respondents believed their colleagues

included them in opportunities that will help their career as much as they do others in their

position. Respondents with No Disability (75%, n = 1,311) were more likely than respondents

with Disabilities (62%, n = 101) to feel this way. By citizenship status, 77% (n = 1,131) of U.S.

Citizen respondents, 62% (n = 152) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 73% (n = 111)

of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents believed that this was the case. Sixty-eight percent (n = 100) of

Asian/Asian American respondents, 71% (n = 63) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents,

77% (n = 1,115) of White respondents, and 76% (n = 44) of Mixed Race respondents “strongly

agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.103 Additional analysis revealed that 57% (n = 84) of


(n = 51) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 60% (n =878) of White respondents, and

53% (n = 31) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with the statement.

Sixty-four percent (n = 1,265) of all Faculty respondents believed that the performance

evaluation process was clear. A higher percentage of Heterosexual respondents (65%, n = 1,122)

than LGBQ respondents (58%, n = 72) believed that this was the case. Additionally, 65% (n =

1,167) of respondents with No Disability and 56% (n = 94) of respondents with Disabilities

believed that the performance evaluation process was clear. Finally, 66% (n = 1,002) of U.S.

Citizen respondents, 60% (n = 155) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 58% (n = 88)

of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt this way.

Sixty-four percent (n = 1,261) of all Faculty respondents thought that UF provided them with

resources to pursue professional development (e.g., conferences, materials, travel for research

and course design). Among faculty, 56% (n = 502) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 71% (n =

147) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, and 70% (n = 446) of Non-Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents felt this way. Additionally, 66% (n = 1,175) of respondents with No

Disability and 50% (n = 84) of respondents with Disabilities believed that this was the case. By

faith-based affiliation, 68% (n = 603) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 69% (n = 109)

103Black/African American Faculty respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



187

of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 63% (n = 468) of respondents with No

Affiliation, and 45% (n = 40) of those with Multiple Affiliations felt that UF provided them with

these resources. Finally, 66% (n = 1,002) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 56% (n = 146) of

Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 61% (n = 91) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt

that UF provided resources to pursue professional development.

Seventy-six percent (n =1,492) of all Faculty respondents believed they had job security. Among

faculty, 90% (n = 813) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 60% (n = 125) of Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents, and 63% (n = 405) of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt this

way. Men respondents (77%, n = 826) were more likely than Women respondents (74%, n =

648) to feel this way. Additionally, 77% (n = 1,381) of respondents with No Disability and 63%

(n = 106) of respondents with Disabilities believed that they had job security. A higher

percentage of respondents who were U.S. Citizens (77%, n = 1,185) and Naturalized U.S.

Citizens (73%, n = 186) than Non-U.S. Citizen respondents (66%, n = 101) felt this way. Finally,

72% (n = 107) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 75% (n = 46) of Black/African American

respondents, 69% (n = 63) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 77% (n = 1,162) of White

respondents, and 72% (n = 41) of Mixed Race respondents believed that they had job security.

Table 41. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate


Strongly agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree n %


My colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position. 295 15.5 1,122 58.8 352 18.5 138 7.2

Disability statusccciv Disability 26 16.0 75 46.3 39 24.1 22 13.6 No Disability 269 15.5 1,042 59.9 313 18.0 116 6.7

Citizenship statuscccv U.S. Citizen 246 16.6 885 59.9 256 17.3 91 6.2 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 22 9.0 130 53.1 64 26.1 29 11.8 Non-U.S. Citizen 20 13.2 91 59.9 25 16.4 16 10.5

Race/Ethnicitycccvi Asian/Asian American 16 10.8 84 56.8 34 23.0 14 9.5 Black/African American < 5 --- 23 39.7 15 25.9 16 27.6 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 12 13.5 51 57.3 18 20.2 8 9.0 White 237 16.3 878 60.4 252 17.3 86 5.9 Mixed Race 13 22.4 31 53.4 10 17.2 < 5 ---



188

Table 41 (cont.)

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Strongly agree n %


Sexual identitycccvii LGBQ 20 16.0 52 41.6 47 37.6 6 4.8 Heterosexual 211 12.2 911 52.8 454 26.3 149 8.6

Disability statuscccviii Disability 15 9.0 79 47.3 51 30.5 22 13.2 No Disability 228 12.7 939 52.4 479 26.7 145 8.1

Citizenship statuscccix U.S. Citizen 200 13.2 802 52.8 391 25.7 127 8.4 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 22 8.5 133 51.4 75 29.0 29 11.2 Non-U.S. Citizen 16 10.6 72 47.7 54 35.8 9 6.0

UF provides me with resources to pursue professional development (e.g., conferences, materials, research and course design traveling). 309 15.8 952 48.6 448 22.9 250 12.8

Faculty statuscccx Tenured 119 13.3 383 42.7 243 27.1 15 16.9 Tenure-Accruing 32 15.5 115 55.8 37 18.0 22 10.7 Non-Tenure-Accruing 109 17.2 337 53.1 130 20.5 59 9.3

Disability statuscccxi Disability 23 13.7 61 36.3 49 29.2 35 20.8 No Disability 286 16.0 889 49.8 397 22.2 213 11.9

Faith-based affiliationcccxii Christian Affiliation 160 18.1 443 50.2 183 20.7 97 11.0 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 34 21.5 75 47.5 28 27.7 21 13.3 No Affiliation 98 13.1 370 49.5 180 24.1 100 13.4 Multiple Affiliations 9 10.2 31 35.2 30 34.1 18 20.5

Citizenship statuscccxiii U.S. Citizen 254 16.8 748 49.3 330 21.8 184 12.1 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 30 11.5 116 44.6 70 26.9 44 16.9 Non-U.S. Citizen 19 12.7 72 48.0 43 28.7 16 10.7

I have job security. 411 20.8 1,081 54.7 332 16.8 153 7.7

Faculty statuscccxiv Tenured 289 31.9 524 57.8 74 8.2 19 2.1 Tenure-Accruing 18 8.7 107 51.4 56 26.9 27 13.0 Non-Tenure-Accruing 80 12.5 325 50.7 158 24.6 78 12.2

Gender/Gender identitycccxv Woman 156 17.8 492 56.1 158 18.0 71 8.1 Man 251 23.5 575 53.8 164 15.3 79 7.4

Disability statuscccxvi Disability 25 14.8 81 47.9 34 20.1 29 17.2 No Disability 384 21.3 997 55.3 297 16.5 124 6.9



189


Four hundred fifty-six Faculty elaborated on their responses about salary, benefits, work-life

balance, resources, job security, and evaluation. Out of the responses, four main themes were

identified.

Lack of Competitive Salaries/Decreasing Benefits. Thirty-one percent of respondents elaborated

on issues of compensation – salary, benefits, raises, tenure and promotion, and rewards. Overall,

respondents felt that salaries at UF were not competitive with other universities, especially for

faculty who had been at UF for a long time and those outside tenure-track. One respondent

stated, “I believe salaries for tenured faculty are not competitive, particularly for faculty

members who have been at UF for a substantial period of time. My understanding is that salaries

for adjunct faculty teaching part time are abysmal.” Respondents targeted “salary compression”

and the difficulty of getting any kind of raise. One respondent noted, “UF salaries are far below

even median salaries for my field. There is zero opportunity to get a raise to get up to even

median levels. I am inverted by recent hired assistant professors and UF doesn't care to fix this.”

Respondents were also concerned about UF benefits, especially reductions in benefits during

recent years. One respondent elaborated on the retirement benefits, saying, “there has been

considerable erosion in benefits, especially in regards to retirement. We have seen extensive

decreases in employer contributions to retirement to the point that the UF is no longer

competitive with many other schools.” Others noted changes with health care benefits or

domestic partner benefits. One respondent wrote, “GatorCare insurance is worse than when we

had Humana. Less is covered and there are greater out-of-pocket costs with Gatorcare compared

Table 41 (cont.)

Agree n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly disagree

n %

Strongly agree n %

Citizenship statuscccxvii U.S. Citizen 331 21.5 854 55.6 238 15.5 113 7.4 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 55 21.5 131 51.2 49 19.1 21 8.2 Non-U.S. Citizen 18 11.8 83 54.6 36 23.7 15 9.9

Race/Ethnicitycccxviii Asian/Asian American 18 12.1 89 59.7 34 22.8 8 5.4 Black/African American 7 11.5 39 63.9 12 19.7 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 16 17.6 47 51.6 20 22.0 8 8.8 White 341 22.5 821 54.2 238 15.7 114 7.5 Mixed Race 10 17.5 31 54.4 6 10.5 10 17.5



190

with previous group health plan. I understand it was a financial decision to save money, but it is

at the health expense and financial expense of UF employees. Bad choice.”

Lack of Faculty Support. Of the respondents, 24% were concerned with issues of faculty support.

Respondents expressed concern about professional development, especially travel funds for

conferences; resources for research; and administrative support. Many respondents stated the

funds for travel to conferences were minimal. One respondent reported, “Resources to pursue

professional development are essentially non-existent. The dollars available would barely cover

airfare. Lodging, meals, and conference tuition are all the responsibility of the faculty member.”

Another stated, “UF does provide resources for professional development but they are quite

inadequate as they have not increase significantly in the > 15 years I've been on faculty.” Others

lamented the lack of support, both money and time, for doing research. One respondent stated

simply, “Hugely inadequate resources to conduct my scholarly research.” Another commented

on how support for research is not great and varies by department, noting, “UF has an incredibly

poor research infrastructure and virtually no support for professional development--unless you

happen to be in the physical sciences, medicine, or engineering. Pretty much everybody else gets

almost nothing.”

Work-Life Issues. Twenty-three percent of respondents commented on work-life issues including

child care, elder care, family responsibilities, and overall workload. Child care benefits were

generally seen as lacking, with more than one respondent noting, “childcare (baby gator) at UF is

both difficult to get a spot in and is too expensive.” Family issues such as maternity leave and

matching university break schedules to local school system schedules also were often mentioned.

One respondent wrote, “UF is the biggest employer of parents of children in the Alachua County

School District. That they don't synchronize breaks is stupid.” Another respondent observed,

“We don't have maternity leave. Plain and simple,” while another elaborated, “The current

parental leave is a joke. UF wants to be a top 5 university? Then have a parental leave that

matches that. Don't make people pay back the weeks they took off. Give a REAL parental

leave.” Other family issues included tuition benefits for children, breastfeeding support, and the

frequency of scheduling evening events/meetings. Respondents did not feel that the University of

Florida was particularly supportive of families, with one respondent stating, “UF would probably



191

prefer single childless employees, so they can devote all time to UF.” Even more so than family

issues, respondents also commented on overall work-life balance with the general feeling that

“Everyone is overburdened, regardless of personal/children status.” One respondent stated that,

“Work is now 24/7 for faculty and many staff. Increasingly faculty are time stressed to

accomplish all that needs to be done to maintain funding streams and all other duties required.

The number of time consuming trainings for so many different aspects of work load is constantly

increasing at the expense of time to teach, research and provide service.” Another observed that,

“All faculty in my department, those with and without children, work well beyond 40 hours per

week, taking work home or attending meetings, etc. after hours and on weekends.”

Lack of Job Security. Of the respondents, 13% touched on job security. Many of the responses

were from contract employees who were renewed on a yearly basis, making it hard to feel truly

secure in their job. One respondent shared, “lecturers have no job security...1 year contracts are

ridiculous.” Others commented on how, even with tenure, no one quite felt that their job was

secure. One respondent explained, “The fact that the university fired tenure earning faculty in

2008 and other state universities fire tenured faculty I have not taken my job security for

granted.” Finally, a couple of respondents felt that job security was an issue if you had opinions

that differed from the administration. One respondent wrote, “If you disagree with certain leaders

you will be gone.” Another alluded to the workload expectations by sharing, “I have job security

as long as I am willing to work 7 days a week.” Others simply made statements such as, “I

honestly have no idea if I have job security,” and “There is never complete job security.”

Table 42 depicts Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents’ feelings of value at UF.

Subsequent analyses were conducted to identify significant differences in responses by faculty

status, gender/gender identity, race/ethnicity, disability status, military status, sexual identity,

age, and faith-based affiliation; only significant differences are reported.



192

Sixty-five percent (n = 1,582) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents104 felt valued

by faculty in their department (Table 42). A higher percentage of Men respondents (76%, n =

889) than Women respondents (71%, n = 674) believed this was the case. Heterosexual

respondents (74%, n = 1,405) were more likely than LGBQ respondents (68%, n = 88) to feel

this way. Additionally, 74% (n = 1,454) of respondents with No Disability and 67% (n = 122) of

respondents with Disabilities felt valued by their faculty. By citizenship status, 75% (n = 1,209)

of U.S. Citizen respondents, 70% (n = 188) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 71% (n

= 157) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents believed this was the case. A higher percentage of

respondents with Military Service (86%, n = 96) than those with No Military Service (74%, n =

1,473) felt this way. Finally, by race/ethnicity, 68% (n = 133) of Asian/Asian American

respondents, 57% (n = 37) of Black/African American respondents, 71% (n = 75) of

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic respondents, 76% (n = 1,216) of White respondents, and 72% (n =

47) of Mixed Race respondents felt valued by faculty in their department.

Seventy-nine percent (n = 1,503) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt valued

by their department head/chair. By position status, 72% (n = 1,443) of Faculty respondents and

52% (n = 60) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this was the case. Among all

faculty, 72% (n = 658) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 79% (n = 168) of Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents, and 68% (n = 448) of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt this

way. Seventy-three percent (n = 849) of Men respondents and 68% (n = 635) of Women

respondents felt valued by their department head/chair. Additionally, 71% (n = 1,326) of

Heterosexual respondents and 69% (n = 89) of LGBQ respondents believed that this was the

case. A higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (71%, n = 1,378) than respondents

with Disabilities (66%, n = 120) felt this way. Finally, 72% (n = 1,151) of U.S. Citizen

respondents, 66% (n = 177) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 67% (n = 149) of Non-

U.S. Citizen respondents felt valued by their department head/chair.

104For all analyses in this section on Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate perceptions, Transgender/Genderqueer/Other Faculty and Postdoctoral respondents (n = 8), Other Faculty and Postdoctoral respondents in terms of gender identity (n =20), Other People of Color Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents (n = 24), and Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents with Multiple Citizenships (n =22) were not included because their numbers were too few to maintain the confidentiality of their responses.



193

Sixty percent (n = 1,593) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt valued by UF

students. By position status, 78% (n = 1,534) of Faculty respondents and 52% (n = 59) of

Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this was the case. Among all faculty, 85% (n = 764)

of Tenured Faculty respondents, 74% (n = 153) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents, and

78% (n = 495) of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt this way. Seventy-nine percent

(n = 899) of Men respondents and 74% (n = 669) of Women respondents felt valued by UF

students. Finally, 77% (n = 1,200) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 84% (n = 218) of Naturalized

U.S. Citizens, and 69% (n = 150) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt valued by UF students.

Thirty-one percent (n = 829) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt valued by

UF senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). By position status, 40% (n = 795)

of Faculty respondents and 30% (n = 34) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this

was the case. Among all faculty, 40% (n = 361) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 38% (n = 78) of


respondents felt this way. Forty percent (n = 465) of Men respondents and 39% (n = 360) of

Women respondents felt valued by UF senior administrators. A higher percentage of respondents

with No Disability (40%, n = 775) than respondents with Disabilities (28%, n = 50) believed this

to be the case. Finally, 39% (n = 623) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 41% (n = 107) of Naturalized

U.S. Citizens, and 40% (n = 87) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt valued by UF senior

administrators.



194

Table 42. Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Strongly


Strongly disagree


I feel valued by faculty in my department. 665 31.0 917 42.7 279 13.0 201 9.4 84 3.9

Gender/Gender identitycccxix Woman 263 27.8 411 43.4 129 13.6 106 11.2 37 3.9 Man 395 33.8 494 42.3 145 12.4 88 7.5 45 3.9

Sexual identitycccxx LGBQ 40 31.0 48 37.2 10 7.8 25 19.4 6 4.7 Heterosexual 585 31.0 820 43.4 247 13.1 164 8.7 72 3.8

Disability statuscccxxi Disability 52 28.4 70 38.3 17 9.3 28 15.3 16 8.7 No Disability 611 31.2 843 43.1 262 13.4 173 8.8 68 3.5

Citizenship statuscccxxii U.S. Citizen 513 31.7 696 43.1 184 11.4 163 10.1 60 3.7 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 80 29.7 108 40.1 45 16.7 21 7.8 15 5.6 Non-U.S. Citizen 64 28.8 93 41.9 33 19.8 15 6.8 6 2.7

Military statuscccxxiii Military Service 41 37.3 54 49.1 9 8.2 < 5 --- < 5 --- No Military Service 619 30.9 854 42.6 262 13.1 193 9.6 78 3.9

Race/Ethnicitycccxxiv Asian/Asian American 50 25.6 83 42.6 37 19.0 17 8.7 8 4.1 Black/African American 10 15.4 27 41.5 16 24.6 8 12.3 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 27 25.7 48 45.7 18 17.1 7 6.7 5 4.8 White 529 33.0 687 42.8 180 11.2 149 9.3 59 3.7 Mixed Race 17 26.2 30 46.2 9 13.8 7 10.8 < 5 ---

I feel valued by my department head/chair. 789 37.0 714 33.5 294 13.8 206 9.7 131 6.1

Position statuscccxxv Faculty 762 37.8 681 33.7 258 12.8 195 9.7 122 6.0 Postdoctoral Associate 27 23.3 33 28.4 36 31.0 11 9.5 9 7.8

Faculty statuscccxxvi Tenured 368 40.2 290 31.7 109 11.9 82 9.0 67 7.3 Tenure-Accruing 86 40.4 82 38.5 23 10.8 15 7.0 7 3.3 Non-Tenure-Accruing 222 33.7 226 34.3 93 14.1 80 12.1 38 5.8

Gender/Gender identitycccxxvii Woman 330 35.2 305 32.5 143 15.2 105 11.2 55 5.9 Man 450 38.7 399 34.3 145 12.5 97 8.3 72 6.2

Sexual identitycccxxviii LGBQ 54 41.9 35 27.1 13 10.1 21 16.3 6 4.7 Heterosexual 691 36.8 635 33.8 259 13.8 176 9.4 115 6.1

Disability statuscccxxix Disability 59 32.2 61 33.3 20 10.9 26 14.2 17 9.3 No Disability 727 37.4 651 33.5 274 14.1 180 9.3 113 5.8



195

Table 42 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n n % n % n

Citizenship statuscccxxx U.S. Citizen 600 37.4 551 34.4 200 12.5 154 9.6 99 6.2 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 93 34.6 84 31.2 41 15.2 27 10.0 24 8.9 Non-U.S. Citizen 81 36.5 68 30.6 48 21.6 22 9.9 < 5 ---

I feel valued by UF students. 720 34.8 873 42.2 403 19.5 61 2.9 14 0.7

Position statuscccxxxi Faculty 701 35.8 833 42.6 353 18.0 57 2.9 13 0.7 Postdoctoral Associate 19 16.7 40 35.1 50 43.9 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Faculty statuscccxxxii Tenured 359 39.7 405 44.8 109 12.1 24 2.7 7 0.8 Tenure-Accruing 60 28.8 93 44.7 46 22.1 8 3.8 < 5 --- Non-Tenure-Accruing 233 36.8 262 41.3 118 18.6 19 3.0 < 5 ---

Gender/Gender identitycccxxxiii Woman 294 32.5 375 41.4 206 22.8 24 2.7 6 0.7 Man 415 36.6 484 42.7 192 16.9 36 3.2 6 0.5

Citizenship statuscccxxxiv U.S. Citizen 539 34.6 661 42.4 303 19.4 46 3.0 10 0.6 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 95 36.4 123 47.1 33 12.6 7 2.7 < 5 --- Non-U.S. Citizen 72 33.2 78 35.9 61 28.1 6 2.8 0 0

I feel valued by UF senior administrators (e.g., president, dean, vice president, provost). 291 13.8 538 25.6 630 29.9 359 17.1 286 13.6

Position statuscccxxxv Faculty 282 14.2 513 25.8 579 29.1 342 17.2 276 13.9 Postdoctoral Associate 9 8.0 25 22.3 51 45.5 17 15.2 10 8.9

Faculty statuscccxxxvi Tenured 149 16.4 212 23.3 203 22.4 175 19.3 169 18.6 Tenure-Accruing 21 10.1 57 27.5 82 39.6 30 14.5 17 8.2 Non-Tenure-Accruing 72 11.1 165 25.4 229 35.3 108 16.6 75 11.6

Gender/Gender identitycccxxxvii Woman 113 12.3 247 26.8 301 32.6 164 17.8 97 10.5 Man 177 15.4 288 25.0 321 27.9 187 16.3 177 15.4

Disability statuscccxxxviii Disability 18 10.2 32 18.2 44 25.0 43 24.4 39 22.2 No Disability 273 14.2 502 26.1 584 30.4 316 16.4 247 12.9

Citizenship statuscccxxxix U.S. Citizen 217 13.7 406 25.6 452 28.5 290 18.3 220 13.9 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 43 16.3 64 24.2 77 29.2 42 15.9 38 14.4 Non-U.S. Citizen 28 13.0 59 27.3 88 40.7 23 10.6 18 8.3

Note: Table includes Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents (n = 2,154) only.



196

Table 43 depicts Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents’ attitudes about UF work-life

policies.

Twenty-three percent (n =484) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents thought that

faculty in their departments pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their

identity/background. Among faculty, 19% (n = 174) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 31% (n =


Faculty respondents felt this way. Nineteen percent (n = 223) of Men respondents and 27% (n =

250) of Women respondents felt that faculty pre-judged their abilities. By sexual identity, 35% (n

= 45) of LGBQ respondents and 22% (n = 415) of Heterosexual respondents believed that this

was the case. A higher percentage of respondents with Disabilities (33%, n = 59) than

respondents with No Disability (22%, n = 424) believed this to be the case. By citizenship status,

22% (n = 354) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 21% (n = 56) of Naturalized U.S. Citizens, and 29%

(n = 64) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt that faculty in their departments pre-judged their

abilities. Finally, 32% (n = 61) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 41% (n = 26) of


and 20% (n = 324) of White respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.105

Further analysis revealed that 23% (n = 43) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 31% (n = 20)

of Black/African American respondents, 22% (n = 23) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 16% (n = 246) of White respondents, and 20% (n = 13) of Mixed Race respondents

“agreed” with the statement.

Eighteen percent (n = 383) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents thought that their

department chair/head chairs pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their

identity/background. Among faculty, 16% (n = 142) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 22% (n =


Faculty respondents felt this way. Seventeen percent (n = 189) of Men respondents and 20% (n =

187) of Women respondents felt that their department chair/head pre-judged their abilities. A

higher percentage of respondents with Disabilities (25%, n = 46) than respondents with No

105Mixed Race Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



197

Disability (18%, n = 335) believed this to be the case. By citizenship status, 17% (n = 271) of

U.S. Citizen respondents, 20% (n = 53) of Naturalized U.S. Citizens, and 24% (n = 51) of Non-

U.S. Citizen respondents felt that their department head/chair pre-judged their abilities. Finally,

32% (n = 60) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 19% (n = 20) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, and 16% (n = 252) of White respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the

statement.106 Further analysis revealed that 22% (n = 41) of Asian/Asian American respondents,

11% (n = 7) of Black/African American respondents, 12% (n = 12) of


of Mixed Race respondents “agreed” with the statement.

Forty-eight percent (n = 865) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed that

UF encouraged free and open discussion of difficult topics. By position status, 41% (n = 816) of

Faculty respondents and 44% (n = 49) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this was

the case. Among faculty, 37% (n = 334) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 40% (n = 83) of


respondents felt this way. A higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (42%, n = 814)

than respondents with Disabilities (27%, n = 48) felt that UF encouraged free and open

discussion of difficult topics. By citizenship status, 41% (n = 657) of U.S. Citizen respondents,

35% (n = 92) of Naturalized U.S. Citizens, and 45% (n = 97) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents

felt that this way. Respondents with Military Service (52%, n = 52) were more likely than

respondents with No Military Service (41%, n = 799) to feel that UF encouraged free and open

discussion. By faith-based affiliation, 45% (n = 422) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation,

45% (n = 82) of respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, and 38% (n = 306) of

respondents with No Affiliation “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.107 Further

analysis revealed that 35% (n = 320) of respondents with a Christian Affiliation, 29% (n = 53) of

respondents with Other Faith-Based Affiliations, 29% (n = 237) of respondents with No

Affiliation, and 32% (n = 32) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations “agreed” with the

106Black/African American and Mixed Race Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality. 107Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents with Multiple Faith-Based Affiliations who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



198

statement. Finally, 49% (n = 93) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 38% (n = 39) of


of Mixed Race respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.108 Further analysis

revealed that 35% (n = 67) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 18% (n = 11) of


33% (n = 514) of White respondents, and 31% (n = 20) of Mixed Race respondents “agreed”

with the statement.

Table 43. Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate Respondents’ Perception of Climate

Strongly


Strongly disagree

Perception n % n % n % n % n %

I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 117 5.5 367 17.4 617 29.2 667 31.5 347 16.4

Faculty statuscccxl Tenured 47 5.2 127 13.9 267 29.3 275 30.2 195 21.4 Tenure-Accruing 16 7.6 48 22.9 55 26.2 66 31.4 25 11.9 Non-Tenure-Accruing 36 5.5 125 19.2 189 29.1 216 33.2 84 12.9

Gender/Gender identitycccxli Woman 60 6.5 190 20.5 267 28.8 297 32.0 114 12.3 Man 55 4.8 168 14.6 340 29.5 365 31.6 226 19.6

Sexual identitycccxlii LGBQ 16 12.4 29 22.5 41 31.8 26 20.2 18 13.2 Heterosexual 94 5.0 321 17.2 529 28.4 610 32.7 309 16.6

Disability statuscccxliii Disability 25 13.8 34 18.8 47 26.0 46 25.4 29 16.0 No Disability 92 4.8 332 17.2 569 29.5 621 32.2 315 16.3

Citizenship statuscccxliv U.S. Citizen 74 4.6 280 17.6 444 27.8 518 32.5 279 17.5 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 17 6.4 39 14.8 96 36.4 79 29.9 33 12.5 Non-U.S. Citizen 25 11.5 39 17.9 67 30.7 58 26.6 29 13.3

Race/Ethnicitycccxlv Asian/Asian American 18 9.5 43 22.8 65 34.4 50 26.5 13 6.9 Black/African American 6 9.4 20 31.3 23 35.9 7 10.9 8 12.5 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 7 6.7 23 21.9 25 23.8 30 28.6 20 19.0 White 78 4.9 246 15.5 446 28.2 530 33.5 282 17.8 Mixed Race < 5 --- 13 20.0 20 30.8 24 36.9 6 9.2

108Black/African American Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who “strongly agreed” with the statement were excluded from the analysis because their numbers were too low (n < 5) to ensure confidentiality.



199

Table 43 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n % % n % n

I think that my department chair/head pre-judges my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 112 5.3 271 12.9 553 26.3 703 33.4 463 22.0

Faculty statuscccxlvi Tenured 51 5.6 91 10.1 237 26.2 280 31.0 244 27.0 Tenure-Accruing 11 5.3 34 16.3 50 23.9 73 34.9 41 19.6 Non-Tenure-Accruing 29 4.5 96 14.9 161 25.0 237 36.7 122 18.9

Gender/Gender identitycccxlvii Woman 55 6.0 132 14.3 247 26.8 325 35.2 163 17.7 Man 54 4.7 135 11.8 293 25.5 373 32.5 292 25.5

Disability statuscccxlviii Disability 19 10.5 27 14.9 43 23.8 56 30.9 36 19.9 No Disability 92 4.8 243 12.7 509 26.6 647 33.8 425 22.2

Citizenship statuscccxlix U.S. Citizen 71 4.5 200 12.6 405 25.6 553 34.9 355 22.4 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 18 6.8 35 13.3 74 28.0 78 29.5 59 22.3 Non-U.S. Citizen 21 9.7 30 13.8 63 29.0 61 28.1 42 19.4

Race/Ethnicitycccl Asian/Asian American 19 10.1 41 21.8 53 28.2 46 24.5 29 15.4 Black/African American < 5 --- 7 11.1 22 34.9 18 28.6 14 22.2 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 8 7.7 12 11.5 19 18.3 38 36.5 27 26.0 White 72 4.6 180 11.5 408 26.0 553 35.2 359 22.8 Mixed Race < 5 --- 11 16.9 15 23.1 22 33.8 14 21.5

I believe that UF encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. 204 9.7 661 31.3 586 27.7 436 20.6 225 10.7

Position statuscccli Faculty 192 9.6 624 31.2 544 27.2 422 21.1 219 10.9 Postdoctoral Associate 12 10.8 37 33.3 42 37.8 14 12.6 6 5.4

Faculty statusccclii Tenured 86 9.4 248 27.2 237 26.0 218 23.9 123 13.5 Tenure-Accruing 15 7.2 68 32.9 73 35.3 30 14.5 21 10.1 Non-Tenure-Accruing 65 10.0 212 32.5 185 28.4 133 20.4 57 8.7

Disability statuscccliii Disability 11 6.1 37 20.6 48 26.7 56 31.1 28 15.6 No Disability 193 10.0 621 32.2 537 27.9 379 19.7 197 10.2

Faith-based affiliationcccliv Christian Affiliation 102 11.0 320 34.5 216 23.3 185 20.0 104 11.2 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 29 15.9 53 29.1 54 29.7 32 17.6 14 7.7 No Affiliation 69 8.5 237 29.0 261 32.0 172 21.1 77 9.4 Multiple Affiliations < 5 --- 32 32.3 31 31.3 22 22.2 12 12.1



200

Table 43 (cont.)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree

nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

Citizenship statusccclv U.S. Citizen 150 9.4 507 31.8 425 26.7 342 21.5 168 10.6 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 21 7.9 71 26.6 83 31.1 53 19.9 39 14.6 Non-U.S. Citizen 30 14.0 67 31.2 74 34.4 32 14.9 12 5.6

Military statusccclvi Military Service 12 10.9 45 40.9 17 15.5 24 21.8 12 10.9 No Military Service 192 9.7 607 30.8 565 28.6 405 20.5 204 10.3

Race/Ethnicityccclvii Asian/Asian American 26 13.6 67 35.1 59 30.9 25 13.1 14 7.3 Black/African American < 5 --- 11 17.5 20 31.7 11 17.5 18 28.6 Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 11 10.6 28 26.9 25 24.0 28 26.9 12 11.5 White 150 9.5 514 32.6 440 27.9 336 21.3 139 8.8 Mixed Race 5 7.7 20 30.8 11 16.9 15 23.1 14 21.5


Fifty-seven percent (n = 1,140) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt their

research was valued (Table 44). By position status, 54% (n = 1,059) of Faculty respondents and

70% (n = 81) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this was the case. Among faculty,

60% (n = 552) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 66% (n = 140) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty

respondents, and 44% (n = 272) of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt this way.

Fifty-nine percent (n = 674) of Men respondents and 51% (n = 452) of Women respondents felt

that their research was valued. A higher percentage of respondents with No Disability (56%, n =

1,055) than respondents with Disabilities (45%, n = 80) felt that their research was valued. By

citizenship status, 54% (n = 829) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 54% (n = 142) of Naturalized U.S.

Citizens, and 68% (n = 151) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt that this way. Respondents

with No Military Service (56%, n = 1,082) were more likely than respondents with Military

Service (44%, n = 45) to feel that their research was valued. Finally, 63% (n = 122) of



59% (n = 36) of Mixed Race respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement.

Fifty-three percent (n = 1,151) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt their

teaching was valued. By position status, 58% (n = 1,114) of Faculty respondents and 35% (n =

37) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this was the case. Heterosexual respondents

(57%, n = 1,022) were more likely than LGBQ respondents (52%, n = 63) to feel this way. Fifty-



201

seven percent (n = 1,068) of respondents with No Disability and 45% (n = 79) of respondents

with Disabilities felt that their teaching was valued. Fifty-seven percent (n = 882) of U.S. Citizen

respondents, 55% (n = 141) of Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, and 52% (n = 107) of Non-

U.S. Citizen respondents believed that this was the case. Finally, respondents with Military

Service (65%, n = 68) were more likely than respondents with No Military Service (56%, n =

1,076) to feel that their teaching was valued.

Fifty-two percent (n = 1,094) of Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents felt their service

contributions were valued. By position status, 52% (n = 1,033) of Faculty respondents and 54%

(n = 61) of Postdoctoral Associate respondents believed this was the case. Among faculty, 46%

(n = 420) of Tenured Faculty respondents, 51% (n = 108) of Tenure-Accruing Faculty

respondents, and 55% (n = 353) of Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty respondents felt this way.

Heterosexual respondents (52%, n = 975) were more likely than LGBQ respondents (47%, n =

60) to feel this way. By disability status, 53% (n = 1,028) of respondents with No Disability and

34% (n = 61) of respondents with Disabilities felt that their service contributions were valued.

Fifty-one percent (n = 815) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 51% (n = 134) of Naturalized U.S.

Citizen respondents, and 58% (n = 125) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents believed that this was

the case. Finally, respondents with a Christian Affiliation (55%, n = 513) and respondents with

Other Faith-Based Affiliations (59%, n = 109) were more likely than respondents with No

Affiliation (48%, n = 392) and respondents with Multiple Affiliations (50%, n = 48) to feel that

their service contributions were valued.

Table 44. Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Strongly

agree Agree


Strongly disagree


I feel that my research is valued. 358 17.3 782 37.8 575 27.8 233 11.3 121 5.8

Position statusccclviii Faculty 333 17.1 726 37.2 553 28.3 226 11.6 115 5.9 Postdoctoral Associate 25 21.6 56 48.3 22 19.0 7 6.0 6 5.2

Faculty statusccclix Tenured 184 20.1 368 40.2 176 19.2 118 12.9 69 7.5 Tenure-Accruing 47 22.1 93 43.7 44 20.7 17 8.0 12 5.6 Non-Tenure-Accruing 67 10.9 205 33.4 231 37.7 80 13.1 30 4.9



202

Table 44 (cont.)



Strongly disagree

n % n % n n % n % n

Gender/Gender identityccclx Woman 131 14.7 321 36.0 287 32.2 112 12.6 41 4.6 Man 223 19.5 451 39.4 281 24.6 116 10.1 73 6.4

Disability statusccclxi Disability 17 9.6 63 35.4 50 28.1 28 15.7 20 11.2 No Disability 338 17.9 717 38.0 525 27.8 205 10.9 101 5.4

Citizenship statusccclxii U.S. Citizen 247 15.9 582 37.6 452 29.2 183 11.8 85 5.5 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 44 16.9 98 37.5 67 25.7 31 11.9 21 8.0 Non-U.S. Citizen 62 28.1 89 40.3 46 20.8 13 5.9 11 5.0

Military statusccclxiii Military Service 17 16.7 28 27.5 42 41.2 9 8.8 6 5.9 No Military Service 338 17.4 744 38.4 523 27.0 220 11.4 112 5.8

Race/Ethnicityccclxiv Asian/Asian American 46 23.8 76 39.4 48 24.9 14 7.3 9 4.7 Black/African American 7 11.9 16 27.1 25 42.4 9 15.3 < 5 --- Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 11 11.0 40 40.0 34 34.0 10 10.0 5 5.0 White 258 16.7 593 38.3 427 27.6 181 11.7 89 5.7 Mixed Race 12 19.7 24 39.3 12 19.7 6 9.8 7 11.5

I feel that my teaching is valued. 337 16.5 814 39.9 500 24.5 267 13.1 123 6.0

Position statusccclxv Faculty 324 16.7 790 40.8 441 22.8 261 13.5 120 6.2 Postdoctoral Associate 13 12.4 24 22.9 59 56.2 6 5.7 < 5 ---

Sexual identityccclxvi LGBQ 29 23.8 34 27.9 31 25.4 20 16.4 8 6.6 Heterosexual 288 16.0 734 40.8 446 24.8 230 12.8 101 5.6

Disability statusccclxvii Disability 23 13.2 56 32.2 48 27.6 31 17.8 16 9.2 No Disability 312 16.8 756 40.6 451 24.2 236 12.7 106 5.7

Citizenship statusccclxviii U.S. Citizen 245 15.9 637 41.3 350 22.7 214 13.9 98 6.3 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 43 16.8 98 38.3 65 25.4 39 15.2 11 4.3 Non-U.S. Citizen 45 22.0 62 30.2 80 39.0 13 6.3 5 2.4

Military statusccclxix Military Service 28 26.7 40 38.1 21 20.0 13 12.4 < 5 --- No Military Service 305 16.0 771 40.4 469 24.6 245 12.8 118 6.2



203

Table 44 (cont.)


Neither agree nor

disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n n % n % n

I feel that my service contributions are valued. 327 15.5 767 36.3 463 21.9 361 17.1 195 9.2

Position statusccclxx Faculty 308 15.4 725 36.3 427 21.4 352 17.6 188 9.4 Postdoctoral Associate 19 16.8 42 37.2 36 31.9 9 8.0 7 6.2

Faculty statusccclxxi Tenured 134 14.7 286 31.3 189 20.7 193 21.1 112 12.3 Tenure-Accruing 31 14.6 77 36.3 53 25.0 39 18.4 12 5.7 Non-Tenure-Accruing 102 15.9 251 39.0 133 20.7 105 16.3 52 8.1

Sexual identityccclxxii LGBQ 27 21.1 33 25.8 26 20.3 25 19.5 17 13.3 Heterosexual 281 15.1 694 37.3 406 21.8 315 16.9 163 8.8

Disability statusccclxxiii Disability 16 8.9 45 25.1 49 27.4 39 21.8 30 16.8 No Disability 310 16.1 718 37.2 414 21.5 321 16.6 165 8.6

Faith-based affiliationccclxxiv Christian Affiliation 148 15.9 365 39.1 186 19.9 147 15.8 87 9.3 Other Faith-Based Affiliation 39 21.2 70 38.0 35 19.0 26 14.1 14 7.6 No Affiliation 120 14.8 272 33.6 190 23.5 158 19.5 69 8.5 Multiple Affiliations 9 9.3 39 40.2 27 27.8 14 14.4 8 8.2

Citizenship statusccclxxv U.S. Citizen 235 14.7 580 36.3 336 21.0 287 18.0 160 10.0 U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 42 16.1 92 35.2 58 22.2 49 18.8 20 7.7 Non-U.S. Citizen 46 21.4 79 36.7 59 27.4 21 9.8 10 4.7


ccxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt supported and mentored during the tenure-track years by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,056) = 15.5, p < .05. ccxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt supported and mentored during the tenure-track years by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,011) = 21.1, p < .05. ccxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they understood the UF policies for delaying the tenure-clock by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,031) = 23.8, p < .05. ccxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt research was valued at UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,117) = 15.6, p < .001. ccxxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt research was valued at UF by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,120) = 22.5, p < .001.



204

ccxxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that research was valued by UF by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,068) = 25.7, p < .05. ccxxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt teaching was valued at UF by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,118) = 12.7, p < .01. ccxxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt teaching was valued at UF by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,106) = 14.3, p < .01. ccxxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt service was valued at UF by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,114) = 17.1, p < .001. ccxxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt service was valued at UF by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,061) = 18.1, p < .05. ccxxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt service was valued at UF by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,102) = 35.2, p < .001. ccxlA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that service was valued by UF by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,052) = 25.5, p < .05. ccxliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured to change their research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,059) = 9.5, p < .05. ccxliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured to change their research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,074) = 27.3, p < .001. ccxliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured to change their research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,028) = 17.1, p < .05. ccxlivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt pressured to change their research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,015) = 27.1, p < .01. ccxlvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,098) = 25.9, p < .001. ccxlviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,114) = 9.5, p < .05. ccxlviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1,102) = 13.7, p < .01. ccxlviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt faculty who use family accommodations were disadvantaged in tenure/promotion colleagues by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,013) = 31.6, p < .001. ccxlixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt faculty who use family accommodations were disadvantaged in tenure/promotion colleagues by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,027) = 11.0, p < .05. cclA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt the faculty opinions were taken seriously by senior administrators by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1,086) = 9.9, p < .05. ccliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they would like more opportunities to participate in committees by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,070) = 13.7, p < .05. ccliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they would like more opportunities to participate in committees by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,021) = 35.2, p < .001. ccliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had opportunities to participate in committees by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,082) = 26.2, p < .001. cclivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had opportunities to participate in committees by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,034) = 22.3, p < .05.



205

cclvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the criteria used for job retention were applied equally to all faculty by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 848) = 9.8, p < .05. cclviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the criteria used for job retention were applied equally to all faculty by military status: χ2 (3, N = 840) = 15.3, p < .01. cclviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the criteria used for promotion were clear by military status: χ2 (3, N = 874) = 8.3, p < .05. cclviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that clear expectations existed of their responsibilities by military status: χ2 (3, N = 872) = 17.0, p < .001. cclixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that research was valued at UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 868) = 9.5, p < .05. cclxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that research was valued at UF by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 859) = 24.2, p < .001. cclxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that research was valued at UF by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 843) = 25.8, p < .05. cclxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that teaching was valued at UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 853) = 11.9, p < .01. cclxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that teaching was valued at UF by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (3, N = 836) = 21.6, p < .01. cclxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they were burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 827) = 21.6, p < .05. cclxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they performed more work to help students than their colleagues by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 801) = 27.7, p < .05. cclxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they were pressured to do extra work by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 862) = 19.0, p < .001. cclxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they were pressured to do extra work by military status: χ2 (3, N = 864) = 16.0, p < .001. cclxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Tenure-Track Faculty were competitive by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1660) = 120.3, p < .001. cclxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Tenure-Track Faculty were competitive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1773) = 21.3, p < .05. cclxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Tenure-Track Faculty were competitive by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1826) = 8.7, p < .05. cclxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Adjunct Faculty were competitive by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1388) = 32.3, p < .001. cclxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Adjunct Faculty were competitive by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,496) = 16.1, p < .001. cclxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Adjunct Faculty were competitive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,578) = 12.4, p < .01. cclxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Adjunct Faculty were competitive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,520) = 43.3 p < .001. cclxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Adjunct Faculty were competitive by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1,559) = 8.5, p < .05. cclxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty were competitive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,724) = 18.1, p < .001. cclxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty were competitive by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,745) = 16.6, p < .001.



206

cclxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that salaries for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty were competitive by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1,726) = 10.8, p < .05. cclxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1,739) = 41.8, p < .001. cclxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,921) = 15.3, p < .01. cclxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that health insurance benefits were competitive by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,918) = 19.5, p < .01. cclxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,525) = 16.5, p < .001. cclxxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,465) = 9.1, p < .05. cclxxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,497) = 22.2, p < .01. cclxxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,524) = 13.2, p < .05. cclxxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that child care benefits were competitive by military service: χ2 (3, N = 1,532) = 18.4, p < .001. cclxxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement/supplemental benefits were competitive by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1,662) = 98.2, p < .001. cclxxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement/supplemental benefits were competitive by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,838) = 43.7, p < .001. cclxxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement/supplemental benefits were competitive by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,760) = 15.8, p < .001. ccxcA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement/supplemental benefits were competitive by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,790) = 18.0, p < .05. ccxciA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that retirement/supplemental benefits were competitive by citizen status: χ2 (6, N = 1,835) = 23.8, p < .001. ccxciiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who do not have children were burdened with additional work responsibilities by faculty status: χ2

(6, N = 1,620) = 13.9, p < .05. ccxciiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who do not have children were burdened with additional work responsibilities by sexual identity: χ2

(3, N = 1,730) = 48.7, p < .001. ccxcivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1,608) = 24.6, p < .001. ccxcvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,782) = 53.8, p < .001. ccxcviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,802) = 9.8, p < .05. ccxcviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,736) = 18.5, p < .05. ccxcviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that people who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1,785) = 10.2, p < .05. ccxcixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided adequate resources to manage work-life balance by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,736) = 40.6, p < .001.



207

cccA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided adequate resources to manage work-life balance by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,759) = 17.0, p < .001. ccciA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided adequate resources to manage work-life balance by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,691) = 19.3, p < .05. ccciiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided adequate resources to manage work-life balance by military status: χ2 (3, N = 1,743) = 14.4, p < .01. ccciiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided adequate resources to manage work-life balance by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,672) = 28.6, p < .01. cccivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their colleagues included them in opportunities to help their career as much as other colleagues by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,902) = 17.4, p < .001. cccvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their colleagues included them in opportunities to help their career as much as other colleagues by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,875) = 31.2, p < .001. cccviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their colleagues included them in opportunities to help their career as much as other colleagues by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,806) = 55.4, p < .001. cccviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear s by sexual identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,850) = 11.7, p < .01. cccviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,958) = 7.9, p < .05. cccixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that the performance evaluation process was clear by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,930) = 14.0, p < .05. cccxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided the resources to pursue professional development by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1,737) = 42.2, p < .001. cccxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided the resources to pursue professional development by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,953) = 19.1, p < .001. cccxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided the resources to pursue professional development by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (9, N = 1,877) = 30.5, p < .001. cccxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF provided the resources to pursue professional development by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,926) = 15.2, p < .05. cccxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had job security by faculty status: χ2 (6, N = 1,755) = 230.9, p < .001. cccxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had job security by gender/gender identity: χ2 (3, N = 1,946) = 10.3, p < .05. cccxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had job security by disability status: χ2 (3, N = 1,971) = 17.0, p < .001. cccxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had job security by citizenship status: χ2 (6, N = 1,944) = 15.1, p < .05. cccxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they had job security by race/ethnicity: χ2 (12, N = 1,872) = 29.1, p < .01. cccxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty in their department by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,113) = 10.3, p < .05. cccxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty in their department by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,017) = 18.7, p < .001.



208

cccxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty in their department by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 2,140) = 22.8, p < .001. cccxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty in their department by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N = 2,107) = 21.4, p < .01. cccxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by faculty in their department by military status: χ2 (4, N = 2,116) = 10,1, p < .05. cccxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that they felt valued by faculty in their department by race/ethnicity: χ2 (16, N = 2,034) = 31.4, p < .05. cccxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their department head/chair by position status: χ2 (4, N = 2,134) = 34.2, p < .001. cccxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their department head/chair by faculty status: χ2 (8, N = 1,788) = 20.3, p < .01. cccxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their department head/chair by gender/gender identity: χ2 (8, N = 2,101) = 9.6, p < .05. cccxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their department head/chair by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,005) = 10.0, p < .05. cccxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their department head/chair by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 2,128) = 10.0, p < .05. cccxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by their department head/chair by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N = 2,095) = 26.1, p < .001. cccxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF students by position status: χ2 (4, N = 2,071) = 49.9, p < .001. cccxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF students by faculty status: χ2 (8, N = 1,746) = 25.4, p < .001. cccxxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF students by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,038) = 12.0, p < .05. cccxxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF students by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N = 2,037) = 21.0, p < .01. cccxxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF senior administrators by position status: χ2 (4, N = 2,104) = 15.1, p < .01. cccxxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF senior administrators by faculty status: χ2 (8, N = 1,764) = 64.5, p < .001. cccxxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF senior administrators by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,072) = 17.9, p < .001. cccxxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF senior administrators by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 2,098) = 23.7, p < .001. cccxxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt valued by UF senior administrators by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N = 2,065) = 22.6, p < .01. cccxlA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty in their department pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by faculty status: χ2 (8, N = 1,771) = 34.5, p < .001. cccxliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty in their department pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,082) = 30.0, p < .001. cccxliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty in their department pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N =1,992) = 21.0, p < .001. cccxliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty in their department pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by disability status: χ2 (4, N =2,110) = 27.8, p < .001. cccxlivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty in their department pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N =2,077) = 30.5, p < .001.



209

cccxlvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that faculty in their department pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by race/ethnicity: χ2 (16, N =2,005) = 56.5, p < .001. cccxlviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their department chair/head pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by faculty status: χ2 (8, N = 1,757) = 26.7, p < .001. cccxlviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their department chair/head pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N = 2,069) = 19.6, p < .001. cccxlviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their department chair/head pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by disability status: χ2 (4, N = 2,097) = 12.1, p < .05. cccxlixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their department chair/head pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by citizenship status: χ2 (4, N = 2,065) = 17.3, p < .05. ccclA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their department chair/head pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background by race/ethnicity: χ2 (16, N = 1,992) = 43.2, p < .001. cccliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by position status: χ2 (4, N =2,112) = 11.3, p < .05. cccliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by faculty status: χ2 (8, N =1,771) = 26.2, p < .001. cccliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by disability status: χ2 (4, N =2,107) = 24.7, p < .001. ccclivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (12, N =2,024) = 36.7, p < .001. ccclvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N =2,074) = 25.4, p < .001. ccclviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by military status: χ2 (4, N =2,083) = 10.2, p < .05. ccclviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that UF encouraged free and open discussion by race/ethnicity: χ2 (16, N =2,002) = 57.8, p < .001. ccclviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research is valued by position status: χ2 (4, N =2,069) = 11.4, p < .05. ccclixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research was valued by faculty status: χ2 (8, N =1,741) = 86.6, p < .001. ccclxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research was valued by gender/gender identity: χ2 (4, N =2,036) = 24.1, p < .001. ccclxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research was valued by disability status: χ2 (4, N =2,064) = 19.9, p < .001. ccclxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research was valued by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N =2,031) = 31.1, p < .001. ccclxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research was valued by military status: χ2 (4, N =2,039) = 10.7, p < .05. ccclxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their research was valued by race/ethnicity: χ2 (16, N =1,961) = 27.4, p < .05. ccclxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their teaching was valued by position status: χ2 (4, N =2,041) = 61.0, p < .001. ccclxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their teaching was valued by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N =1,921) = 10.3, p < .05. ccclxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their teaching was valued by disability status: χ2 (4, N =2,035) = 11.2, p < .05.



210

ccclxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their teaching was valued by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N =2,005) = 43.8, p < .001. ccclxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their teaching was valued by military status: χ2 (4, N =2,013) = 9.7, p < .05. ccclxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their service contributions were valued by position status: χ2 (4, N =2,113) = 12.6, p < .05. ccclxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their service contributions were valued by faculty status: χ2 (8, N =1,769) = 24.4, p < .01. ccclxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their service contributions were valued by sexual identity: χ2 (4, N =1,987) = 10.4, p < .05. ccclxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their service contributions were valued by disability status: χ2 (4, N =2,107) = 29.1, p < .001. ccclxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their service contributions were valued by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (12, N =2,023) = 21.1, p < .05. ccclxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated on the survey that they felt that their service contributions were valued by citizenship status: χ2 (8, N =2,074) = 23.7, p < .01.



211

Respondents Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving the University of Florida Fifty-seven percent (n = 3,171) of all respondents had seriously considered leaving UF. With

regard to employee position status, 63% (n = 1,287) of Faculty respondents, 56% (n = 76) of

Postdoctoral Associate respondents, 54% (n = 1,746) of Staff respondents, and 46% (n = 73) of

University Athletic Association respondents had seriously considered leaving UF in the past

year.ccclxxvi Subsequent analyses found significant differences by faculty position status, gender

identity, citizenship status, faith-based affiliation, and age:

• By gender identity: 62% (n = 21) of Transgender/Genderqueer/Other respondents, 53%

(n = 1,721) of Women respondents, and 62% (n = 1,383) of Men respondents seriously

considered leaving the University.ccclxxvii


of respondents with No Disability seriously considered leaving the University.ccclxxviii

• By citizenship status: 58% (n = 2,713) of U.S. Citizen respondents, 54% (n = 248) of

Naturalized U.S. Citizen respondents, 45% (n =142) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents,

and 43% (n = 35) of respondents with Multiple Citizenships seriously considered leaving

the University.ccclxxix

• By faith-based affiliation: 61% (n = 1,089) of respondents with No Affiliation, 65% (n =

166) of respondents with Multiple Affiliations, 54% (n =1,604) of respondents with

Christian Affiliations, and 52% (n = 174) of Other Faith-Based Affiliation respondents

seriously considered leaving the University.ccclxxx

• By race: 43% (n = 129) of Asian/Asian American respondents, 55% (n = 195) of

Black/African American respondents, 51% (n =130) of Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic

respondents, 54% (n = 26) of Other Respondents of Color, 58% (n = 2,424) of White

respondents, and 58% (n = 2,424) of Mixed Race respondents seriously considered

leaving the University.ccclxxxi



212

• By age:

ccclxxxii

109 47% (n = 44) of employee respondents between ages 22 and 24 years, 53%

(n = 509) of those between ages 25 and 34 years, 58% (n = 710) of those between ages

35 and 44 years, 56% (n = 762) of those between ages 45 and 54 years, 57% (n = 741) of

those between ages 55 and 64 years, and 52% (n = 162) of employee respondents age 65

years old and older seriously considered leaving the University.

Fifty-three percent (n = 1,684) of those respondents who seriously considered leaving did so for

financial reasons (Table 45). Forty-three percent (n = 1,377) of those respondents who seriously

considered leaving indicated that they saw limited opportunities for advancement at UF. Other

reasons included tensions with their supervisor/manager (32%, n = 1,007), being interested in a

position at another institution (31%, n = 979), and the climate not being welcoming (31%, n =

977).

109Respondents under the age of 21 were excluded from analysis to maintain confidentiality.



213

Table 45. Reasons Why Respondents Considered Leaving the University of Florida Reason n %

Financial reasons (salary, resources, etc.) 1,684 53.1

Limited opportunities for advancement 1,377 43.4

Tension with supervisor/manager 1,007 31.8

Interested in a position at another institution/employer 979 30.9

Climate was not welcoming 977 30.8

Increased workload 965 30.4

Recruited or offered a position at another institution/employer 692 21.8

Tension with co-workers 492 15.5

Wanted to move to a different geographical location 395 12.5

Family responsibilities 262 8.3

Lack of benefits 307 9.7

Local community did not meet my (my family) needs 178 5.6

Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.) 173 5.5

Revised retirement plans 172 5.4

Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment 161 5.1

Offered position in government or industry 95 3.0

Spouse or partner relocated 67 2.1

A reason not listed above 375 11.8 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 8 (n = 3,171). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



214

Eighteen hundred eighty-six respondents elaborated on why they seriously considered leaving

the University of Florida. There were four themes that emerged from the comments.

Lack of Compensation. The most common response about why they had considered leaving UF

had to do with compensation, with 24% of respondents describing such concerns. Compensation

concerns included benefits, salary, and workload. Many individuals felt that their salary at the

University of Florida was significantly lower than they might be able to earn at another job.

Sometimes the individual compared salaries to other institutions, as did the faculty member who

stated, “UF salaries are very low relative to peers at other institutions.” Others compared their

salaries to other departments within the university, as did the staff member who shared, “The

salaries offered in this department are significantly lower than offered in other departments for

similar positions, which makes me feel unappreciated, undervalued, and overworked.” Others

stated that moving into private industry would result in a higher salary. One respondent reported,

“Salary ranges for UF employees are very low compared to those in federal jobs and private

industry for the same responsibilities.” Salary compression was also a concern for many

individuals. One respondent elaborated, “Salary compression has been a systematic issue since I

have been here for the last 15 years,” while another stated, “Salary compression is a major

problem in our college, which means many senior faculty have no opportunity for significant

raises other than moving into administration.”

Benefits were another part of compensation. Many respondents had tolerated the low salaries

because of decent benefits; however, in recent years, benefits have been reduced. One staff

respondent explained, “I took a pay cut to work for UF in 2010. It was acceptable to me because

the benefits were so good that really it wasn't a pay cut at all and I wanted to work here. Since

then these benefits have eroded. I'm now having to contribute to my retirement and it still isn't as

much in total as the University was putting in when I started. I accrue lots of sick leave that I'll

never use, and now I can't cash it out. Vacation cannot be accrued to the same extent. Every one

of these cuts is directly a pay cut. And there aren't even cost of living increases to compensate.

So it's hard not to consider going somewhere else when the situation you're currently in was

reduced and then not brought back to previous levels.” Another stated, “I started my employment

at UF in 2002. Since that time, my benefits have been and continue to be whittled away,



215

including retirement benefits. I feel like UF has broken a promise/contract with me.” Others were

more concerned that they did not receive any benefits at all, despite the number of hours they

worked. One staff respondent stated, “The primary reason I am soon leaving UF is due to the

lack of benefits and sufficient pay in the my position.” Others were frustrated to have recently

lost their benefits altogether, as was the respondent who shared, “When I first started as an

adjunct, I received benefits. Recently I was notified that I was not eligible for benefits in 2016. I

cannot understand how I could work the same schedule, and be denied benefits.”

Workload was the third component of compensation. While some respondents did not comment

on salary in general, they were upset to have increased workloads with little to no extra

compensation provided. Often the increased workload was caused by the loss of other staff. One

respondent wrote, “Increased workload and responsibilities as coworkers retire and are not

replaced - more work for less people with no compensation.” Others simply felt that the

expectation of workload was simply too high, such as one respondent wrote, “The pressure to

always do more work is often unreasonable.”

Negative Work Environment. Twenty-two respondents cited negative work environment as a

reason why they were considering leaving UF. Many focused in on their supervisor and how

poorly the supervisor treated them. One respondent shared, “My supervisor is very harsh and

unhappy which plays heavy on the whole staff. {Name|} raises their voice when displeased and

is very condescending. {Name} makes for a hostile work environment which is very unnecessary

in our office.” Another reported, “Supervisor creates a hostile work environment by bullying and

harassing employees they supervises. {Name} has used racial and gender slurs and threatens job

security of certain employees. {Name} has increased the work load, making completing tasks

difficult.” Others had specific concerns about coworkers. One respondent shared, “Found co-

workers to be very rude and unhelpful. Not a team environment.” Another stated, “I had a co-

worker who had been allowed for years to be divisive, a tyrant, and egocentric, to the detriment

of the rest of the team. I was given an opportunity to work away from that faculty member and

now LOVE MY JOB!” Other respondents simply commented on the negative environment as a

whole. Some of the many words used to describe their work environment included hostile,

incompetency, bullying, toxic, dysfunctional, unfriendly, not collaborative, unwelcoming, lack of



216

trust, cronyism, and unprofessional. One respondent stated, “our department is like a

concentration camp,” while another shared, “In my college, I work in a hostile environment.

There is little respect for faculty or staff. Many decisions, policies at the top are arbitrary,

discriminatory, frequently unfair. Many in admin are psychologically abusive and ill-tempered.

Faculty feel like indentured servants with a great deal of pressure put on them with little

incentive or reward. I don't mind working hard, in fact, most of my colleagues and I love our

jobs, but administrators simply don't appreciate us. It's a constant battle to keep sane and above

the fray.”

Lack of Professional Development. Related to compensation is the theme of professional growth.

Eighteen percent of respondents commented on issues of professional growth (as related to the

raise process, advancement opportunities, and favoritism) as reasons why they had seriously

considered leaving the University of Florida. Many respondents were frustrated by the raise

process at the University of Florida; one respondent summed up the prevailing belief by

indicating, “It's very hard (impossible) to get a raise at UF.” Many felt that no merit pay

increases were offered unless it was across the board, and even then, raises did not keep up with

the cost of living. Respondents felt that in order to truly get a raise, you needed a counter offer.

One respondent explained, “Pay raises at UF are almost impossible to get unless you get a

counter-offer. It forces employees to go ‘job shopping,’ even if they don't really want to leave

their current job.”

Related to pay raises, many respondents also lamented the lack of opportunities for advancement

and professional growth within the University. As one respondent stated, “my biggest reason

would be limited opportunities for advancement and a lack of professional development for

staff.” Many respondents echoed this sentiment. Sometimes respondents felt this was a result of

the fact that “the next level positions in my department are occupied by people who have been

here for nearly 20 years and will not be leaving or moving up anytime soon.” Others felt that this

was caused by rampant favoritism or “old-boy networks” that existed in the workplace. One

respondent shared, “It’s a good old boy climate and only good old boys advance with or without

qualifications.” Another stated, “There is zero advancement unless you're a member of "the



217

club," while another reported, “If you are not in a certain group, you do not receive raises or

promotions. Too much favoritism.”

Top-down Leadership – Lack of Voice. Eleven percent of respondents were concerned about

administrative leadership, which lead them to seriously consider leaving. Some criticized the

administration for the type of leadership they were providing to campus. One respondent

commented, “Leadership is top down, no ‘real’ information flows up, leadership only get the

answers it wants. If you voice a negative opinion they come down on you like a ton of bricks.”

Another elaborated, “Mid-level administrative leadership and the culture they have instilled in

administrative procedures interfere with the research and education mission of faculty through

over-regulation, heavy-handed top-down decisions constraining faculty initiatives, lack of

service-orientation and vindictiveness towards those who dare to disagree or merely suggest

alternatives.” Others commented more on how leadership from administrators influenced the

mission of the University. One respondent shared, “The primary reason I am leaving is the

leadership we have in UF Health. It is a self-serving leadership with a value system which highly

prioritized the business aspect over the wider range of patient care, career development,

education, and providing a truly nourishing environment.” Another commented, “Administrators

too focused on monetizing teaching, without proper input from faculty and students regarding

effectiveness.”

Others thought too many administrators existed or wanted certain administrators gone. One

respondent wrote, “Dump the {names} and possibly others who have fared very poorly in recent

surveys conducted by the Union. This survey has intentionally avoided the issues that plague

UF--bad administrators.” Another respondent commented, “There are way too many

administrators now. Get rid of most of the administrators.” Another Faculty respondent advised,

“Clean house in administration. The President needs to do this.”

Faculty in particular were upset that they were not included in the decision-making process. One

respondent noted, “I was very satisfied working at UF until 2005 when the environment began to

change dramatically, massive cuts in program support, arbitrary decisions by central



218

administrators handed down without any faculty input, and general decline of support for the

traditional educational mission of our university.”

ccclxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by position status: χ2 (3, N = 5,577) = 56.1, p < .001. ccclxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by gender/gender identity: χ2 (2, N = 5,515) = 38.2, p < .001. ccclxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by disability status: χ2 (1, N = 5,558) = 33.6, p < .001. ccclxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by citizenship status: χ2 (3, N = 5,530) = 31.7, p < .001 ccclxxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by faith-based affiliation: χ2 (3, N = 5,381) = 30.7, p < .001. ccclxxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by race/ethnicity: χ2 (5, N = 5,385) = 29.7, p < .001. ccclxxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who seriously considered leaving UF by age: χ2 (5, N = 5,253) = 11.5, p < .05.



219

Summary

The results from this section suggest that most respondents generally hold positive attitudes

about UF policies and processes. Few UF employees had observed unfair or unjust hiring (23%),

unfair or unjust disciplinary actions (14%), or unfair or unjust promotion/tenure/reclassification

(28%). Gender/gender identity, age, philosophical views, and ethnicity were the top perceived

bases for many of the reported discriminatory employment practices.

The majority of Staff110 respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that UF and their supervisors

provided them with support and resources. The majority of Tenured and Tenure-Accruing

Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that UF’s tenure/promotion process was clear

and standards were reasonable. Analyses revealed significant differences in responses among

groups, where the responses of Women respondents, LGBQ respondents, Non-U.S. Citizen

respondents, Respondents of Color, and respondents with Disabilities were generally less

positive than the responses of other groups.

110 Staff responses include University Athletic Association Staff. If differences occurred between UF Staff and UAA staff the differences are offered in the tables.



220

Institutional Actions In addition to campus constituents’ personal experiences and perceptions of the campus climate,

diversity-related actions taken by the institution, or not taken, as the case may be, 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 UF does, and should,

promote diversity to shape campus climate.

The survey asked Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents to indicate how they thought

that various initiatives influenced the climate at UF if they were currently available and how

those initiatives would influence the climate if they were not currently available (Table 46).

Respondents were asked to decide whether certain institutional actions positively or negatively

influenced the climate, or if they have no influence on the climate. Table 46 illustrates that the

majority of Faculty respondents believed that all of the listed initiatives currently were available

at UF.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 866) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that flexibility for calculating the tenure clock was available felt that it positively

influenced climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that

flexibility for calculating the tenure clock was not available, 72% (n = 302) thought that it would

positively influence the climate if it were available.

Fifty-seven percent (n = 630) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought

that recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum were

available felt that they positively influenced climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral

Associate respondents who thought that recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in

courses across the curriculum were not available, 66% (n = 349) thought that they would

positively influence the climate if they were available.


that diversity and equity training for faculty was available felt that it positively influenced

climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that such training



221

for faculty was not available, 66% (n = 277) thought that it would positively influence the

climate if it were available.


that diversity and equity training for search committees was available felt that it positively

influenced climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that

such training for faculty was not available, 70% (n = 322) thought that it would positively

influence the climate if it were available.

Fifty-three percent (n = 593) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought

that diversity and equity training for promotion and tenure committees was available felt that it

positively influenced climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that such training for faculty was not available, 71% (n = 402) thought that it would


Seventy-two percent (n = 1,041) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that resources for reporting concerns was available felt that it positively influenced

climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that such training

for faculty was not available, 83% (n = 246) thought that it would positively influence the

climate if it were available.

Seventy-nine percent (n = 1,116) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment was available felt

that it positively influenced climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents

who thought that access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment was not

available, 82% (n = 253) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were

available.

Eighty-four percent (n = 1,193) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that mentorship for new faculty was available felt that it positively influenced climate.

Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that mentorship for new



222

faculty was not available, 91% (n = 352) thought that it would positively influence the climate if

it were available.

Eighty percent (n = 957) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that

a clear process to resolve conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of

those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that a clear process to resolve

conflicts was not available, 91% (n = 479) thought that it would positively influence the climate

if it were available.

Eighty-two percent (n = 978) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought

that a fair process to resolve conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of

those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that a fair process to resolve

conflicts was not available, 92% (n = 474) thought that it would positively influence the climate

if it were available.

Forty-eight percent (n = 510) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought

that including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of

staff/faculty was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those Faculty and

Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that including diversity-related professional

experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was not available, 58% (n = 351)

thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Seventy-six percent (n = 823) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that career-span development opportunities for faculty were available felt that they

positively influenced climate. Of those Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that career-span development opportunities for faculty were not available, 92% (n = 585)

thought that they would positively influence the climate if they were available.

Seventy-nine percent (n = 884) of the Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who

thought that affordable child care was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those

Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate respondents who thought that affordable child care was not



223


available.



224

Table 46. Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Initiative Available at UF Initiative NOT available at UF

Positively influences

climate

Has no influence on

climate

Negatively influences

climate

Would positively influence climate

Would have no influence on

climate

Would negatively influence climate

Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %

Flexibility for stopping the tenure clock 866 66.8 360 27.8 71 5.5 302 72.2 76 18.2 40 9.6

Recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum 630 56.8 418 37.7 61 5.5 363 66.1 133 24.2 53 9.7

Diversity and equity training for faculty 751 57.2 477 36.3 85 6.5 277 65.8 119 28.3 25 5.9

Resources for reporting concerns 1,041 72.4 351 24.4 46 3.2 246 83.4 32 10.8 17 5.8

Access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment 1,116 78.9 277 19.6 22 1.6 253 81.6 45 14.5 12 3.9

Mentorship for new faculty 1,193 83.7 217 15.2 15 1.1 352 90.7 22 5.7 14 3.6

A clear process to resolve conflicts 957 79.5 220 18.3 27 2.2 479 91.2 29 5.5 17 3.2

A fair process to resolve conflicts 978 81.8 185 15.5 33 2.8 474 91.5 28 5.4 16 3.1

Diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 510 47.5 422 39.3 141 13.1 351 58.1 152 25.2 101 16.7

Equity and diversity training to search committees 716 57.2 450 36.0 85 6.8 322 70.3 98 21.4 38 8.3

Equity and diversity training to promotion and tenure committees 593 52.6 443 39.3 92 8.2 402 71.0 120 21.2 44 7.8

Career span development opportunities for faculty at all ranks 823 75.9 236 21.8 25 2.3 585 91.8 36 5.7 16 2.5

Access to adequate childcare 884 79.1 210 18.8 24 2.1 527 92.3 32 5.6 12 2.1 Note: Table includes Faculty and Postdoctoral Associate responses (n = 2,154) only.



225

Two hundred seventy-nine Faculty and Postdoctoral Associates responded about the effect of

institutional actions on campus. Five themes emerged.

Diversity. Eighteen percent of respondents elaborated on issues of diversity as they related to the

institutional initiatives. Many respondents felt that a focus on diversity initiatives would not

positively influence campus climate. One respondent wrote, “The diversity initiatives

implemented at UF, as they are, only impose more administrative burden and do not solve the

problem. They are not effective. I doubt that more training (which would very likely be one of

these horrible online training courses) would solve the problem. The fact is that many of these

initiatives exist, but the way they are implemented make them practically useless.” Another

stated, “It seems that there is sufficient debate and information about equity and diversity within

the institution, forced indoctrination may create more stress among staff/students and faculty,

than simply informing people of the need to be fair.” Some respondents lamented that the focus

on diversity in the hiring and promotion process detracted from attracting and retaining the best

faculty. One respondent wrote, “The faculty will hire and promote the best individuals, being

force fed equity and diversity is counter-productive.” A few individuals commented on how they

felt that the current climate’s focus on diversity resulted in reverse discrimination against white

males. One respondent wrote, “Many very competent and capable "non-diversity" hires are

routinely turned away. It would humorous if it weren't so discouraging. If you are a white male,

you might as well not apply for a position. The diversity card deck is skewed heavily against

you.” Some respondents felt that the climate related to diversity was fine, including one

respondent who wrote, “In 38 years of teaching at UF I have never witnessed discrimination

bases on race gender or sexual orientation.” A minority of respondents felt more focus on

diversity would be beneficial. One such respondent wrote, “A stronger emphasis on diversity and

inclusion in the hiring and recognition/reward process would be valuable. Availability of more

effective/in-depth diversity training would be valuable.”

Don’t Know. Fourteen percent respondents responded that they simply didn’t know enough

about the initiatives offered at the University of Florida to complete the items. One typical

response noted, “Some of these were difficult to answer as I do not know if they are all currently

available through UF.” Some respondents were unaware because they were new, they worked



226

outside of Gainesville, or they were adjuncts. One respondent wrote, “I actually have no idea

where some of the above-listed initiatives are available at UF - perhaps because I am not on the

main campus, I feel a bit distanced from many of the questions in this survey.”

Lack of Focus on Family Needs. Fourteen percent of respondents discussed issues related to

family-specific initiatives such as child care, maternity leave, and flexible schedules. Many

respondents commented on the availability and cost of university child care, usually lamenting

how difficult it was to get in. One respondent summed it up succinctly, “There is access to

childcare, but there are cost and availability barriers that reduce its potential positive influence.”

Others were more concerned with the need for flexible schedule and time off options to cover

maternity leave, family responsibilities, and elder care. One respondent wrote, “Proper maternity

leave, more vacation to balance work-life (we on paper have time off, but in practice are

expected to be at work on weekends and never take more than 1 week off at a time, and not take

all our time off available to keep UF 'competitive'). Not making us feel like we have to choose

work over family (I will always choose my family, as do most women I know)...Part-time

options when the children are young/parents are old and sick, would benefit all. A 10-year

tenure-track for part time for example, would ensure fair judgement, with co-supervising

students, etc... there are lots of options for improve this big problem.”

Ineffective Training. Twelve percent of respondents commented on issues of training. Most

respondents felt that required trainings were seldom effective, particularly those that the

University had already implemented. One respondent wrote, “Usually imposed ‘diversity’

training has either no impact or a negative impact, in my experience.” Another respondent stated,

“As a general statement, I think the equity and diversity training positively influences climate,

but the current options for training do not work, they are not taken seriously by many faculty in

search committees, and the online content is not a SERIOUS training process.” However, many

acknowledged that diversity training could have a positive impact, if implemented appropriately.

One respondent commented, “Although I am aware of a number of training opportunities that are

available, I think many of them have been viewed by faculty as a joke - so I would like to see

better training especially in the appointments and promotion process.” Another respondent

suggested “Diversity training needs to be real: not just some online test, which just breeds



227

cynicism. Also, we need leadership from the top that shows that these issues are actually of

concern.”

The survey asked Staff111respondents (n = 3,436) to respond regarding similar initiatives, which

are listed in Table 47. Sixty-nine percent (n = 1,658) of the Staff respondents who thought that

diversity and equity training for staff was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of

those Staff respondents who thought that diversity and equity training for staff was not available,

68% (n = 394) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Eighty-three percent (n = 2,050) of the Staff111 respondents who thought that access to

counseling for people who have experienced harassment was available felt that it positively

influenced climate. Of those Staff respondents who thought that access to counseling for people

who have experienced harassment was not available, 78% (n = 359) thought that it would


Eighty percent (n = 1,952) of the Staff111 respondents who thought that resources for reporting

concerns was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those Staff respondents who

thought that resources for reporting concerns was not available, 81% (n = 397) thought that it

would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Eighty percent (n = 1,446) of the Staff111 respondents who thought that mentorship for new staff

was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those Staff respondents who thought

that mentorship for new faculty was not available, 89% (n = 1,009) thought that it would


Seventy-nine percent (n = 1,614) of the Staff111 respondents who thought that a clear process to

resolve conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those Staff

respondents who thought that a clear process to resolve conflicts was not available, 90% (n =

758) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.




228

Eighty-one percent (n = 1,649) of the Staff112 respondents who thought that a fair process to

resolve conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those Staff

respondents who thought that a fair process to resolve conflicts was not available, 90% (n = 743)

thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Fifty-nine percent (n = 1,096) of the Staff112 respondents who thought that considering diversity-

related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available felt

that it positively influenced climate. Of those Staff respondents who thought that considering

diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was not


available.

Sixty-five percent (n = 1,270) of the Staff112 n respondents who thought that considering equity

and diversity training to search/hiring committees was available felt that it positively influenced

climate. Of those Staff respondents who thought that considering equity and diversity training to

search/hiring committees was not available, 71% (n = 648) thought that it would positively


Eighty-six percent (n = 1,911) of the Staff112 respondents who thought that career development

opportunities for staff were available felt that they positively influenced climate. Of those Staff

respondents who thought that career development opportunities for staff were not available, 91%

(n = 680) thought that they would positively influence the climate if they were available.

Seventy-nine percent (n = 1,528) of the Staff112 respondents who thought that affordable child

care was available felt that it positively influenced climate. Of those Staff respondents who

thought affordable child care was not available, 89% (n = 786) thought that it would positively





229

Table 47. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Initiative Available at UF Initiative NOT available at UF


climate

Has no influence on

climate


climate



climate


Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %

Diversity and equity training for staff 1,658 69.2 661 27.6 76 3.2 394 67.9 141 24.3 45 7.8



Mentorship for new staff 1,446 79.9 334 18.5 30 1.7 1,009 89.3 88 7.8 33 2.9

A clear process to resolve conflicts 1,614 79.0 361 17.7 68 3.3 758 89.7 45 5.3 42 5.0

A fair process to resolve conflicts 1,649 80.7 327 16.0 68 3.3 743 89.5 45 5.4 42 5.1

Diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 1,096 59.2 614 33.2 141 7.6 549 57.5 284 29.7 122 12.8

Equity and diversity training to search/hiring committees 1,270 65.4 561 28.9 111 5.7 648 71.1 197 21.6 67 7.3

Career development opportunities for staff 1,911 85.5 287 12.8 38 1.7 680 90.7 36 4.8 34 4.5

Access to affordable childcare 1,528 78.8 375 19.3 36 1.9 786 88.5 73 8.2 29 3.3 Note: Table includes Staff and University Athletic Association responses (n = 3,436) only.



230

Three hundred fifty-eight Staff113respondents elaborated on their responses regarding the effect

of institutional actions on campus. While the responses touched on a variety of topics, four main

themes emerged.

No Response. Twenty-five percent of respondents responded in such a way as to not actually

answer the question. These responses can be divided into three different types: those that

indicated not applicable, those that indicated I don’t know, and those that thought the question

(Appendix D, Question 75) was confusing. Those that indicated not applicable usually just noted

N/A in their response, but some chose to suggest that the survey add a “not applicable” option.

The respondents who indicated don’t know were generally ill-informed about the availability of

the institutional actions on campus. One respondent wrote, “To be honest, I do not know much

about available initiatives regarding equity, diversity, harassment, etc. here at UF.” Another

wrote, “I don't even know what is available through UF and am unaware of how to find out what

is available.” The responses that criticized the survey included more variety. Some respondents

were simply confused on how to interpret Question 75. One respondent wrote, “This question

layout is probably not interpreted as expected. It is very convoluted….” A few other respondents

had stronger feelings. One respondent wrote, “The above is very poorly designed. I am not

familiar with every UF initiative, so I don't know how to answer many of these. Why not list

available initiatives and ask about influence/familiarity with specific programs that exist. Or ask

directly what programs we would like to see? Honestly, the length and amount of jargon I am

having to slog through to complete this survey is appalling. I am someone who was enthusiastic

about this survey, and I am very disappointed in this implementation. Don't be surprised if the

response rate is very low. Make sure to look at the number of people who started, but didn't

finish. This survey is not at all accessible or user friendly.”

Fear of Retaliation. Seventeen percent of respondents commented on the process of reporting

workplace conflict and harassment at UF. Many felt that if someone reported trouble, there

would be retaliation and a worsening of the situation rather than any resolution. One respondent

wrote, “It's viewed by those of us in the trenches that reporting concerns gets us nowhere and




231

will often likely come back to haunt us via retaliation of some sort, so we keep our mouths shut

about things that we have concerns about.” Another respondent stated, “Reported a concern to

HR and was told that since long-term employee had been here so long, they doubted anything

would be done and that I could potentially be written up by leadership for complaining.” Other

respondents felt that HR did not have the interests of those who report as a priority. One

respondent wrote, “I don't think staff/employees feel comfortable seeking assistance from HR

regarding potentially harassing or conflict related situations. It is viewed that HR will take the

side of the supervisor (if they are the aggressor), and could be damaging to ones long term

employment potential by becoming a target! Even if they just wanted someone to talk it, it is

viewed that it would become official record and permanently on their file.” Some respondents

expressed confusion on what the reporting process was, especially when the supervisor was the

one causing problems. One respondent wrote, “From my own searches, it is not clear how to or

who to report some activities, particularly without your job/position being affected. Much of the

online resources tell you to report to your supervisor, which is great when the problem isn't your

supervisor.”

Ineffective Training. Fifteen percent of respondents commented on training, particularly as

related to diversity. Some felt training could be a helpful activity, though it depended on how it

was implemented. One respondent wrote, “I think training is good but only if it is taken seriously

and actually completed by the appropriate people.” Another stated, “I think that all employees

should have to participate in robust diversity and social justice training so that they can best

support and educate all students as well as be good colleagues.” Others felt that training,

especially related to diversity, was not beneficial. One respondent shared, “I'm not sure that any

training would really help diversity because people don't tend to take that stuff seriously.”

Another respondent wrote, “The heavy emphasis on diversity training and inclusion has a

chilling effect on free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Difficult conversations are just that,

difficult. Having training that stifles open discussion breeds resentment.” Several respondents

thought training on leadership would be an especially effective program. One respondent shared,

“I think that any personnel who is a leader, supervisor, manager, director and other higher

personnel should have adequate training in all of the above areas when having important

responsibility to oversee other employees so that their knowledge and experience can be passed



232

down to the employees that they are managing and faculty can influence other staff and students.

But this does not seem to happen.”

Lack of Focus on Family Needs. Ten percent of respondents commented on family-related

concerns of institutional actions. The large majority of these responses focused on child care.

Many felt child care would be a positive benefit but lamented the current child care offerings at

UF. One respondent wrote, “Access to affordable childcare would positively influence climate. I

would feel incredibly valued as an employee if my institution also recognized the importance and

difficulty of working full time and being a parent.” Another respondent shared, “While I know

that UF does provide childcare for selected employees, the resources are not adequate and don't

seem to be based on need. It would be nice if the people on the low end of the scale received

preference rather than the people who have resources to afford other childcare alternatives.”

Other respondents mentioned issues like maternity leave and family-friendly policies. One

respondent commented, “I know that BabyGator is available, but the wait list is long and

prohibitive. I feel that your experience at UF while having children (or others to care for) is

entirely based on your supervisor and not necessarily the policies UF has written. If your

supervisor is not ‘family-friendly’ it does not matter what the actual policy is.”

Summary

Perceptions of actions taken by UF help to shape the way individuals think and feel about the

climate in which they work and learn. The findings in this section suggest that respondents

generally agree that the actions cited in the survey have, or would have, a positive influence on

the campus climate. Notably, substantial numbers of Faculty, Postdoctoral Associate, and Staff

respondents indicated that many of the initiatives were not available on UF’s campus. If, in fact,

these initiatives are available, UF would benefit from better publicizing all that the institution

offers to positively influence the campus climate.



233

Next Steps

Embarking on this campus-wide assessment is further evidence of the University of Florida’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 the University of Florida, 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 UF community. However, assessments and reports are not

enough. A projected plan to develop strategic actions and a subsequent implementation plan are

critical. Failure to use the assessment data to build on the successes and address the challenges

uncovered in the report will undermine the commitment offered to UF community members

when the project was initiated. Also, as recommended by UF’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.



234

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.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (1995). The drama of diversity

and democracy. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

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.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a

predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus climate.

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.



235

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. doi: 10.1037/a0014051

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.

Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J. (2008). Analyzing campus climate studies: Seeking to define and

understand. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 222–234.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enacting diverse

learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher

educations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no. 8. Washington, DC:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal

of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. doi: 10.1177/1538192705276548

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

from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–

542.



236

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.

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. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of

research (Vol. 2). San Diego: Jossey-Bass.

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.

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.

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.



237

Rankin & Associates Consulting. (2015, 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. doi: 10.1037/a0014018

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. doi: 10.1300/J082v43n01_02

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

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. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7

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.



238

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.

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.

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., 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.

Waldo, C. (1999). Out on campus: Sexual orientation and academic climate in a university

context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 745–774. doi:

10.1023/A:1022110031745

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.



239

Appendices

Appendix A – Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics Appendix B – Data Tables Appendix C – Comment Analyses (Questions #77, #78, and #79) Appendix D – Survey: University of Florida Faculty and Staff Climate Survey



240

Appendix A Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics

Faculty Postdoctoral Associate Staff

University Athletic Association Total

n % n % n % n % n %

Gender identity

Unknown/Missing 23 1.1 0 0.0 34 1.0 0 0.0 57 1.0

Woman 899 44.1 49 41.9 2,222 67.8 70 44.0 3,240 58.0

Man 1,106 54.3 59 50.4 990 30.2 83 52.2 2,238 40.0

Transgender/Genderqueer/Other 6 0.3 < 5 --- 24 0.7 < 5 --- 34 0.6

Racial identity

Unknown/Missing/Not Listed 86 4.2 < 5 --- 103 3.1 < 5 --- 194 3.5

Asian/Asian American 158 7.8 39 33.3 103 3.1 < 5 --- 302 5.4

Black/African American 63 3.1 < 5 --- 282 8.6 11 6.9 358 6.4

Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic 97 4.8 8 6.8 148 4.5 < 5 --- 256 4.6

Other People of Color 20 1.0 < 5 --- 24 0.7 0 0.0 48 0.9

White People 1,553 76.2 57 48.7 2,469 75.3 134 84.3 4,213 75.4

Multiple Race 60 3.0 5 4.3 148 4.5 6 3.8 219 3.9

Sexual identity

Unknown/Missing 98 4.8 < 5 --- 156 4.7 < 5 --- 260 4.7

LGBQ 126 6.2 < 5 --- 233 7.1 < 5 --- 366 6.6

Heterosexual 1,793 88.0 102 87.2 2,849 86.9 146 91.8 4,890 87.5

Other 17 0.8 < 5 --- 32 1.0 < 5 --- 53 1.0



241

Faculty Postdoctoral Associate Staff University Athletic

Association Total n % n % n % n % n %

Citizenship status

Unknown/Missing 16 0.8 < 5 --- 30 0.9 0 0.0 47 0.8

U.S. Citizen 1,573 77.2 48 41.0 2,907 88.7 151 95.0 4,679 83.7

U.S. Citizen, Naturalized 269 13.2 < 5 --- 189 5.8 < 5 --- 463 8.3

Non-U.S. Citizen 158 7.8 66 56.4 93 2.8 < 5 --- 319 5.7

Multiple Citizenships 21 1.0 < 5 --- 58 1.8 < 5 --- 82 1.5

Disability status

Unknown/Missing/Other 6 0.3 0 0.0 13 0.4 0 0.0 19 0.3

Disability 1,859 91.3 106 90.6 2,938 89.7 157 98.7 5,060 90.5

No Disability 172 8.4 11 9.4 326 10.0 < 5 --- 511 9.1

Military service

Unknown/Missing 27 1.3 < 5 --- 43 1.3 0 0.0 73 1.3

Military Service 109 5.4 < 5 --- 193 5.9 < 5 --- 307 5.5

No Military Service 1,901 93.3 113 96.6 3,041 92.8 155 97.5 5,210 93.2

Religious/ Spiritual

affiliation

Unknown/Missing 87 4.3 5 4.3 104 3.2 < 5 --- 198 3.5

Christian Affiliation 914 44.9 33 28.2 1,932 59.0 121 76.1 3,000 53.7

Other Faith-Based, including unidentified “other”

164 8.1 22 18.8 142 4.3 5 3.1 333 6.0

No Affiliation 778 38.2 50 42.7 946 28.9 28 17.6 1,802 32.2

Multiple Affiliations 94 4.6 7 6.0 153 4.7 < 5 --- 257 4.6

Note: % is the percent of each column for that demographic category (e.g., percent of faculty that are male)



242

Appendix B PART I: Demographics

The demographic information tables contain actual percentages except where noted. Table B1. What is your primary position at UF? (Question 1)

Position n %

Faculty 2,037 36.4

Tenured 927 16.6

Associate Professor 255 27.5

Professor 397 42.8

Faculty position not listed here 31 3.3

Missing 244 26.3

Tenure Accruing 214 3.8

Assistant Professor 150 70.1

Associate Professor 26 12.1


Missing 11 5.1

Non-Tenure Accruing 662 11.8

Clinical 282 42.6

Lecturer 95 14.5


Missing 93 14.0

Permanent Status (PKY & IFAS Extension Agent) 81 1.4

Permanent Status Accruing (IFAS Extension Agent) 71 1.3

Adjunct 82 1.5

Postdoctoral Associate 117 2.1

Staff 3,277 58.6

Non-Exempt (Hourly) 1,289 39.3

USPS 129 10.0

TEAMS 976 75.7

Missing 184 14.3

Exempt (Salary) 1,983 60.5



243

Table B1 cont.

USPS 56 2.8

TEAMS 1657 83.6

Missing 270 13.6

Missing 5 0.2

University Athletic Association 159 2.8 Note: There are no missing data for the primary categories in this question; all respondents were required to select an answer. There are missing data for the sub-categories, as indicated.

Table B2. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary position? (Question 2)

Status

n

%

Full-time 5,351 95.7

Part-time 213 3.8

Missing 26 0.5

Table B3. Do you serve in an Administrative/Supervisory role in your position? (Question 3)

Status

n

%

No 2,935 52.5

Yes 2,632 47.1

Missing 23 0.4

Table B4. What is your primary UF location? (Question 4)

Status

n

%

Gainesville 4,963 88.8

Jacksonville 150 2.7

A location not listed here 468 8.4

Missing 9 0.2



244

Table B5. What is your birth sex? (assigned) (Question 30)

Birth sex

n

%

Female 3,274 58.6

Intersex 8 0.1

Male 2,245 40.2

Missing 63 1.1

Table B6. What is your gender/gender identity? (Question 31)

Gender identity

n

%

Genderqueer 22 0.4

Man 2,248 40.2

Transgender 3 0.1

Woman 3,244 58.0

A gender identity not listed above 9 0.2

Missing 64 1.1

Table B7. What is your current gender expression? (Question 32)

Gender expression

n

%

Androgynous 61 1.1

Feminine 3,173 56.8

Masculine 2,196 39.3

A gender expression not listed above 29 0.5

Missing 131 2.3



245

Table B8. What is your citizenship status in the U.S.? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 33)

Citizenship status

n

%

A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) 100 1.8

Currently under a withholding of removal status 0 0.0

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) 0 0.0

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) 0 0.0

Other legally documented status 13 0.2

Permanent Resident 284 5.0

Refugee status 1 0.0

U.S. citizen, birth 4,754 84.4

U.S. citizen, naturalized 478 8.4 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% owing to multiple responses.

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 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 34)

Racial/ethnic identity

n

%

Alaskan Native 2 0.0

First Nation/American Indian/Indigenous 71 1.2

Asian or Asian American or South Asian 337 5.9

Black or African American 405 7.1

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ 363 6.4

Middle Eastern/North African 42 0.7

Native Hawaiian 2 0.0

Pacific Islander 11 0.2

White/European American 4,401 77.2

A racial/ethnic identity not listed here 65 1.1



246

Table B10. Which term best describes your sexual identity? (Question 35)

Sexual identity

n

%

Bisexual 123 2.2

Gay 103 1.8

Heterosexual 4,890 87.5

Lesbian 74 1.3

Pansexual 30 0.5

Queer 26 0.5

Questioning 10 0.2

A sexual identity not listed above 53 0.9

Missing 281 5.0

Table B11. What is your age? (Question 36)

Age

n

%

21 and under 7 0.0

22-24 95 1.7

25-34 957 17.1

35-44 1,219 21.8

45-54 1,374 24.6

55-64 1,304 23.3

65 and over 314 5.6

Missing 320 5.7



247

Table B12. How long have you been employed at UF? (Question 37)

Length of employment

n

%

Less than 1 year 423 7.6

1-5 years 1,579 28.2

6-10 years 1,041 18.6

11-15 years 797 14.3

16-20 years 547 9.8

More than 20 years 995 17.8

Missing 208 3.7

Table B13. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 38)

Caregiving responsibility

n

%

No 2,936 53.0

Yes 2,601 47.0

Children 5 years or under 795 30.6

Children 6-18 years 1,420 54.6

Children over 18 years of age, but still dependent (e.g., in college, disabled, etc.) 442 17.0

Independent adult children over 18 years of age 159 6.1

Sick or disabled partner 119 4.6

Senior or other family member 687 26.4

A parenting or caregiving responsibility not listed here (e.g., pregnant, adoption pending) 75 2.9

Missing 53 0.9 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% owing to multiple responses.



248

Table B14. What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)? (Question 39)

Parent/Guardian 1 Parent/Guardian 2

Level of education n % n %

No high school 244 4.4 251 4.5

Some high school 255 4.6 336 6.0

Completed high school/GED 1,182 21.1 1,429 25.6

Some college 628 11.2 711 12.7

Business/technical certificate/degree 255 4.6 340 6.1

Associate’s degree 266 4.8 239 4.3

Bachelor’s degree 999 17.9 959 17.2

Some graduate work 110 2.0 95 1.7

Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., MBA) 762 13.6 477 8.5

Specialist degree (Ed.S.) 35 0.6 31 0.6

Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) 319 5.7 121 2.2

Professional degree (e.g., M.D., J.D.) 292 5.2 113 2.0

Unknown 18 0.3 67 1.2

Not applicable 136 2.4 227 4.1

Missing 89 1.6 194 3.5



249

Table B15. What is your highest level of education? (Question 40)

Level of education

n

%

No high school 4 0.1

Some high school 8 0.1

Completed high school/GED 193 3.5

Some college 403 7.2

Business/technical certificate/degree 115 2.1

Associate’s degree 341 6.1

Bachelor’s degree 1,009 18.1

Some graduate work 259 4.6

Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., MBA) 1,196 21.4

Specialist degree (Ed.S.) 25 0.4

Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) 1,446 25.9

Professional degree (e.g., M.D., J.D.) 538 9.6

Missing 53 0.9



250

Table B16. While many people at UF have joint or split appointments, please identify the area where you work with which you most strongly identify. Only one selection is possible. (Question 41)

Area n % I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with working in a college. 2,485 44.5

College of the Arts 48 1.8

College of Agricultural and Life Sciences 139 5.4

College of Dentistry 43 1.7

College of Design, Construction, and Planning 36 1.4

College of Education 65 2.5

College of Engineering 155 6.0

College of Health and Human Performance 40 1.5

College of Journalism and Communications 47 1.8

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 285 11.0

College of Medicine 462 17.8

College of Medicine – Jacksonville 24 0.9

College of Nursing 41 1.6

College of Pharmacy 65 2.5 College of Public Health and Health Professions (including Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology) 101 4.0

College of Veterinary Medicine 89 3.4

Levin College of Law 80 3.1

Warrington College of Business Administration 60 2.3

Missing 815 31.4 I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit reporting to the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs other than a college. 400 7.2

Chief Financial Officer (Budget Office, Contracts & Grants, Finance & Accounting, Finance & Planning, Purchasing) 36 7.1

Division of Enrollment Management 60 11.8

Division of Student Affairs 66 12.9

George A. Smathers Libraries 67 13.1

Another unit reporting to the SVP, including but not limited to UF Online, UF Performing Arts, International Center, Honors Program, Museums, Latin American Studies, Whitney Labs, Florida Sea Grant, University Press, Undergraduate Affairs, Institutional Planning and Research, Provost’s Office, ROTC 112 22.0

Missing 169 33.1



251

Table B16 cont. I work in IFAS and am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit other than a college. 710 12.7 I work in UF Health—Health Science Center and am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit reporting to the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs other than a college 616 11.0 I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with an area reporting to the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. 234 4.2

Physical Plant Division 32 9.3 Division of Business Affairs, other than PPD: Business Services, Environmental Health & Safety, Facilities Planning & Construction, Office of Sustainability, Small Business and Vendor Diversity, Stephen C. O'Connell Center, University Police Department 46 13.4

UFIT 85 24.7 Another unit including but not limited to Baby Gator, Human Resource Services, UF Privacy Office, Office of the Chief Audit Executive, Real Estate, COO Office 38 11.0

Missing 143 41.6 I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with an area reporting to the Office of the President. 87 1.6

Office of Development and Alumni Affairs 29 12.8

Office of Research 60 26.4 Another unit including but not limited to the President’s Office, Office of the Executive Chief of Staff, Office of the General Counsel, University Relations 17 7.5

Missing 121 53.3 I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit not listed. 948 17.0

Missing 110 2.0

Table B17. Do you have a condition/disability that influences your learning, working, or living activities? (Question 42)

Condition/disability

n

%

No 5,060 90.5

Yes 511 9.1

Missing 19 0.3



252

Table B18. Which, if any, of the conditions listed below impact your learning, working or living activities? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 43)

Condition

n

%

Acquired/traumatic brain injury 12 2.3

Asperger’s/Autism spectrum 6 1.2

Chronic diagnosis or medical condition (e.g., Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia, etc.) 154 30.1

Learning disability (e.g., Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, Dyslexia, etc.) 95 18.6

Mental health/psychological condition 107 20.9

Physical/mobility condition that affects walking 94 18.4

Physical/mobility condition that does not affect walking 30 5.9

Speech/communication condition 12 2.3

Visually impaired or blind 27 5.3

Hearing impaired or deaf 37 7.2

A disability/condition not listed here 38 7.4 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% owing to multiple responses. Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they have a condition/disability that influences their learning, working or living activities in Question 42 (n = 511).

Table B19. What is the language(s) spoken in your home? (Question 44)

Language spoken

n

%

English only 4,773 85.4

A language other than English 199 3.6

English and one or more other language(s) 573 10.3

Missing 45 0.8



253

Table B20. Are/were you a member of the U.S. Armed Forces? (Question 45)

Member of U.S. Armed Forces

n

%

I have not been in the military 5,210 93.2

Active military 18 0.3

Reservist/National Guard 35 0.6

Veteran 254 4.5

Missing 73 1.3



254

Table B21. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 46)

Religious or spiritual identity n %

Agnostic 534 9.6

Atheist 457 8.2 Baha’i 5 0.1

Buddhist 105 1.9 Christian 3,165 56.6

African Methodist Episcopal (AME) 18 0.3

AME Zion 3 0.1

Assembly of God 41 0.7

Baptist 518 9.3

Catholic/Roman Catholic 822 14.7

Church of Christ 68 1.2

Church of God in Christ 18 0.3

Christian Orthodox 10 0.2

Christian Methodist Episcopal 7 0.1

Christian Reformed Church (CRC) 4 0.1

Episcopalian 130 2.3

Evangelical 47 0.8

Greek Orthodox 7 0.1

Lutheran 124 2.2

Mennonite 7 0.1

Moravian 2 0.0

Nondenominational Christian 323 5.8

Pentecostal 86 1.5

Presbyterian 161 2.9

Protestant 79 1.4

Protestant Reformed Church (PR) 3 0.1

Quaker 11 0.2

Reformed Church of America (RCA) 4 0.1

Russian Orthodox 6 0.1

Seventh Day Adventist 18 0.3

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 30 0.5

United Methodist 337 6.0

n %

Unitarian Universalist 21 0.4

United Church of Christ 47 0.9

A Christian affiliation not listed above 78 1.4

Confucianist 15 0.3

Druid 10 0.2 Hindu 60 1.1

Humanist 32 0.6 Jain 2 0.0

Jehovah’s Witness 20 0.4 Jewish 167 3.0

Conservative 49 29.3

Orthodox 2 1.2

Reformed 82 49.1

Muslim 31 0.6 Ahmadi 0 0.0

Shi’ite 3 9.7

Sufi 2 6.5

Sunni 20 64.5

Native American Traditional Practitioner or Ceremonial 14 0.3 Pagan 23 0.4

Rastafarian 2 0.0 Scientologist 1 0.0

Secular Humanist 47 0.8 Shinto 0 0.0

Sikh 5 0.1 Taoist 27 0.5

Tenrikyo 0 0.0 Wiccan 16 0.3

Spiritual, but no religious affiliation 474 8.5

No affiliation 596 10.7 A religious affiliation or spiritual identity not listed above 75 1.3

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% owing to multiple responses.



255

Table B22. What is your best estimate of your household yearly income? (Question 47)

Income

n

%

Below $30,000 185 3.3

$30,000 - $49,999 891 15.9

$50,000 - $69,999 748 13.4

$70,000 - $99,999 1,058 18.9

$100,000 - $149,999 1,188 21.3

$150,000 -$199,999 587 10.5

$200,000 - $249,999 341 6.1

$250,000 - $499,999 366 6.5

$500,000 or more 53 0.9

Missing 173 3.1



256

PART II: Findings The tables in this section contain valid percentages except where noted.

Table B23. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at UF? (Question 5)

Comfort n %

Very comfortable 1,284 23.0

Comfortable 2,822 50.6

Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 898 16.1

Uncomfortable 459 8.2

Very uncomfortable 117 2.1

Table B24. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/work unit? (Question 6)

Comfort n %

Very comfortable 1,780 31.9


Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 728 13.0




The University of Florida Draft Report – March 2016

257

Table B25. If you teach, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes/learning environment? (Question 7)

Comfort n %

Very comfortable 886 27.0


Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 1,153 35.1



Table B26. Have you ever seriously considered leaving UF? (Question 8)

Considered leaving n %

No 2,406 43.1

Yes 3,171 56.9



258

Table B27. Why did you seriously consider leaving UF? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 9)

Reasons n %

Climate was not welcoming 977 30.8

Family responsibilities 262 8.3

Financial reasons (salary, resources, etc.) 1,684 53.1

Increased workload 965 30.4

Interested in a position at another institution/employer 979 30.9

Lack of benefits 307 9.7

Limited opportunities for advancement 1,377 43.4

Local community did not meet my (my family) needs 178 5.6

Offered position in government or industry 95 3.0

Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.) 173 5.5

Recruited or offered a position at another institution/employer 692 21.8

Revised retirement plans 172 5.4

Spouse or partner relocated 67 2.1

Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment 161 5.1

Tension with supervisor/manager 1,007 31.8

Tension with co-workers 492 15.5

Wanted to move to a different geographical location 395 12.5

A reason not listed above 375 11.8 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 8 (n = 3,171). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



259

Table B28. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability to work at UF? (Question 11)

Experienced conduct n %

No 4,256 76.3

Yes 1,325 23.7



260

Table B29. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 12)

Basis

n

%

Age 259 19.5

Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., institutional reputation, etc.) 275 20.8


Ethnicity 126 9.5








Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 48 3.6




Parental status (e.g., having children) 62 4.7






Position (staff, faculty, student) 470 35.5

Pregnancy 17 1.3






A reason not listed above 399 30.1 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



261

Table B30. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 13)

Form

n

%

I was ignored or excluded. 616 46.5

I was intimidated/bullied. 597 45.1

I was isolated or left out. 500 37.7

I felt others staring at me. 75 5.7

I experienced a hostile classroom environment. 22 1.7

I experienced a hostile work environment. 634 47.8

I was the target of workplace incivility. 391 29.5

I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 379 28.6

I received derogatory written comments. 150 11.3

I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail. 110 8.3

I received derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak). 9 0.7

I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group. 43 3.2

I received a low or unfair performance evaluation. 217 16.4

I was not fairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process. 121 9.1

Someone assumed I was hired/promoted due to my identity group. 34 2.6

Someone assumed I was not hired/promoted due to my identity group. 11 0.8

I was the target of graffiti/vandalism. 9 0.7

I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. 25 1.9

I was the target of stalking. 11 0.8

The conduct threatened my physical safety. 31 2.3

The conduct threatened my family’s safety. 5 0.4

I received threats of physical violence. 8 0.6

I was the target of physical violence. 3 0.2

An experience not listed above 224 16.9 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n = 1,325). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



262

Table B31. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 14)

Location

n

%



In a UF administrative office 445 33.6








Off campus 49 3.7

On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak 7 0.5

On UF media, communications, or publications 22 1.7

On UF transportation (RTS, campus cab) 0 0.0



A location not listed above 111 8.4 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n =1,325). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



263

Table B32. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 15)

Source

n

%

Alumnus/a 8 0.6


UF media, communications, or publications 7 0.5

UF Public Safety Officer 3 0.2

Co-worker 531 40.1



Donor 2 0.2


Off campus community member 6 0.5

Patient 8 0.6 Senior administrator (e.g., dean, vice president, provost) 197 14.9

On-line site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) 2 0.2


Stranger 5 0.4

Student 37 2.8

Supervisor 418 31.5

Don’t know source 4 0.3

A source not listed above 80 6.0 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n =1,325). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.


How experienced

n

%



I felt somehow responsible. 187 14.1



I was angry. 824 62.2 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n =1,325). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



264

Table B34. What was your response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 17)

Response n %


I confronted the person(s) at the time. 237 17.9

I confronted the person(s) later. 197 14.9




I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services. 20 1.5


Campus security/UFPD 5 1.9


Dean of Students 4 1.6

Human Resources 116 45.1

Title IX Coordinator 0 0.0

Ombuds 6 2.3

On-campus counseling service/Employee Assistance Program (EAP) 30 11.7

Staff person 33 12.8

Faculty member 55 21.4

Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) 40 15.6

My supervisor 109 42.4

My union representative 6 2.3

Other 23 8.9












A response not listed above. 245 18.5 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n =1,325). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



265

Table B35. Did you report the conduct? (Question 18)

Reported n %

No, I didn’t report it. 917 70.5


Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome. 34 12.7

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. 54 20.1

Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately. 180 67.2

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary and/or hostile conduct (n = 1,325).



266

Table B36. Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty only: As a faculty member, I feel (or felt) (Question 20)

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n %

The criteria for tenure/promotion are clear. 264 23.3 583 51.4 227 20.0 60 5.3

The tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to faculty in my school/division. 213 19.1 454 40.8 304 27.4 142 12.7

Supported and mentored during the tenure-track years. 212 19.8 489 45.6 270 25.2 102 9.5

I understand UF policies for delaying the tenure-clock. 226 20.7 572 52.3 238 21.8 57 5.2



Service contributions are valued by UF. 109 9.7 439 39.2 366 32.7 205 18.3

Pressured to change my research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. 95 8.8 226 20.9 475 44.0 283 26.2

Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments). 168 15.0 300 26.8 545 48.7 105 9.4


Faculty members in my department who use family accommodation policies are disadvantaged in tenure/promotion (e.g., child care, elder care). 38 3.7 134 13.0 677 65.7 182 17.7

Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 80 7.2 380 34.4 312 28.3 332 30.1

Faculty opinions are valued within UF committees. 77 7.1 567 52.2 283 26.0 160 14.7

I would like more opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. 51 4.7 348 32.1 591 54.5 95 8.8

I have opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. 168 15.3 639 58.2 236 21.5 55 5.0 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they held tenured or tenure-accruing faculty appointments in Question 1 (n = 1,141).



267

Table B37. Non-Tenure Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, Adjunct only: As an employee with a non-tenure track appointment at UF (e.g., Non-Tenure Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, Adjunct), I feel (or felt) (Question 22)


n % n % n % n %

The criteria for job retention are clear. 176 19.9 453 51.2 207 23.4 49 5.5

The criteria for promotion are clear. 149 16.9 401 45.4 254 28.8 79 8.9

The criteria used for job retention are applied equally to all faculty. 106 12.5 397 46.8 249 29.3 97 11.4

There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 189 21.5 476 54.0 179 20.3 37 4.2



Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments). 109 12.7 215 25.0 449 52.1 88 10.2


Pressured to do extra work that is uncompensated. 175 20.0 247 28.3 368 42.2 83 9.5

Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 59 6.9 408 47.9 268 31.5 116 13.6 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they held non-tenure accruing, permanent status, permanent status accruing, or adjunct appointments in Question 1 (n = 896).



268

Table B38. All Faculty: As a faculty member, I feel (Question 24)


n % n % n % n %

Salaries for tenure track faculty positions are competitive. 97 5.2 910 49.1 586 31.6 259 14.0

Salaries for adjunct faculty are competitive. 53 3.4 649 41.0 628 39.7 252 15.9

Salaries for non-tenure track faculty positions are competitive. 65 3.7 742 42.4 688 39.4 253 14.5

Health insurance benefits are competitive. 265 13.6 1193 61.1 364 18.7 129 6.6

Child care benefits are competitive. 79 5.1 788 50.8 506 32.6 179 11.5

Retirement/supplemental benefits are competitive. 138 7.4 882 47.3 589 31.6 256 13.7

People who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekend). 120 6.6 260 14.2 1,074 58.7 377 20.6

People who have children or elder care are burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and evenings programming, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district breaks). 320 17.7 859 47.5 547 30.3 81 4.5

UF provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.). 52 2.9 667 37.8 779 44.2 265 15.0

My colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position. 295 15.5 1,122 58.8 352 18.5 138 7.2


UF provides me with resources to pursue professional development (e.g., conferences, materials, research and course design traveling). 309 15.8 952 48.6 448 22.9 250 12.8

I have job security. 411 20.8 1,081 54.7 332 16.8 153 7.7 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 2,037).



269

Table B39. All Staff: As a staff member, I feel (Question 26)


n % n % n % n %

I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. 1,090 32.1 1,458 42.9 588 17.3 264 7.8

I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. 1,015 30.0 1,782 52.6 451 13.3 138 4.1

I am included in opportunities that will help my career as much as others in similar positions. 811 24.0 1,453 43.0 827 24.5 285 8.4


The performance evaluation criteria are clear. 765 22.6 1,662 49.2 712 21.1 240 7.1

The performance evaluation process is productive. 498 14.9 1,287 38.5 1,089 32.5 472 14.1


My superior provides adequate support for me to manage work-life balance. 1,359 40.1 1,443 42.6 377 11.1 206 6.1

I am able to complete my assigned duties during scheduled hours. 931 27.4 1,613 47.5 623 18.4 226 6.7

I am pressured by departmental work requirements that occur outside of my normally scheduled hours. 255 7.5 661 19.5 1,736 51.1 745 21.9

I am given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities. 825 24.3 2,040 60.0 439 12.9 97 2.9

People who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends) beyond those who do have children. 175 5.2 440 13.2 1,786 53.4 942 28.2

Burdened by work responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments). 167 5.0 556 16.7 1,937 58.3 661 19.9

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). 357 10.8 999 30.3 1,567 47.5 337 11.4



270

Table B39 cont. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n %

There is a hierarchy within staff positions that allows some voices to be valued more than others. 801 23.9 1,451 43.2 885 26.4 218 6.5

People who have children or elder care are burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and evenings programming, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district breaks). 240 7.5 991 30.9 1,592 49.7 382 11.9

UF provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.). 307 9.7 1,766 55.5 875 27.5 233 7.3 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 3,436).



271

Table B40. Staff only: As a staff member I feel (Question 28)


n % n % n % n % UF provides me with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities. 896 26.6 1,965 58.4 421 12.5 84 2.5 My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities. 824 24.6 1,605 47.8 730 21.8 197 5.9

UF is supportive of taking extended leave (e.g., FMLA, parental). 911 28.5 1,966 61.5 253 7.9 67 2.1 My supervisor is supportive of taking leaves (e.g., vacation, parental, personal, short-term disability). 1,289 38.4 1,697 50.5 258 7.7 115 3.4

UF policies (e.g., FMLA) are fairly applied across UF. 696 22.3 1,953 62.6 353 11.3 120 3.8

UF is supportive of flexible work schedules. 570 17.4 1,694 51.8 751 23.0 257 7.9

My supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. 872 26.5 1,517 46.0 629 19.1 277 8.4

Staff salaries are competitive. 224 6.8 1,168 35.4 1,196 36.2 715 21.6

Vacation and personal time are competitive. 1,232 36.7 1,863 55.6 217 6.5 41 1.2

Health insurance benefits are competitive. 1,197 35.8 1,920 57.4 187 5.6 42 1.3

Child care benefits are competitive. 384 14.2 1,611 59.6 554 20.5 154 5.7

Retirement benefits are competitive. 684 21.3 1,987 61.8 449 14.0 95 3.0

Staff opinions are valued on UF committees. 275 9.0 1,529 49.9 913 29.8 346 11.3

Staff opinions are valued by UF faculty and administration. 267 8.6 1,335 43.1 1,030 33.3 462 14.9

There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 726 21.8 2,023 60.8 464 13.9 117 3.5 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff and University Athletic Association in Question 1 (n = 3,436).



272

Table B41. 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 environment? (Question 48)

Observed conduct n % No 4,075 73.3 Yes 1,488 26.7

Table B42. Who/what was the target of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 49)

Target

n

%

Alumnus/a 14 0.9


UF media, communication, or publications 4 0.3


Co-worker 694 46.6



Donor 3 0.2


Off-campus community member 17 1.1

Patient 35 2.4




Stranger 33 2.2

Student 263 17.7

Supervisor 61 4.1


A source not listed above 78 5.2 Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



273

Table B43. Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 50)

Source

n

%

Alumnus/a 10 0.7


UF media, communication, or publications 7 0.5


Co-worker 405 27.2



Donor 5 0.3


Off-campus community member 19 1.3

Patient 12 0.8




Stranger 20 1.3

Student 124 8.3

Supervisor 357 24.0


A source not listed above 80 5.4 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



274

Table B44. Which of the target’s characteristics do you believe was/were the basis for the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 51)

Characteristic

n

%

Age 181 12.2

Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 174 11.7


Ethnicity 188 12.6



















Pregnancy 31 2.1






A reason not listed above 234 15.7 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



275

Table B45. Which of the following did you observe because of the target’s identity? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 52)

What observed

n

%

Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 121 8.1

Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 92 6.2

Derogatory remarks 746 50.1

Derogatory/unsolicited emails, text messages, Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak 92 6.2

Derogatory written comments 139 9.3

Derogatory phone calls 64 4.3

Graffiti (e.g., event advertisements removed or defaced) 21 1.4

Person intimidated/bullied 562 37.8

Person isolated or left out 494 33.2

Person experiences a hostile classroom environment 76 5.1

Person experienced a hostile work environment 618 41.5

Person was the target of workplace incivility 378 25.4

Racial/ethnic profiling 118 7.9

Person deliberately ignored or excluded 402 27.0

Person received a low performance evaluation 218 14.7

Person received a poor grade 30 2.0

Person was unfairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process 141 9.5

Person was stalked 9 0.6

Physical violence 13 0.9

Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group 54 3.6

Threats of physical violence 24 1.6

Something not listed above 127 8.5 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



276

Table B46. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 53)

Location

n

%



In a UF health care setting 102 6.9

In a UF dining facility 11 0.7

In UF administrative office 313 21.0








Off campus 47 3.2

On social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Yik-Yak, etc.) 30 2.0

On UF media, communication, or publications 21 1.4

On UF transportation 4 0.3



A location not listed above 73 4.9 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



277


How experienced

n

%

I felt uncomfortable 1,115 74.9

I felt embarrassed 450 30.2

I felt somehow responsible 115 7.7

I ignored it 124 8.3

I was afraid 157 10.6

I was angry 810 54.4 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



278

Table B48. What was your response to observing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 55)

Response

n

%

I didn’t do anything 468 31.5

I confronted the person(s) at the time 158 10.6

I confronted the person(s) later 175 11.8

I avoided the person/venue 229 15.4

I didn’t know whom to go to 217 14.6

I sought information online 68 4.6

I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services 17 1.1

I contacted an on-campus resource 202 13.6

Campus security/UFPD 5 2.5


Dean of Students 7 3.5

Human resources 72 35.6

Title IX coordinator 1 0.5

Ombuds 4 2.0

On-campus counseling service/Employee Assistance Program (EAP) 13 6.4

Staff person 30 14.9

Faculty member 36 17.8

Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) 37 18.3

My supervisor 90 44.6

My union representative 6 3.0

Other 15 7.4

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource 24 1.6

A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) 6 25.0




I told a friend 338 22.7

I told a family member 348 23.4

A response not listed above 308 20.7 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



279

Table B49. Did you report the conduct? (Question 56)

Reported n %

No, I didn’t report it. 1,120 79.2


Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome. 51 22.3

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. 65 28.4

Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately. 113 49.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 1,488).

Table B50. Have you observed hiring practices at UF (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 58)

Observed n %

No 4,291 77.5

Yes 1,249 22.5



280

Table B51. I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon (Mark all that apply.) (Question 59)

Basis

n

%

Age 222 17.8



Ethnicity 245 19.6

Friendship (e.g., “who you know”) 615 49.2












Nepotism (e.g., family connections) 217 17.4








Pregnancy 16 1.3





Don’t know 52 4.2

A reason not listed above 153 12.2 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed unjust or diversity-inhibiting hiring practices (n = 1,249). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



281

Table B52. Have you have observed employment-related discipline or action, up to and including dismissal, at UF that you perceive to be unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community? (Question 61)

Observed n %

No 4,781 86.5

Yes 749 13.5



282

Table B53. I believe that the unjust employment-related disciplinary actions were based upon (Mark all that apply.) (Question 62)

Characteristic

n

%

Age 99 13.2



Ethnicity 81 10.8



















Pregnancy 9 1.2






A reason not listed above 233 31.1 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed unjust disciplinary actions (n = 749). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



283

Table B54. Have you observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification practices at UF that you perceive to be unjust? (Question 64)

Observed n %

No 3,993 72.5

Yes 1,512 27.5



284

Table B55. I believe the unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification were based upon (Mark all that apply.) (Question 65)

Characteristic

n

%

Age 138 9.1



Ethnicity 138 9.1

Friendship (e.g., “who you know”) 631 41.7












Nepotism (e.g., family connections) 137 9.1








Pregnancy 17 1.1






A reason not listed above 280 18.5 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed unjust practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification (n = 1,512). Percentages may not sum to 100 owing to multiple responses.



285

Table B56. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate on campus on the following dimensions: (Question 67)

1 2 3 4 5 Standard Deviation Dimension n % n % n % n % n % Mean

Friendly/Hostile 1,889 34.4 2,313 42.1 1,023 18.6 204 3.7 60 1.1 2.0 0.9

Improving/Regressing 1,229 22.7 2,271 41.9 1,356 25.0 461 8.5 108 2.0 2.3 1.0

Inclusive/Exclusive 1,195 22.2 1,989 37.0 1,615 30.1 433 8.1 142 2.6 2.3 1.0

Positive for persons with disabilities/Negative 1,455 27.5 2,157 40.8 1,402 26.5 230 4.4 39 0.7 2.1 0.9

Positive for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or transgender/Negative 1,379 26.5 2,058 39.5 1,505 28.9 216 4.1 54 1.0 2.1 0.9

Positive for people of all spiritual/religious backgrounds/Negative 1,275 24.0 1,912 36.0 1,586 29.9 428 8.1 103 1.9 2.3 1.0

Positive for People of Color/Negative 1,446 27.2 2,001 37.7 1,353 25.5 386 7.3 123 2.3 2.2 1.0

Positive for men/Negative 2,224 41.8 1,866 35.0 1,038 19.5 144 2.7 53 1.0 1.9 0.9

Positive for women/Negative 1,418 26.4 2,140 39.8 1,265 23.5 467 8.7 82 1.5 2.2 1.0

Positive for non-native English speakers/Negative 1,153 21.9 1,895 36.1 1,686 32.1 449 8.5 71 1.4 2.3 1.0

Positive for people who are not U.S. citizens/Negative 1,237 23.6 1,939 37.0 1,644 31.4 339 6.5 82 1.6 2.3 0.9

Welcoming/Not welcoming 1,647 30.2 2,428 44.6 1,033 19.0 253 4.6 87 1.6 2.0 0.9

Respectful/Disrespectful 1,503 27.7 2,334 43.0 1,118 20.6 339 6.2 136 2.5 2.1 1.0

Positive for people of high socioeconomic status/Negative 2,419 45.6 1,814 34.2 977 18.4 67 1.3 30 0.6 1.8 0.8

Positive for people of low socioeconomic status/Negative 962 8.2 1,437 27.2 1,761 33.3 870 16.5 256 4.8 2.6 1.1

Positive for people of all political affiliations/Negative 1,077 20.4 1,553 29.5 1,954 37.1 542 10.3 147 2.8 2.5 1.0

Positive for people in active military/veteran status/Negative 1,588 30.4 1,960 37.5 1,505 28.8 149 2.9 26 0.5 2.1 0.9



286

Table B57. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall campus climate on campus on the following dimensions: (Question 68)

1 2 3 4 5 Standard Deviation Dimension n % n % n % n % n % Mean

Not racist/Racist 1,304 24.2 2,099 38.9 1,474 27.3 411 7.6 106 2.0 2.2 1.0

Not sexist/Sexist 1,172 21.8 1,941 36.1 1,508 28.1 608 11.3 146 2.7 2.4 1.0

Not homophobic/Homophobic 1,349 25.5 2,051 38.8 1,479 28.0 322 6.1 80 1.5 2.2 0.9

Not ageist/Ageist 1,181 22.3 1,910 36.1 1,511 28.5 550 10.4 141 2.7 2.4 1.0

Not classist (socioeconomic status)/Classist 1,072 20.4 1,703 32.3 1,544 29.3 745 14.2 201 3.8 2.5 1.1

Not classist (position: faculty, staff, student)/Classist 863 16.3 1,468 27.7 1,497 28.3 958 18.1 512 9.7 2.8 1.2

Disability friendly (not ableist)/Not disability friendly (ableist) 1,413 26.8 2,172 41.2 1,378 26.2 243 4.6 61 1.2 2.1 0.9

Not xenophobic/Xenophobic 1,333 25.6 2,042 39.2 1,544 29.6 235 4.5 61 1.2 2.2 0.9

Not ethnocentric/Ethnocentric 1,226 23.4 1,949 37.2 1,592 30.4 365 7.0 102 1.9 2.3 1.0



287

Table B58. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 69)


Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by faculty in my department. 665 31.0 917 42.7 279 13.0 201 9.4 84 3.9

I feel valued by my department head/chair. 789 37.0 714 33.5 294 13.8 206 9.7 131 6.1

I feel valued by UF students. 720 34.8 873 42.2 403 19.5 61 2.9 14 0.7

I feel valued by UF senior administrators (e.g., president, dean, vice president, provost). 291 13.8 538 25.6 630 29.9 359 17.1 286 13.6

I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 117 5.5 367 17.4 617 29.2 667 31.5 347 16.4

I think that my department chair/head pre-judges my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 112 5.3 271 12.9 553 26.3 703 33.4 463 22.0

I believe that UF encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. 204 9.7 661 31.3 586 27.7 436 20.6 225 10.7

I feel that my research is valued. 358 17.3 782 37.8 575 27.8 233 11.3 121 5.8

I feel that my teaching is valued. 337 16.5 814 39.9 500 24.5 267 13.1 123 6.0

I feel that my service contributions are valued. 327 15.5 767 36.3 463 21.9 361 17.1 195 9.2 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Postdoctoral Associates in Question 1 (n = 2,154).



288

Table B59. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: (Question 70)


Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by co-workers in my department. 1,267 37.1 1,537 45.1 352 10.3 179 5.2 76 2.2

I feel valued by my supervisor/manager. 1,380 40.6 1,215 35.7 361 10.6 251 7.4 196 5.8

I feel valued by faculty. 634 19.4 1,168 35.7 1,004 30.7 333 10.2 131 4.0

I feel valued by UF students. 642 20.0 1,080 33.6 1,251 39.0 162 5.0 76 2.4

I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 281 8.9 697 22.0 1,184 37.4 694 21.9 314 9.9

I feel valued by UF senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost). 404 12.2 837 25.4 1,251 37.9 546 16.5 263 8.0

I think that co-workers in my work unit pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 194 5.8 588 17.7 979 29.5 1,049 31.6 513 15.4

I think that my supervisor/manager pre-judges my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 204 6.1 544 16.4 863 26.0 1,059 31.9 653 19.7

I believe that my department encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. 528 15.6 1,042 30.8 792 23.4 614 18.2 402 11.9

I feel that my skills are valued. 852 25.1 1,500 44.2 462 13.6 377 11.1 204 6.0 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff and University Athletic Association in Question 1 (n = 3,436).



289

Table B60. Respondents who are transgender or with disabilities only: Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in any of the following areas at UF? (Question 71)

Yes No Not applicable n % n % n %

Facilities

Athletic facilities (stadium, recreation, etc.) 31 6.3 251 51.3 207 42.3

Classroom buildings 51 10.4 268 54.8 170 34.8

Classrooms, labs 37 7.6 260 53.3 191 39.1

Computer labs 22 4.5 248 50.6 220 44.9

Dining facilities 23 4.7 281 57.5 185 37.8

Doors 67 13.7 334 68.2 89 18.2

Elevators/lifts 69 14.2 335 68.8 83 17.0

Emergency preparedness 36 7.5 342 71.0 104 21.6

On-campus transportation/parking 171 34.8 242 49.3 78 15.9

Other campus buildings 38 7.9 338 69.8 108 22.3

Podium 21 4.3 289 59.5 176 36.2

Recreational facilities 20 4.2 259 54.0 201 41.9

Restrooms 61 12.5 349 71.7 77 15.8

Studios/performing arts spaces 11 2.3 251 51.8 223 46.0

In a UF Health facility 30 6.2 310 64.2 143 29.6

Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks 95 19.6 318 65.6 72 14.8

Technology/Online Environment

Accessible electronic format 71 14.9 306 64.4 98 20.6

Availability of FM listening systems 22 4.7 219 46.4 231 48.9

Closed captioning at athletic events 5 1.1 177 37.3 293 61.7

E-curriculum (curriculum software) 30 6.3 252 52.8 195 40.9

Electronic forms 54 11.3 326 68.3 97 20.3

Electronic signage 39 8.2 315 66.2 122 25.6

Electronic surveys (including this one) 26 5.5 376 79.3 72 15.2

Kiosks 15 3.2 266 56.0 194 40.8

Library database 20 4.2 301 63.2 155 32.6

PA system 18 3.8 238 50.5 215 45.6

Video 25 5.3 294 62.4 152 32.3

Website 63 13.5 328 70.2 76 16.3



290

Yes No Not applicable Table B60 cont. n % n % n %

Instructional/Campus Materials

Brochures 21 4.4 312 65.8 141 29.7

Food menus 26 5.5 286 60.3 162 34.2

Forms 38 8.1 328 69.6 105 22.3

Events/exhibits/movies 22 4.6 307 64.8 145 30.6

Journal articles 32 6.7 308 64.8 135 28.4

Library books 23 4.9 294 62.0 157 33.1

Other publications 19 4.1 324 69.1 126 26.9

Online media (e.g., UF News) 18 3.8 344 72.6 112 23.6

Signage 37 7.9 327 69.4 107 22.7

Syllabi 17 3.6 258 54.7 197 41.7

Textbooks 21 4.5 250 53.1 200 42.5

Video-closed captioning and text description 14 3.0 228 49.6 218 47.4 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were transgender in Question 31 (n = 3) or that they had a disability in Question 42 (n = 511).



291

Table B61. 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 UF. (Question 73)

If this initiative IS available at UF If this initiative IS NOT available at UF

Positively influences climate

Has no influence on climate

Negatively influences climate



climate Would negatively influence climate

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Flexibility for stopping the tenure clock 866 66.8 360 27.8 71 5.5 302 72.2 76 18.2 40 9.6

Recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum 630 56.8 418 37.7 61 5.5 363 66.1 133 24.2 53 9.7

Diversity and equity training for faculty 751 57.2 477 36.3 85 6.5 277 65.8 119 28.3 25 5.9



Mentorship for new faculty 1,193 83.7 217 15.2 15 1.1 352 90.7 22 5.7 14 3.6

A clear process to resolve conflicts 957 79.5 220 18.3 27 2.2 479 91.2 29 5.5 17 3.2

A fair process to resolve conflicts 978 81.8 185 15.5 33 2.8 474 91.5 28 5.4 16 3.1

Diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 510 47.5 422 39.3 141 13.1 351 58.1 152 25.2 101 16.7

Equity and diversity training to search committees 716 57.2 450 36.0 85 6.8 322 70.3 98 21.4 38 8.3

Equity and diversity training to promotion and tenure committees 593 52.6 443 39.3 92 8.2 402 71.0 120 21.2 44 7.8

Career span development opportunities for faculty at all ranks 823 75.9 236 21.8 25 2.3 585 91.8 36 5.7 16 2.5

Access to adequate childcare 884 79.1 210 18.8 24 2.1 527 92.3 32 5.6 12 2.1 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Postdoctoral Associates in Question 1 (n = 2,154).



292

Table B62. 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 UF. (Question 75)

If this initiative IS available at UF If this initiative IS NOT available at UF

Positively influences climate

Has no influence on climate

Negatively influences climate



climate Would negatively influence climate

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Diversity and equity training for staff 1,658 69.2 661 27.6 76 3.2 394 67.9 141 24.3 45 7.8



Mentorship for new staff 1,446 79.9 334 18.5 30 1.7 1,009 89.3 88 7.8 33 2.9

A clear process to resolve conflicts 1,614 79.0 361 17.7 68 3.3 758 89.7 45 5.3 42 5.0

A fair process to resolve conflicts 1,649 80.7 327 16.0 68 3.3 743 89.5 45 5.4 42 5.1 Diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 1,096 59.2 614 33.2 141 7.6 549 57.5 284 29.7 122 12.8

Equity and diversity training to search/hiring committees 1,270 65.4 561 28.9 111 5.7 648 71.1 197 21.6 67 7.3

Career development opportunities for staff 1,911 85.5 287 12.8 38 1.7 680 90.7 36 4.8 34 4.5 Access to affordable childcare 1,528 78.8 375 19.3 36 1.9 786 88.5 73 8.2 29 3.3 Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff and University Athletic Association in Question 1 (n = 3,436).



293

Appendix C

Comment Analyses (Questions #77, #78, and #79)

Among the 5,590 surveys submitted for the University of Florida climate assessment, 3,707

contained respondents’ remarks to the open-ended questions throughout the survey. The follow-

up questions that allowed respondents to provide more detail about their answers to a previous

survey question were included in the body of the report. This appendix summarizes the

comments submitted for the final three survey questions and provides examples of those remarks

that were echoed by multiple respondents. If comments were related to previous open-ended

questions, the comments were added to the relevant section of the report narrative and, therefore,

are not reflected in this appendix.

Campus Versus Surrounding Community

Fifteen hundred eight-five participants responded to the question about experiences on campus

versus experiences in the community surrounding the campus. Thirty-eight percent of

respondents commented that, yes, experiences on campus were different from experiences in the

community surrounding campus. Of these “yes” responses, five themes were identified that

explained the differences: inclusiveness, campus is just better, liberal, diversity, and

employment.

More Inclusiveness on Campus. Of the respondents who stated that there were differences in

experiences, 27% discussed differences of inclusiveness between the two experiences. The large

majority felt that campus was much more inclusive than the surrounding community. One

respondent wrote simply, “Campus is a much more inclusive environment than Gainesville as a

whole.” Others used the words “tolerant,” “accepting,” and “open-minded” to describe the

experiences on campus. However, a few dissidents felt that the general community was more

inclusive and accepting than on campus. One respondent commented, “Yes, the general

community offers more diversity acceptance in terms of gender, religious affiliation, political

affiliation, and ethnicity.”



294

Campus is Just Better. Of the respondents who felt there were differences in experiences, 14%

indicated that campus was a better, more positive environment. One respondent wrote, “Overall,

the campus climate is better than the surrounding community.” Another stated, “My experiences

on campus have overall been more positive than my experiences in the surrounding community.”

Other respondents commented on how “friendly” and “welcoming” campus was compared to the

surrounding community. A few individuals felt that off-campus was a better environment, or

possibly more friendly and welcoming, but the majority felt that on-campus was more positive.

More Progressive on Campus. Thirteen percent of responses discussed how liberal campus was

compared to the more conservative areas surrounding UF. One respondent wrote, “The

environment on campus is more consistently left-leaning/liberal.” Another shared, “UF in

particular and Gainesville in general are the liberal blue dots in the sea of North-Central Florida

red. Overall, UF and Gainesville are far more tolerant, welcoming, and diverse than the

surrounding areas.” While most respondents phrased their comments such that they sounded in

favor of the liberal campus environment, some felt that campus leaned too far to the left. Several

respondents felt the liberal atmosphere stifled their ability to share conservative viewpoints or

made it hard to have an open conversation because of the emphasis on being politically correct

(PC). One respondent commented, “I feel more guarded to discuss my opinions at work and with

coworkers in group settings. For example, I have conservative political views but in several work

environments at UF I have felt like if you are a Republican, you cannot freely talk about that at

work without being judged and potentially shunned.” Another stated, “Campus is more

politically correct. Speech is less free.”

Diversity Greater on Campus. Of the respondents who felt there were differences, 10% pointed

out differences in diversity between campus and the surrounding areas. Some respondents felt

that campus was the more diverse environment. One respondent wrote, “Campus is more diverse

and progressive than surrounding community.” However, some respondents felt that off-campus

was actually more diverse. One respondent stated, “The campus is less diverse than the

community as a whole.” A few respondents commented on the different approaches to diversity.

One respondent commented, “From my experience in the private sector there is an actual effort

to promote diversity, not simply talk of it. Private sector employers also tend to look for the best



295

person for the job and do not perpetuate a continuation of cliques, a good old boy/girl system and

an environment that is fueled by group-think.” Others commented on diversity issues beyond

race and ethnicity, such as the respondent who wrote, “From a racial diversity perspective

campus and Gainesville are similar. But campus does not reflect the surrounding area in a socio-

economic perspective. UF primarily has students from elite socio-economic backgrounds (just

look at the parking lots) and does not reflect the high poverty rate in Gainesville and surrounding

areas.”

Institutional Classism on Campus. Ten percent of respondents commented on differences in job

and employment related issues between campus and surrounding areas. Some individuals

commented on UF versus private industry or UF versus other institutions of higher education but

the concept was still similar. Several respondents commented on the level of hostility found in

the workplace on campus. One respondent wrote, "Have never experienced the negative work

culture that exists at my department, during employment at any other business in Gainesville.”

Others commented on the level of accountability found in the workplace. One respondent shared,

“community businesses have competitive growth opportunities and don't allow supervisors to not

do their jobs. They hold people accountable. At UF people know they can’t get fired so they do

nothing in their positions and know there isn't any accountability.” Others commented on the

hierarchy found at UF and the quality of the administration. One respondent stated, “The

community surrounding campus feels more communal. Campus feels hierarchical - top-down.”

Another respondent elaborated, “Faculty are treated like first class citizens, staff are an

afterthought. In my department, there are separate holiday parties for faculty and residents. This

is an extravagant event held at our chairman's home. Staff are provided a lunch at work where

faculty and residents do not attend. I cannot think of a more obvious separation of classes than

this practice. My experience in the community is that Gainesville typically tries to more

inclusive in its activities.” Another respondent commented, “Outside of UF, if a leader is

ineffective, they are let go or reassigned. There are too many layers here at UF for people to be

held responsible for their actions.” Some respondents commented on the lower salary earned at

UF versus the outside world, as one respondent wrote, “Salaries are much higher in the private

sector.”



296

Recommendations for Improving the Climate at the University of Florida

Slightly more than 2,100 respondents shared recommendations for improving the climate at UF.

Four broad themes emerged from the responses: issues of hierarchy, issues of diversity, issues of

leadership, and issues of investment.

Institutional Classism. Twelve percent of respondents commented on issues of hierarchy. Many

pointed out the existence of a hierarchy of importance at UF, with different individuals

concerned with different parts of the hierarchy, depending on their status. Most simply wanted

more respect and appreciation from another level. One Staff respondent wrote, “Regular staff

should be just as valued as Faculty and Administration because the best and brightest in society

cannot be the best and brightest without someone to support them.” Another Staff respondent

commented, “More education of faculty and administrators and even (or especially) students that

staff are important. We do the research that faculty want, we run the offices of administrators, we

keep the facilities working and clean. We are more than just labor robots. We think, we feel, we

have some good ideas.” One Faculty respondent wrote, “Do not treat adjunct faculty as second

class citizens.” Another Faculty respondent shared, “Treat the faculty with respect, dignity, and

openness to a real role in governance.” One of the main concerns was the administration’s

commitment to ‘shared-governance’ be more than just lip service. One Faculty respondent wrote,

“The more shared governance, the better for the climate. Administrators need to be sure to ask

for general faculty representation on various committees, and representatives need to be sure to

take their information back to the faculty so there is good communication both ways. Then

faculty buy into changes more because they were part of the decisions, and they are more likely

to keep staff's best interest at heart too (compared to administrators who may be more

removed).” Staff also wanted more influence regarding decisions. One Staff respondent stated,

“The administration and faculty should include staff in decision making when appropriate.”

Overall, respondents just wanted to eliminate the hierarchy that is widespread on campus. One

Staff respondent wrote, “I would suggest eliminating the public perception of the various

hierarchies that exist around campus and instead unite everybody as one unit. No person is more



297

or less important than another person. Respect should be given not earned. Everyone from the

President on down to the groundskeeper are important to UF.”

Divergent Views on Diversity. Fifteen percent of respondents commented on issues related to

diversity, though various viewpoints existed within this theme. Many individuals felt that a focus

on diversity, such as bringing in minority students, staff, and faculty as well as implementing

diversity training, would be good for UF climate. One respondent called for “More racial

diversity in the student population and more racial and gender diversity in all levels of

administration.” Another respondent suggested, “Mandatory diversity training, making a

sustained effort to hire more minorities for both faculty and staff positions (the token minority in

a place or two is not enough).” Others felt a continued commitment to fostering open discussion

about diversity would be important. One respondent shared, “Create and encourage more open

intellectual discourse where ‘difficult conversations’ can take place, where shared human

questions can be explored, and especially where various human frameworks can be voiced:

religious, sexual identity, political etc.” However, not every respondent was pushing for

diversity. Others felt the focus on diversity and political correctness was impinging on free

speech and open discussion. One respondent cautioned, “We need to be careful not to become a

University where the free expression of thought and ideas becomes subservient to political

correctness.” Another respondent advised, “Stop being so sensitive to every little minority

concern.” Others felt there were too many instances of “reverse” racism, where members of the

majority group were being passed over in favor of minorities. One respondent shared, “Stop

going out of the way to please minority groups. As a white male, I'm now being discriminated

against since there are policies and actions to protect everyone but me. It's very discouraging to

deal with!”

Lack of Leadership Accountability. Twenty-one percent of respondents were concerned with

issues of leadership and accountability. A large majority had been very disappointed in

leadership in the past and felt changes were necessary to improve the climate. Some respondents

advised training for anyone in a management/administrative position. One respondent suggested,

“Require all positions supervisory and above to attend the supervisory challenge course as well

as a mandatory number of CEUs each year that addresses supervising others. That's a great start.



298

A lot of people were placed in supervisory roles without knowledge of how to supervise others.

That makes a big difference.” Another respondent stated, “Mandatory supervisory training for all

faculty, and for all staff with supervisory responsibilities.”

Respondents also identified the need to have more accountability for inappropriate behavior by

those in leadership positions. Respondents wanted HR to protect employees, not the university.

One respondent wrote, “Increase the accountability of chairs (and other UF administrators) e.g.

through evaluations by faculty members and staff. Students evaluate teachers, but it seems that

faculty member are disempowered when a department chair creates a hostile work environment

and tremendous suffering among staff, faculty and students in a unit.” Another commented,

“First and foremost, there need to be checks and balances in administration as well as

consequences for misbehavior of dept. heads. As junior faculty you feel so powerless when

something negative is going on.”

Lack of Compensation. Twenty-two percent of respondents commented on issues of investment

in employees. This theme covered topics such as salary, benefits, advancement opportunities,

hiring, and support. A large majority of these respondents were concerned about salaries at UF.

Some felt salaries were low compared to similar institutions while others were concerned about

salary inequity within the university. One respondent advised, “Address salary inequity. The

wide disparity in salaries within the department create hostility and resentment.” Another

respondent wrote, “Be fair with salaries and make sure senior people are not left at a low level as

opposed to new hires. Encourage loyalty.” Another respondent commented, “UF administration

needs to honestly address faculty salary issues. Why can't UF afford to even pay its faculty a

median salary? This is hard for us that can be making three times as much in industry.”

Other respondents commented on advancement opportunities within the university in regard to

raises, promotions, and professional development. One respondent wrote, “We need a system

where people can have raises for their effort and good job, not just for contra offers of tentative

new positions.” Another respondent suggested, “One way to help improve the climate at UF

would be to provide employees with clear opportunities for advancement and professional

growth. It would also be helpful for leadership to become advocates and encourage employees to

take part in such opportunities.”



299

Others commented on the pre-eminence campaign and the bigger issue of bringing in new hires

versus investing in long-term employees. One Faculty respondent wrote, “Start investing in the

faculty here rather than investing only in those hired as preeminence faculty, the vast majority of

whom are really no more accomplished than the faculty UF currently has. This has tremendously

eroded faculty morale in the last 2 years.” One Staff respondent wrote, “More equitable pay rates

for employees who have been with UF for many years. Next to impossible for them to receive

compensation as compared to people recently hired because of current processes. Completely

unfair!” Another Faculty respondent wrote, “For the last years, faculty have endured very hard

circumstances and they have not been adequately appreciated (let alone compensated). Only

‘preeminence’ hires seem to be part of the new top-ten UF, while the faculty who have built this

university feel like second-class employees--overworked and underpaid. As a result, it seems that

only faculty who cannot live for another job, stay at UF. Very demoralizing.”

Respondents also suggested that simply having UF provide more support, in terms of resources

as well as hiring more staff/faculty, would go a long way toward improving climate. One

respondent suggested, “Provide proper human resources to achieve long term plans.” Another

respondent advised, “Provide institutional resources for mentorship and research support to

junior faculty, particularly those who are overburdened by service and leadership commitments

far too early in their career and, thus, have little to no time available to access services available

through the CTSI, etc.”

Additional Thoughts on Campus Climate

Seven hundred thirty-three employees responded to the final question that requested further

elaboration on survey responses or related experiences. From the responses, three main themes

emerged: survey, leadership, and hierarchy.

Divergent Views on the Survey. Eighteen percent of respondents used this final question to

comment on the survey itself. The majority of respondents were appreciative of the opportunity

to take the survey and have a voice. One respondent wrote, “Thank you for the opportunity to

respond.” Several respondents were interested to see survey results and hopeful that the survey



300

would eventually result in serious changes in campus climate. One respondent wrote, “I hope

there will be discussion of the survey results and what they mean.” Another respondent shared,

“It is commendable that the University cares enough to review the results of this survey with the

intentions of making this a better place to work!” Other respondents were critical of the survey

design. Many wished for a “not-applicable” option for items they felt did not apply to them. One

respondent wrote, “Many questions did not apply to me. There should have been an option for

that.” Others thought the design was faulty, such as the respondent who commented, “This

survey was too complicated and too long. Ridiculously long and I'm surprised I have completed

it. I'm sure that your response rate is low due to this.” A small minority complained of time

wasted and lamented the likelihood that anything will come of it. One respondent wrote, “I

wasted my time - it seems Nobody pay attention to these surveys.”

Concerns with Leadership. Ten percent of respondents commented on leadership at UF in their

final response. Many had been disappointed with leadership from administration regarding the

direction of UF. One respondent wrote, “UF is now run under a corporate instead of ‘community

of scholars’ philosophy. The top-down approach to hiring, and the downsizing of so many

departments, while the number of administrators has grown and their salaries have skyrocketed,

has led to a feeling of hopelessness among the faculty.” Another respondent asked, “Why hasn't

new leadership been brought on board?” Faculty members questioned the support of

administration for their position in the university. One Faculty respondent commented, “Please

take a serious look at the inflated salaries and number of Associate and Assistant deans in the

colleges - they are vastly out of control and tend to set up a ‘we vs. them’ climate between

faculty and administration that is extremely negative for professional growth and self-worth.”

One respondent stated simply, “Administration is perceived as an obstacle rather than an

advocate for a healthy climate at UF.”

Not all respondents critiqued the administration. A small few thought leadership was doing a fine

job or were hopeful for the future under new President Fuchs. One respondent wrote, “I have

seen a tremendous improvement in management over the last 3/4 years due the training &

development our supervisors and managers have received. I feel that our management team is

one of the best I have ever worked for & I am both grateful and indebted to them for all they do



301

every day for the staff!” Another respondent shared, “I think UF is a great place to work. The

culture and climate are shifting toward the positive. The new President has a big impact on that

shift. He is much more open and friendlier than previous administration.”

Institutional Classism. Seven percent of respondents commented on the hierarchy of status at

UF. Generally, the ladder was seen as administrators at the top, then faculty, then staff, with

layers of importance in between. Each level felt ignored and belittled by the levels above.

Another respondent commented, “There is a great chasm between administration and faculty,

including salaries, benefits.” Another respondent observed, “Older faculty are stuck at low

salaries while new, younger faculty are hired at much higher salaries in spite of the fact that they

have lesser or no credentials compared to older faculty. Merit tends to be measured by what has

been published within the last few months rather than looking at the whole career of someone.”

Many felt that in order to address climate issues, it was necessary to reduce the sense of

hierarchy. One respondent advised, “This survey is about inclusion and diversity which is only

one component of the ‘climate’ of the institution. You really should do a survey about the

relationship between faculty and upper administration if you want to know how to improve the

climate.”

University of Florida

Faculty and Staff Climate Survey (Administered by Rankin & Associates, Consulting)

This survey is accessible in alternative formats. For more information please contact: Human Resource Services [email protected]

Purpose You are invited to participate in a survey of faculty (including adjunct faculty), post-doctoral associates, and employees in the USPS and TEAMS pay plans regarding the environment for working at UF. Climate refers to the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees 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 UF and provide us with specific information about how the environment for working at UF can be improved.

Procedures 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://hr.ufl.edu/working-at-uf/support/employees-in-distress/

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 UF is conducive to 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 employee benefits.



302

Statement of Confidentiality for Participation In the event of any publication or presentation resulting from the research study, no personally identifiable information will be shared. Your confidentiality in participating will be insured. The external consultant (Rankin & Associates) will not report any group 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 UF Institutional Review Board.

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: Susan R. Rankin, Ph.D. Principal & Senior Research Associate Rankin & Associates, Consulting [email protected] 814-625-2780 Questions regarding the survey process may also be directed to: Jodi Gentry 352-273-1771 DL [email protected] Ron Anderson, Ombuds 352-392-1308 [email protected] Angel Kwolek-Folland 352-392-4792 [email protected] Questions concerning the rights of participants: Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, and there is no penalty for not participating. There are no direct benefits, risks, or compensation to you for participating in the survey. You have a right to withdraw from the survey at any time without consequence. You also may skip survey questions you do not wish to answer. Also, because this survey has received approval from the University of Florida’s Behavioral/Non-Medical Institutional Review Board (IRB02), should you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant in this survey, you may contact the IRB02 Office by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 392-0433. Confidentiality in participating will be maintained to the highest degree permitted by the technology used (e.g., IP addresses will be stripped when the survey is submitted). No guarantees can be made regarding the interception of data sent via the Internet by any third parties; however, to avoid interception of data, the survey is run on a firewalled web server with forced 256-bit SSL security. In addition, the consultant and university will not report any group data for groups of fewer than five individuals, because those “small cell sizes” may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, the consultant and university will combine the groups or take other measures to eliminate any potential for demographic information to be identifiable. Additionally, any comments submitted in response to the survey will be separated at the time of submission to the consultant so they are not attributed to any individual demographic characteristics. Identifiable information submitted in qualitative comments will be redacted and the university will only receive these redacted comments.



303

PLEASE MAKE 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 By submitting this survey you are agreeing to take part in this research study, as described in detail in the preceding paragraphs.

Survey Terms and Definitions Ableist: Discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. 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. Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of an individual. Assigned Birth Sex: Refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth. 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 concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential. 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 policy or practice that confers privileges based on 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. Ethnocentric: 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. Homophobia: The irrational hatred and fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Homophobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by fear and hatred. 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. Non-Native English Speakers: People for whom English is not their first language.



304

People of Color: People who self-identify as other than White. Pansexual: A person who is fluid in sexual identity and is attracted to others regardless of their sexual identity or gender. 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, etc.) 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. 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 [previously defined] is different from that traditionally associated with their sex assigned at birth [previously defined]. Unwanted Sexual Contact: Unwanted physical sexual contact includes forcible fondling, sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an object. Xenophobic: Irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

Directions 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. The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete. 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 UF? Faculty

Tenured Associate Professor Professor Faculty position not listed here

Tenure Accruing Assistant Professor Associate Professor Faculty position not listed here

Non-Tenure Accruing Clinical Lecturer Faculty position not listed here

Permanent Status (PKY & IFAS Extension Agent) Permanent Status Accruing (IFAS Extension Agent) Adjunct

Postdoctoral Associate Staff

Non-Exempt (Hourly) USPS TEAMS

Exempt (Salary) USPS TEAMS




305

2. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary status? Full-time Part-time 3. Do you serve in an Administrative/Supervisory role in your position? No Yes 4. What is your primary UF location? Gainesville Jacksonville A location not listed here

Part 1: Personal Experiences

When responding to the following questions, think about your experiences during the past year. 5. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at UF? Very comfortable Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 6. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/work unit? Very comfortable Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 7. If you teach, overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes/learning environment? Very comfortable Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 8. Have you ever seriously considered leaving UF? No [Skip to Question 11] Yes 9. Why did you seriously consider leaving UF? (Mark all that apply.) Climate was unwelcoming Family responsibilities Financial reasons (salary, resources, etc.) Increased workload Interested in a position at another institution/employer Lack of benefits Limited opportunities for advancement Local community did not meet my (my family) needs Offered position in government or industry Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.) Recruited or offered a position at another institution/employer Revised retirement plans Spouse or partner relocated Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment Tension with supervisor/manager Tension with co-workers Wanted to move to a different geographical location A reason not listed above



306

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. 11. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored),

intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability to work at UF?

No [Skip to Question 20] Yes 12. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., institutional reputation, etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender/gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status/national origin Learning disability/condition Length of service at UF Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________



307

13. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I was ignored or excluded I was intimidated/bullied I was isolated or left out I felt others staring at me I experienced a hostile classroom environment I experienced a hostile work environment I was the target of workplace incivility I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks I received derogatory written comments I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/e-mail I received derogatory/unsolicited messages on-line (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group I received a low or unfair performance evaluation I was not fairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process Someone assumed I was hired/promoted due to my identity group Someone assumed I was not hired/promoted due to my identity group I was the target of graffiti/vandalism I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling I was the target of stalking The conduct threatened my physical safety The conduct threatened my family’s safety I received threats of physical violence I was the target of physical violence An experience not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 14. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) At a UF event In a class/lab/clinical setting In a UF administrative office In a faculty office In a public space at UF In a meeting with one other person In a meeting with a group of people In a UF Health facility In a UF library In athletic/recreational facilities Off campus On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak On UF media, communications, or publications On UF transportation (RTS, campus cab) While working at a UF job While walking on campus A location not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 15. Who/What was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Alumnus/a Athletic coach/staff member UF media, communications, or publications UF Public Safety Officer Co-worker Department Chair/Program Chair/Director Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to me) Donor Faculty member/Other Instructional Staff Off campus community member Patient Senior administrator (e.g., dean, vice president, provost) On-line site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) Staff member Stranger



308

Student Supervisor Don’t know source A source not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 16. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I felt uncomfortable I felt embarrassed I felt somehow responsible I ignored it I was afraid I was angry 17. What was your response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I didn’t do anything I confronted the person(s) at the time I confronted the person(s) later I avoided the person/venue I didn’t know whom to go to I sought information online I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services I contacted an on-campus resource

Campus security/UFPD Athletic coach/staff member Dean of Students Human Resources Title IX Coordinator Ombuds On-campus counseling service/Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Staff person Faculty member Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) My supervisor My union representative Other

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) Off-campus counseling service I filed a complaint with an external agency I sought information online

A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) Off-campus counseling service I filed a complaint with an external agency I sought information online I told a friend I told a family member A response not listed above 18. Did you report the conduct? No, I didn’t report it Yes, I reported it

Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome 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 Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately



309

19. We are interested in knowing more about your experience. If you would like to elaborate on your personal experiences, please do so here. Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




310

Part 2: Workplace Climate You must answer at least 50% of the questions for your responses to be included in the final analyses. 20. Tenured and Tenure-Accruing Faculty only: As a faculty member, I feel (or felt)… Strongly

agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

The criteria for tenure/promotion are clear. The tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to faculty in my school/division.

Supported and mentored during the tenure-track years. I understand UF policies for delaying the tenure-clock . Research is valued by UF. Teaching is valued by UF. Service contributions are valued by UF. Pressured to change my research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure/promotion.

Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments).

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).

Faculty members in my department who use family accommodation policies are disadvantaged in tenure/promotion (e.g., child care, elder care).

Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost).

Faculty opinions are valued within UF committees. I would like more opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments.

I have opportunities to participate in substantive committee assignments. 21. Tenured and Tenure-Accruing 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.



311

22. Non-Tenure Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, Adjunct only: As an employee with a non-tenure track appointment at UF (e.g., Non-Tenure Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, Adjunct) I feel (or felt)… Strongly


The criteria used for job retention are clear. The criteria for promotion are clear. The criteria used for job retention are applied equally to all faculty. There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. Research is valued by UF. Teaching is valued by UF. Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments).

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).

Pressured to do extra work that is uncompensated. Faculty opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost).

23. Non-Tenure Accruing, Permanent Status, Permanent Status Accruing, Adjunct 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.



312

24. All Faculty: As a faculty member, I feel… Strongly


Salaries for tenure track faculty positions are competitive. Salaries for adjunct faculty are competitive. Salaries for non-tenure track faculty positions are competitive. Health insurance benefits are competitive. Child care benefits are competitive. Retirement/supplemental benefits are competitive. People who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends).

People who have children or elder care are burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and evenings programming, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district breaks).

UF provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.).

My colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position.

The performance evaluation process is clear. UF provides me with resources to pursue professional development (e.g., conferences, materials, research and course design traveling).

I have job security. 25. All Faculty: 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.



313

26. All Staff: As a staff member, I feel… Strongly


I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it.

I am included in opportunities that will help my career as much as others in similar positions.

The performance evaluation process is clear. The performance evaluation criteria are clear. The performance evaluation process is productive. There are clear procedures on how I can advance at UF. My supervisor provides adequate support for me to manage work-life balance.

I am able to complete my assigned duties during scheduled hours. I am pressured by departmental work requirements that occur outside of my normally scheduled hours.

I am given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned responsibilities. 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.

Burdened by work responsibilities beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments).

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).

There is a hierarchy within staff positions that allows some voices to be valued more than others.

People who have children or elder care are burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities (e.g., evening and evenings programming, workload brought home, UF breaks not scheduled with school district breaks).

UF provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.).

27. Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on any




314

28. Staff only: As a staff member I feel… Strongly


UF provides me with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities.

My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities.

UF is supportive of taking extended leave (e.g., FMLA, parental). My supervisor is supportive of my taking leaves (e.g., vacation, parental, personal, short-term disability).

UF policies (e.g., FMLA) are fairly applied across UF. UF is supportive of flexible work schedules. My supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. Staff salaries are competitive. Vacation and personal time are competitive. Health insurance benefits are competitive. Child care benefits are competitive. Retirement benefits are competitive. Staff opinions are valued on UF committees. Staff opinions are valued by UF faculty and administration. There are clear expectations of my responsibilities. 29. Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on any


Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




315

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. 30. What is your birth sex (assigned)? Female Intersex Male 31. What is your gender/gender identity? Genderqueer Man Transgender Woman A gender not listed here (please specify): ___________________________________ 32. What is your current gender expression? Androgynous Feminine Masculine A gender expression not listed here (please specify): ___________________________________ 33. What is your citizenship status in U.S.? (Mark all that apply) A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) Currently under a withholding of removal status DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) Other legally documented status Permanent Resident Refugee status U.S. citizen, birth U.S. citizen, naturalized 34. 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)

Alaska Native (if you wish please specify your enrolled or principal corporation)_____________________ First Nation/American Indian/Indigenous (if you wish please specify your enrolled or principal tribe)

____________________________ Asian or Asian American or South Asian (if you wish please specify) _____________________________ Black or African American (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@/ (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Middle Eastern/North African (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Native Hawaiian (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Pacific Islander (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ White/European American (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ A racial/ethnic identity not listed here (please specify) ___________________________________ 35. 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? Bisexual Gay Heterosexual Lesbian Pansexual Queer Questioning A sexual identity not listed here (please specify) ___________________________________



316

36. What is your age? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

37. How many years have you been employed at UF? Less than 1 year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 years or more

38. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility? No Yes (Mark all that apply)

Children 5 years or under Children 6-18 years Children over (18 years of age, but still dependent (in college, disabled, etc.) Independent adult children over 18 years of age Sick or disabled partner Senior or other family member A parenting or caregiving responsibility not listed here(e.g., pregnant, adoption pending) (please

specify) ___________________________________



317

39. What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)? Parent/Guardian 1: No high school Some high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor's degree Some graduate work Master’s degree (M.A, M.S., M.B.A.) Specialist degree (Ed.S.) Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) Professional degree (e.g., M.D., J.D.) Unknown Not applicable

Parent/Guardian 2: Not applicable No high school Some high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor's degree Some graduate work Master’s degree (M.A, M.S., M.B.A.) Specialist degree (Ed.S.) Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) Professional degree (e.g., M.D., J.D.) Unknown

40. What is your highest level of education? No high school Some high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Some graduate work Master’s degree (M.A, M.S., MBA) Specialist degree (Ed.S.) Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) Professional degree (e.g., M.D., J.D.) 41. While many people at UF have joint or split appointments, please identify the area where you work with which you most strongly identify. Only one selection is possible. I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with working in a college

College of the Arts College of Agricultural and Life Sciences College of Dentistry College of Design, Construction, and Planning College of Education College of Engineering College of Health and Human Performance College of Journalism and Communications College of Liberal Arts and Sciences College of Medicine College of Medicine--Jacksonville College of Nursing College of Pharmacy College of Public Health and Health Professions (including Departments of Biostatistics and

Epidemiology) College of Veterinary Medicine Levin College of Law Warrington College of Business Administration

I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit reporting to the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs other than a college

Chief Financial Officer (Budget Office, Contracts & Grants, Finance & Accounting, Finance & Planning, Purchasing)

Division of Enrollment Management Division of Student Affairs George A. Smathers Libraries



318

Another unit reporting to the SVP, including but not limited to UF Online, UF Performing Arts,

International Center, Honors Program, Museums, Latin American Studies, Whitney Labs, Florida Sea Grant, University Press, Undergraduate Affairs, Institutional Planning and Research, Provost’s Office, ROTC

I work in IFAS and am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a unit other than a college I work in UF Health—Health Science Center and am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with a

unit reporting to the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs other than a college I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with an area reporting to the Senior Vice President and

Chief Operating Officer Physical Plant Division Division of Business Affairs, other than PPD: Business Services, Environmental Health & Safety,

Facilities Planning & Construction, Office of Sustainability, Small Business and Vendor Diversity, Stephen C. O'Connell Center, University Police Department

UFIT Another unit including but not limited to Baby Gator, Human Resource Services, UF Privacy Office,

Office of the Chief Audit Executive, Real Estate, COO Office I am primarily affiliated and most strongly identify with an area reporting to the Office of the President

Office of Development and Alumni Affairs Office of Research Another unit including but not limited to the President’s Office, Office of the Executive Chief of Staff,

Office of the General Counsel, University Relations 42. Do you have a condition/disability that influences your learning, working or living activities? No [Skip to Question 44] Yes 43. Which, if any, of the conditions listed below impact your learning, working or living activities? (Mark all that apply) Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury Asperger's/Autism Spectrum Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition (e.g., Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia, etc.) Learning Disability (e.g., Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, Dyslexia, etc.) Mental Health/Psychological Condition Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking Speech/Communication Condition Visually Impaired or Blind Hearing impaired or Deaf A disability/condition not listed here (please specify): ___________________________________ 44. What is the language(s) spoken in your home? English only A language other than English (please specify) ___________________________________ English and other language(s) (please specify) ___________________________________ 45. Are/were you a member of the U.S. Armed Forces? I have not been in the military Active military Reservist/National Guard Veteran 46. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply) Agnostic Atheist Baha’i Buddhist Christian

African Methodist Episcopal African Methodist Episcopal Zion Assembly of God Baptist



319

Catholic/Roman Catholic Church of Christ Church of God in Christ Christian Orthodox Christian Methodist Episcopal Christian Reformed Church (CRC) Episcopalian Evangelical Greek Orthodox Lutheran Mennonite Moravian Nondenominational Christian Pentecostal Presbyterian Protestant Protestant Reformed Church (PR) Quaker Reformed Church of America (RCA) Russian Orthodox Seventh Day Adventist The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints United Methodist Unitarian Universalist United Church of Christ A Christian affiliation not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________

Confucianist Druid Hindu Humanist Jain Jehovah’s Witness Jewish

Conservative Orthodox Reform

Muslim Ahmadi Shi’ite Sufi Sunni

Native American Traditional Practitioner or Ceremonial Pagan Rastafarian Scientologist Secular Humanist Shinto Sikh Taoist Tenrikyo Wiccan Spiritual, but no religious affiliation No affiliation A religious affiliation or spiritual identity not listed above (please specify) __________________________



320

47. What is your best estimate of your household yearly income? Below $30,000 $30,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $69,999 $70,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000 - $249,999 $250,000 - $499,999 $500,000 or more Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




321

Part 4: Perceptions of Campus Climate 48. 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 environment?

No [Skip to Question 58] Yes 49. Who/what was the target of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Alumnus/a Athletic coach/staff member UF media, communication, or publications UF Public Safety Officer Co-worker Department Chair/Program Chair/Director Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to me) Donor Faculty member/Other Instructional Staff Off campus community member Patient Senior administrator (e.g., dean, vice president, provost) On-line site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) Staff member Stranger Student Supervisor Don’t know source A source not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 50. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Alumnus/a Athletic coach/ staff member UF media, communication, or publications UF Public Safety Officer Co-worker Department Chair/Program Chair/Director Direct Report (e.g., person who reports to me) Donor Faculty member/Other Instructional Staff Off campus community member Patient Senior administrator (e.g., dean, vice president, provost) On-line site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) Staff member Stranger Student Supervisor Don’t know source A source not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________



322

51. Which of the target’s characteristics do you believe was/were the basis for the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender/gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status/national origin Learning disability/condition Length of service at UF Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team (please specify) ___________________________________ Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 52. Which of the following did you observe because of the target’s identity? (Mark all that apply.) Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity Derogatory remarks Derogatory/unsolicited emails, text messages, Facebook, Twitter, YiK-Yak Derogatory written comments Derogatory phone calls Graffiti (e.g., event advertisements removed or defaced) Person intimidated/bullied Person isolated or left out Person experiences a hostile classroom environment Person experienced a hostile work environment Person was the target of workplace incivility Racial/ethnic profiling Person deliberately ignored or excluded Person received a low performance evaluation Person received a poor grade Person was unfairly evaluated in the promotion and tenure process Person was stalked Physical violence Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group Threats of physical violence Something not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________



323

53. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) At a UF event In a class/lab/clinical setting In a UF health care setting In a UF dining facility In a UF administrative office In a faculty office In a public space at UF In a meeting with one other person In a meeting with a group of people In a UF Health facility In a UF library In athletic/recreational facilities Off campus On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak On UF media, communication, or publications On UF transportation While working at a UF job While walking on campus A location not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 54. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I felt uncomfortable I felt embarrassed? I felt somehow responsible I ignored it? I was afraid? I was angry 55. What was your response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I didn’t do anything I confronted the person(s) at the time I confronted the person(s) later I avoided the person/venue I didn’t know whom to go to I sought information online I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services I contacted an on-campus resource

Campus security/UFPD Athletic coach/staff member Dean of Students Human Resources Title IX Coordinator Ombuds On-campus counseling service/Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Staff person Faculty member Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) My supervisor My union representative Other

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) Off-campus counseling service I filed a complaint with an external agency I sought information online

I told a friend I told a family member A response not listed above



324

56. Did you report the conduct? No, I didn’t report it Yes, I reported it

Yes, I reported the incident and was satisfied with the outcome 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 Yes, I reported the incident, but felt that it was not responded to appropriately

57. 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.



325

58. Have you observed hiring practices at UF (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? No [Skip to Question 61] Yes 59. I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon…(Mark all that apply). Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender/gender identity Gender expression Friendship (e.g., “who you know”) Immigrant/citizen status International status/national origin Learning disability/condition Length of service at UF Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/veteran status Nepotism (e.g., family connections) Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 60. 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.



326

61. Have you observed employment-related discipline or action, up to and including dismissal, at UF that you perceive to be unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community? No [Skip to Question 64] Yes 62. I believe that the unjust employment-related disciplinary actions were based upon…(Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender/gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status/national origin Learning disability/condition Length of service at UF Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team (please specify) ___________________________________ Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 63. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you wish to elaborate on your observations of employment-related discipline or action, up to and including dismissal practices, please do so here.



327

64. Have you observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification practices at UF that you perceive to be unjust? No [Skip to Question 66] Yes 65. I believe the unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification were based upon… (Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Friendship (e.g., “who you know”) Gender/gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status/national origin Learning disability/condition Length of service at UF Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/veteran status Nepotism (e.g., family connections) Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team (please specify) ___________________________________ Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 66. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you wish to elaborate on your observations of

unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification, please do so here.



328

67. Using a scale of 1–5, please rate the overall climate on campus 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) 1 2 3 4 5

Friendly Hostile Inclusive Exclusive

Improving Regressing Positive for persons with disabilities Negative for persons with disabilities

Positive for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender

Negative for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender

Positive for people of all spiritual/Religious backgrounds Negative for people of all

spiritual/religious backgrounds Positive for People of Color Negative for People of Color

Positive for men Negative for men Positive for women Negative for women

Positive for non-native English speakers Negative for non-native English speakers Positive for people who are not U.S.

citizens Negative for people who are not U.S. citizens

Welcoming Not welcoming Respectful Disrespectful

Positive for people of high socioeconomic status

Negative for people of high socioeconomic status

Positive for people of low socioeconomic status socioeconomic status Negative for people of low socioeconomic

status

Positive for people of all political affiliations Negative for people of all political affiliations

Positive for people in active military/Veterans status

Negative for people in active military/Veterans status

68. Using a scale of 1–5, please rate the overall climate on campus 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) 1 2 3 4 5

Not racist Racist Not sexist Sexist

Not homophobic Homophobic Not ageist Ageist

Not classist (socioeconomic status) Classist (socioeconomic status) Not classist (position: faculty, staff, student) Classist (position: faculty, staff, student)

Disability friendly (Not ableist) Not disability friendly (Ableist) Not xenophobic Xenophobic

Not ethnocentric Ethnocentric



329

69. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.



Strongly disagree

I feel valued by faculty in my department. I feel valued by my department head/chair. I feel valued by UF students. I feel valued by UF senior administrators (e.g., president, dean, vice president, provost).

I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background.

I think that my department chair/head pre-judges my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background.

I believe that the UF encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics.

I feel that my research is valued. I feel that my teaching is valued. I feel that my service contributions are valued. 70. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.



Strongly disagree

I feel valued by co-workers in my department. I feel valued by my supervisor/manager. I feel valued by faculty. I feel valued by UF students. I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background.

I feel valued by UF senior administrators (e.g., dean, vice president, provost).

I think that co-workers in my work unit pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background.

I think that my supervisor/manager pre-judges my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background.

I believe that my department encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics.

I feel that my skills are valued.



330

71. (Respondents who are transgender or with disabilities only) Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier in any of the following areas at UF?

Yes No Not

applicable Facilities Athletic facilities (stadium, recreation, etc.) Classroom buildings Classrooms, labs Computer labs Dining facilities Doors Elevators/Lifts Emergency preparedness On-campus transportation/parking Other campus buildings Podium Recreational facilities Restrooms Studios/Performing Arts Spaces In a UF Health facility Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks Technology/Online Environment Accessible electronic format Availability of FM listening systems Closed captioning at athletic events E-curriculum (curriculum software) Electronic forms Electronic signage Electronic surveys (including this one) Kiosks Library database PA system Video Website Instructional/Campus Materials Brochures Food menus Forms Events/Exhibits/Movies Journal articles Library books Other publications Online media (e.g. UF News) Signage Syllabi Textbooks Video-closed captioning and text description 72. If you wish to elaborate on your responses regarding accessibility, please do so here.

Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




331

Part 5: Institutional Actions Relative to Climate Issues 73. 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 UF. Initiative Available

At UF Initiative NOT

Available at UF


climate

Has no influence

on climate


climate


Would have no

influence on climate


Flexibility for stopping the tenure clock Recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum

Diversity and equity training for faculty Resources for reporting concerns Access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment

Mentorship for new faculty A clear process to resolve conflicts A fair process to resolve conflicts Diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty

Equity and diversity training to search committees

Equity and diversity training to promotion and tenure committees

Career span development opportunities for faculty at all ranks

Access to adequate childcare 74. 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. Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




332

75. 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 UF. Initiative Available

At UF Initiative NOT

Available at UF


climate

Has no influence

on climate


climate


Would have no

influence on climate


Diversity and equity training for staff Access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment

Resources for reporting concerns Mentorship for new staff A clear process to resolve conflicts A fair process to resolve conflicts Diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty

Equity and diversity training to search/hiring committees

Career development opportunities for staff Access to adequate childcare 76. 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. Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




333

Part 6: Your Additional Comments 77. Are your experiences on campus different from those you experience in the community surrounding campus? If so, how are these experiences different? 78. Do you have any specific recommendations for improving the climate at UF? 79. 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. Because the survey responses are anonymous, answers to questions in this survey will not be treated as formal complaints submitted to the University. To make a formal complaint, please contact Employee Relations at (352) 392-2477. 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 below:




334

You have completed the survey.

To thank all members of the UF community for their participation in this survey, you have an opportunity to be selected for a "Climate Survey Thank-You" survey award. Submitting your contact information for a survey award is optional. To be eligible to win a survey award, please provide your position (faculty/staff or student) and e-mail address. This page will be separated from your survey responses upon receipt by Rankin & Associates and will not be used with any of your responses. Providing this information is voluntary, but must be provided if you wish to be entered into the drawing. Please submit only one entry per person; duplicate entries will be discarded. ********************************************************************************************************************************

Faculty Staff Name: ____________________________________ E-mail address: ____________________________________ ***********************************************************************************************************************************

Awards will be provided based on a pre-defined award sequence. Every 135th person to complete the information below will receive an award until the awards have been exhausted in the following order. A similar methodology will be used with other items if they become available.

• One gift certificate for one semester of parking on UF campus

• One iPad mini

• One UF t-shirt

• One set of five lunches at Fresh Foods

• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt

• One $25 gift cards to the UF Bookstore

• One football autographed by the UF coach

• One basketball autographed by UF coach

• Two football tickets to 2016 UF/Kentucky game

• Two tickets to UF basketball game

• One iPod touch


• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt


• Two tickets to UF women’s gymnastics


• One iPad air

• Two Performing Arts show tickets to the show of their choice

• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt

• One gift card to the University Athletic Association Bookstore



335


• One gift card to the University Athletic Association Bookstore

• One gift certificate for one semester of parking on UF campus

• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt


• One UF t-shirt


• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt


• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt


• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt

• One UF t-shirt

• Certificate for one free Pepsi product a week for a year. Up to 156.00 value. Participant will be issued a gift card

that can be used in any Gator 1 Card reader equipped Pepsi vending machines at UF, UF Shands, or Health

Science Center. The gift card will be valid for up to $3.00 per week for an entire year. Unspent weekly balance

does not carry forward. Card has no cash value.

• One UF t-shirt

• Certificate for one Free Canteen snack product a week for a year. Up to 156.00 value. Participant will be issued a

gift card that can be used in any Gator 1 Card reader equipped Canteen snack vending machines at UF, UF

Shands, or Health Science Center include the 2BU healthy snack vending options. The gift card will be valid for

up to $3.00 per week for an entire year. Unspent weekly balance does not carry forward. Card has no cash value. 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 contact:

http://hr.ufl.edu/working-at-uf/support/employees-in-distress



336



337

Appendix E Final Response Rates by Position

Note: Respondents had to choose an overall position category (faculty, staff) but did not have to identify specific positions (e.g., assistant professor).

Final Frequency Analysis Population N = 15,494 Sample n = 5,590

(36.1% overall response rate)

Question #1: What is your primary position at UF? n

Response Rate

Faculty (N = 5,706) 2,037 35.7% Tenured (N = 1,880 ) 927 49.3%

Associate Professor (N = 643) 255 39.7% Professor (N = 1,189) 397 33.4% Faculty position not listed here (N = 48) 31 64.6% Not answered 244 n/a

Tenure Accruing (N = 533 ) 214 40.2% Assistant Professor (N = 382) 150 39.3% Associate Professor (N = 77) 26 33.8% Faculty position not listed here (N = 74) 27 36.5% Not answered 11 n/a

Non-Tenure Accruing (N = 2,182) 662 30.3% Clinical (N = 1,279) 282 22.0% Lecturer (N = 306) 95 31.0% Faculty position not listed here (N = 597) 192 32.2% Not answered 93 n/a

Permanent Status (PKY & IFAS Extension Agent)(N = 206) 81 39.3% Permanent Status Accruing (IFAS Extension Agent) (N =120) 71 59.2% Permanent Status Non-Accruing (IFAS Extension Agent) (N = 77) n/a n/a Adjunct (N = 708 ) 82 11.6%

Postdoctoral Associate (N = 624) 117 18.8% Staff (N = 8,768 ) 3,277 37.4%

Non-Exempt (Hourly) (N = 4,319 ) 1,289 29.8% USPS (N = 609) 129 21.2% TEAMS (N = 3,710) 976 26.3% Not answered 184 n/a

Exempt (Salary) (N = 4,449) 1,983 44.6% USPS (N = 160 ) 56 35.0% TEAMS (N = 4,289) 1,657 38.6% Not answered 5 n/a

University Athletic Association (N = 396 ) 159 40.2% Totals 5,590 36.1%

university of florida survey june 2016 - president...the university of florida report june 2016 i...

Documents