Abstract

In June 2020 under the leadership of Dr. Mark Nook, the University of Northern Iowa implemented the President’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Advisory Committee to institutionalize DEI efforts on campus. The committee was initially charged with three main goals. The first was to finalize the committee charge. Also, the committee was charged with creating institutional DEI vocabulary and a diversity, equity and inclusion strategic plan. Alongside those three goals, the committee was tasked with providing specific DEI related recommendations to the President by way of the committee chair.

            In its inaugural meeting, committee members quickly saw a need to rename the committee to better communicate to campus its mission of moving the institution to address diversity, equity and inclusion in a transformative way. On July 28, 2020 the committee voted to change the name of the body to the President’s Council for Inclusion, Transformative Social Justice & Advocacy. With this new name and utilizing the framework presented by students through the Racial Equity Coalition (REC), the council sought to finalize the charge through the lens of transformative social justice,  create a Social Justice Plan, and undertake a diversity, equity and inclusion organizational inventory. After brainstorming ideas on the scope of its work, the council landed on gathering data and presenting recommendations in four areas: budget, campus climate, curriculum & staff and faculty. The council decided to tackle these four areas by splitting up into subcommittees to answer questions related to DEI. This annual report includes the final charge and the summary of each of the four sub committees. Each summary report includes the following; the purpose of the committee, individuals the committee interviewed, summary of data collected, themes in the data, recommendations and plans for moving forward. Because the curriculum subcommittee worked in conjunction with the Faculty Senate DEI committee, their report is presented in a different format from the other three reports.

 

 

President’s Council for Inclusion, Transformative Social Justice, & Advocacy Charge

 

This document is the property of the UNI’s Council for Inclusion, Transformative Social Justice, and Equity and subsequent to the change of the council’s name, was the first task completed by the Council.

The Council is a standing body of the University that functions independent from the President and University leaders. The Council is charged with: 

(1) providing recommendations for goals and action steps to the president and other university leaders across campus with regard to increasing inclusion, transformative social justice and advocacy and cultivating an equitable living, learning, and working environment;

(2) ensuring the University analyzes, assesses and promotes the implementation of  university-wide goals and action steps in partnership with divisions, departments, units, offices, shared governance groups, committees, employees, students, and other stakeholders;

(3) evaluating progress towards dismantling systems of oppression.

(4) identifying barriers and challenges to achieving goals and action steps and offering recommendations to the president, other university leaders, and appropriate stakeholders to address those barriers and challenges; 

(5) continuously updating of the University’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement and planning as necessary to meet the goals and outcomes delineated; and

(6) developing and revising a set of definitions for use in promoting the evolution of inclusive language across campus

Upon review, modification, and approval of its charge, the UNI’s Council on Inclusion, Transformative Social Justice and Advocacy shall:

• develop a bold, sustainable, and revitalized Transformative Social Justice Action Plan;
• provide a set of goals, strategies, and metrics for dismantling oppressive systems and employing strategies that embody equitable, just, inclusive and welcoming community for all;
• determine and implement processes for ongoing identification of  barriers to academic, emotional and professional success, and addressing them;
• include equitable representation among our students, faculty, and staff.

The goals, strategies, and metrics should focus on a three-to-five year action planning timeframe and should include a process for evaluating progress, including steps to identify mid-course corrections, as appropriate.

The Transformative Social Justice Action Plan is to:

• be a broadly comprehensive set of goals that will enhance multi-functional, cross-disciplinary collaboration, partnership, and accountability.
• recognize all aspects of the system and the integral role students, faculty, staff, and administration play in achieving systemic change
• propel the institution to achieve a diverse, welcoming, equitable, and inclusive living, learning, and working environment.

The Council will be responsible for writing, reviewing, and updating the University’s Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement, and developing an accompanying set of definitions, that will serve as our campus’ vision point for creating systemic change.  In this way the university can  remain vigilant and effective in it’s goal  of creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community.

Finally, the Council is responsible for working with President Nook in identifying and coordinating the selection of an external consultant/ consulting firm to evaluate the campus living, learning, and working environment and make recommendations for improving the climate, achieving true equity and inclusion, and enhancing our efforts to increase the diversity of our students, faculty, and staff.

The chair(s) are responsible for guiding the Council’s work, including the action planning process, delivering the Transformative Social Justice Action Plan recommendations to the Office of the President, and overseeing the facilitation and evaluation of the ITSJA Plan implementation, writing the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement and accompanying definitions. 

 

 

 

BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT

Goal and Purpose of the Budget Subcommittee

The subcommittee was looking to get a better understanding of the extent to which equity, diversity, and inclusion (DEI) work was institutionalized at UNI from a budgetary standpoint. To that end, the group embarked on an internal and informal audit of DEI work by meeting with representatives from different units, departments, and divisions. Working under the assumption that where and how one spends one’s money reflects one’s values and priorities, the subcommittee sought to learn how/if areas within the institution were prioritizing/including DEI in their work by finding out the proportion of their budgets that is dedicated to DEI.

 

Individuals Interviewed:

• Public Safety Director  - Chief Haire 10/26/2020
• CSBS - Dean Bass 11/3/2020
• Office of Financial Aid - Tim Bakula  11/8/2020
• Admissions (Terri Crumley) Enrollment Management (Kristin Woods) 11/13/2020
• Advancement Division/ UNI Foundation - Jim Jermier 11/16/2020
• Provost Office - Provost Wohlpart 11/17/2020
• Institutional Research - Kristin Moser 11/20/2020
• COE - Dean Mulholland 11/23/2020
• CBA - Dean Wilson 11/30/2020
• Center for Teaching and Learning-Jonathan Chenoweth 12/1/2020
• Continuing Distance of Education - Kent Johnson 12/8/2020
• Budget Advisory Committee  3/31/2021
• Office of Undergraduate Studies- Deirdre Heistad 04/07/2021
• Division of Finance & Operations - Michael Hager and Tonya Gerbracht  04/09/2021
• Graduate College (Assoc. Dean Olivares) Research and Sponsored Programs (Tolif Hunt) 04/12/21
• Rod Library - Dean Westbrock and Holly Schnieders 04/16/2021

 

 

Summary of data and themes

• Most individuals were not aware of a way of flagging expenses relating to DEI on their budgets
• A general view of DEI work is limited in scope to racial and ethnic dimensions. There seem to be few or no conversations about other areas of diversity.
• Most of the DEI work being done, was through informal relationships and events; individuals asked for guidance on how to account for work being done that did not have an expense
• There are no consistent efforts, no structurally based programs, just many one-off events. There is no accountability for long term actions

 

Broad Recommendations for 2021

• Set a goal of allocating at least 5% of the University Budget to DEI work by 2025
• Mark budget line items in order to track spending better
• Develop definitions of diversity and related topics that are accessible and easily found
• Increase collaboration on DEI work within the institution
• Allocate no additional funding to campus police
• Develop a system of accountability for DEI work

 

Recommendations for Specific units:

• Public Safety

○        Should release annual reports on the demographics of people on the receiving end of all reportable police interactions.

○        Should collaborate with the Dean of students, Counseling Center, DIS, and students and reimagine how university police conduct mental health checks on students.

• College of Social and Behavioral Sciences

○        Should finish the CSBS diversity action plan document

○        Should gather demographic data on who applies and receives funds from the Dean’s Fund for Excellence 

• Office of Financial Aid

○        Should expand the office’s definition of diversity beyond its current definition, which seems to be too narrowly focused on racial/ethnic diversity.

• Office of Admissions and Enrollment Management

○        Should more accurately represent the UNI community demographics to incoming students, and not oversell the level of diversity on campus. Some students have reported that the impression they got during campus visits or orientation sessions was that the campus was more diverse than they found it to be when they arrived on campus.

○        Should, if possible, allocate more money to extend the duration of Jumpstart programming that takes place before the start of the fall semester

• UNI Foundation

○        Should increase representation of different identities on the Board of Trustees

• Provost Office

○        Should set standards for the percent of budget allocated to DEI

• Institutional Research
• College of Education

○        Continue to work with other offices on campus to reduce out of pocket fees for students (paying for tests, background checks, etc)

• College of Business Administration

○        Should increase its DEI budget. We estimate a minimum of 0.8% of the budget is related to DEI work.

• Distance and Continuing Education

○        Should continue to explore the issue of fee assessment for distance learners

○        Should track demographics and data on distance learners

• Budget Advisory Committee

○        Should have meeting agenda or minutes available for the UNI community

○        Should, in discussions of DEI work, move past inclusion (and more clearly define who is being included) towards conversations about equity when making recommendations

• Office of Undergraduate Studies

○        Should consider the possibility of having a line item set up as a backup for when grants expire

○        Should, along with COE, work to reduce financial barriers to access for students to its Testing Services

• Division of Finance and Operations

○        Should work on better communication to the larger campus community on the activity code that should be used for DEI expenses to allow for more consistency

○        Should, if possible, find a way to better flag multiple categories within a line item

• Graduate College

○        Should increase collaboration with the larger campus community

• Rod Library

○        Should continue to move towards open education sources

○        *Needs a way to offset inflation, perhaps a % of some fee

 

Future outlook or planning for this particular small group:
 

• Meet with IT
• Meet with Dean Fritch from CHAS
• Meet with Chief Diversity Officer
• Meet with Counseling Department
• Develop a cycle of meeting with individuals to see what has changed, possibly every other year
• Examine administrative pay from the past couple of years
• Take a more in depth look at the estimate of DEI funding allocated in the university budget, in comparison to other budgeted expenses
• Take a more in depth look at a UNI undergrad student’s cost of living and a graduate student’s cost of living

 

 

 

CAMPUS CLIMATE SUBCOMMITTEE  SUMMARY REPORT

Goals and Purpose of the Campus Climate Subcommittee

The campus climate subcommittee set out to answer the following questions:

1)      Who created the campus climate survey?

2)      What happened with the results of the survey responses?

3)      What recommendations or considerations were made as a result of the survey.

4)      What sort of a checks and balances system will be in place to ensure that action was being taken by administration as a result of survey responses

 

Individuals Interviewed:

The focus of this group was to speak with (Gwennette Berry- Chief Diversity Officer) with the intention of getting a better idea of the work that was being done as a result of the campus climate survey. (The budget committee reached out to the CDO to set up a time to meet and our group intended to collaborate so we would only need one meeting, but we were unable to find a time to meet with the CDO). Some questions that we had prepared are listed below. These questions were based on emails sent out by the CDO to the affinity groups.

    Questions about Affinity Groups

• Is there funding provided for Affinity Groups?
• Is there support from the University for these groups?
• How are they initiated and from whom does the invite come?
• What is the purpose of Affinity Groups?
• Who do these groups report to?
• How did you feel about the Climate survey responses?
• What did the lack of participation mean to you?
• Have you discussed the Climate Survey with the President?
• What actions, if any, have been taken based on the responses in the Climate Survey?
• The number of faculty/staff (POC) leaving UNI, is this a concern for you or higher administration?
• Is there a chance this committee can get statistics on discriminaton and other complaints made by POC?
• Are exit interviews being conducted for faculty/staff (POC) leaving UNI?
• Is there a chance this committee can evaluate information obtained from the exit interviews?
• When is the next Climate Survey? The committee is suggesting the fall 2021 and adopting a different model of the Climate Survey.

Summary of data and themes

1. 1. 1. Data presented is not useful - demographics not included, lack of participation
      2. What does lack of participation mean?

a)      Reflection of lack of confidence for improvement

1. 1. Iowa State model: assess, act, assess
   2. Staff of color are leaving UNI at a high rate.
   3. Reports going to different offices, no action being taken

 

Recommendation(s)

We recommend the university engage the services of an external consultant/ consulting firm to evaluate the campus living, learning, and working environment which would allow us to make recommendations for improving the climate, achieving true equity and inclusion, and enhancing our efforts to increase the diversity of our students, faculty, and staff.

Campus Climate Future Plans

• Exit interview for professional staff

○       Evaluate information obtained from exit interviews? This information should be kept on file in HR for future reference- by doing so we can establish trends or patterns from BIPOC faculty/staff who leave the institution.

FACULTY AND STAFF SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT

Goal and Purpose of the Faculty and Staff Subcommittee

 

The Faculty and Staff Subcommittee was tasked with the responsibility of examining the institutional structure, practices, and policies surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on campus as it relates to the hiring, retention, and work environment of all employee groups on campus.

 

Individuals Interviewed

Faculty and Staff Subcommittee identified key departments that are directly related to the recruitment and retention of faculty and staff to interview

1. 1. Met with Leah Gutenecht in the Office of Compliance Equity and Management regarding hiring policies and practices.
   2. Communicated via email with Lisa Frush in HR regarding DEI training for supervisors and managers in particular.
   3. Reviewed job descriptions that were submitted to the council, as well as job ads on the website of UNI and comparable institutions.
   4. Researched the organizational structure of comparable universities that appeared to be successfully meeting DEI challenges.

 

Summary of the data and themes

1. Decentralized

1. 1. 1. DEI staff training efforts are voluntary and not offered as part of an overall strategy to improve competency among staff who hire and/or supervise. One exception is the required training for search committee members, which includes a bias component.
      2. There are no uniform cultural competency requirements in job descriptions or job ads.  When included in the ad, language varies greatly and there is inconsistency in whether it is a required or a preferred qualification.
      3. A review of the various job descriptions that include a diversity component shows that while many people are working to make campus more inclusive, there is a lack of structure for coordinating efforts.
      4. Staff often perform DEI duties without delineation in their job descriptions and therefore, are not being recognized or compensated for the work.

B. Accountability

1. Lack of checks and balances to guard against implicit bias when selecting potential candidates
2. The Tier initiative led to changes that were supposed to streamline the hiring process, but they also removed some of the historic oversight intended to track and enhance equity in hiring.
3. Efforts in bias training for search committees are not data driven nor do they meet best practices.

 

Are there any questions left unanswered? Please elaborate if so.

• Is the decentralized structure intentional?
• Does the data show this is the best system for implementing DEI as it relates to staff and faculty?
• Are there departments on campus that are successfully hiring and retaining a diverse staff? Can their efforts be replicated across campus?

 

Recommendation(s)

• The Faculty and Staff group recommends that an administrative position of Vice President be created in order to provide leadership and counsel for diversity, equity and inclusion at the highest level of planning and decision making in the organization.  We recommend that:

1. The Vice President serves on the President’s Senior Leadership Team.
2. The Vice President leads organization-wide planning and assessment.
3. The Office of the Vice President serves as the central resource for all DEI work on campus.
4. The work of the Vice President ensures continuity and alignment of campus-wide DEI efforts with the University’s Mission.

 

Related recommendations:

• The university should commit to investing in an appropriate level of staffing, funding, and material support to fulfil the strategic vision of a VP for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
• The university should determine where staff have taken on duties but lack adequate support for initiatives, delineation in their job descriptions,  and are not being compensated for the work. Much of this work has been taken on in addition to already full workloads leading to staff burnout and attrition. It is imperative to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation.

 

Faculty and Staff Subcommittee Future Plans

• Continuing to review the hiring process, this will consist of recommendations on “agreed upon” wording that is employed across campus in the job posts and position descriptions, selection and training of search committee members, onboarding process for new hires, and continual training on DEI areas.
• Identify the system or systems responsible for ensuring DEI in university policies
• Consistency and collaboration between departments in policy development

 

 

CURRICULUM SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT

Goals and Purpose of the Curriculum Committee

The purpose of this committee is to strengthen current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts occurring within and through the Curriculum. Over the course of the academic year, committee members met with key stakeholders to begin creating an informal “inventory” of current curricular DEI work.

Working in conjunction with the newly formed Faculty Senate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee, this Curriculum Committee also sought to strengthen and revise Educational Policy and collaborate with the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for potential future training dedicated to social justice and anti-racist oriented pegagogies.

In Spring 2021, the Committee’s work transitioned to focus on the development of two bills that could potentially impact current and future curricular DEI work: HF 802 and HF 744. Members of this Committee worked closely with the Office of Governmental Relations to stay abreast of how faculty may be affected by these new laws.

Individuals Interviewed

This year, we interviewed the following people and offices:

●       College of Humanities, Arts, & Sciences Dean’s Office: John Fritch, Jennifer Cooley, Mauren Clayton, Sarah Pauls

●       College of Education Senate

●       College of Education Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee

●       Director of Undergraduate Studies, Diedre Halstead

●       Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Jonathan Chenoweth

●       Faculty Senate DEI Subcommittee co-chair, Danielle Cowley

In each interview, we began with the following questions to understand current strengths and possible opportunities for further development:

●       What do you see as UNI’s current strengths with respect to “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” [DEI] in the Curriculum?

●       What are your Office/Department’s current strengths in this area?

●       What current barriers exist to further work in this area for your Office?

●       What suggestions for improvement do you have at this time?

We also drew upon the Racial and Ethnic Coalitions’s Proposal for the President’s Advisory Committee and our own experience as faculty members and members of the Faculty Senate’s DEI Subcommittee to inform our initial inventory.

Summary of the data and themes

At the time of submission of this report, the Committee has not collected enough data or met with enough key stakeholders to make formal recommendations. The following themes emerged from our initial interviews:

1. Shared Concepts, Internal Messaging Needed
    Based on our initial interviews, members of the campus community lack a shared sense of what we mean when we say “DEI.” Perhaps we mean different things and, if so, this dissonance contributes to the need for a shared understanding and language of “DEI” within the campus community. Greater clarity will help to acknowledge both current strengths and possible opportunities across the university, which in turn will help to build confidence in and greater awareness of existing strengths while also naming and prioritizing opportunities for development.

While “messaging” is an issue University Relations and college-level Public Relations staff members are well suited to resolve, the entire campus community should be involved in the process. Unlike University branding, which can be issued top-down, the entire campus community needs to feel connected to this process of defining (and, therefore, envisioning) “DEI” at UNI  in order to facilitate meaningful changes on campus. If the definitions are to be implemented in the curriculum and curricular process, and if resources will be allocated based on its implementation, then faculty and Faculty Leadership need to be central to the process.

The UNI Council for Inclusion, Transformative Social Justice, and Advocacy is charged with defining “DEI.”  The Strategic Planning Team and its process may provide an opportunity to engage the larger campus community by providing feedback to those terms. Faculty and Faculty Leadership must be involved in creating these definitions for use in the curriculum.

1. Distinguishing the Strategic Plan from Curricular Learning Outcomes

At present, Diversity and Inclusion is a part of UNI’s Strategic Plan as Supporting Goal 1. This Goal exists to enhance the institutional environment and to uphold core values of the campus community. The metrics for this goal primarily measure the presence of underrepresented students, staff, faculty, and administrators as indicators of “inclusive excellence” in the learning environment. As such, this goal and its metrics do not measure student learning or achievement related to “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” or related topics as academic subjects, curricular learning goals, or skills-based learning outcomes. In order to meet student interest and demand, the institution should consider distinguishing “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” as a Strategic Goal or Core Value from “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” as a Curricular Learning Outcome.

If delineated, Strategic Goals and Curricular Learning Outcomes would have similar but distinct stakeholders, particularly with regard to leadership and oversight of metrics. The Strategic Plan has an existing team to facilitate institutional collaboration. Likewise, there are existing processes for revising and developing Curricular Learning Outcomes at course, program, college, and institutional levels. There are few existing processes for mediating new curricular development across programs, departments, and colleges. The new General Education program offers one such opportunity.

Distinguishing between Strategic Goals and Curricular Learning Outcomes can add needed clarity to efforts like Supporting Goal 1, Initiative 4:  “Provide a diversity experience for all students, and deliver programs, services, and events to educate for and celebrate diversity on campus.” Faculty-led consensus on what constitutes a “diversity experience for all students” and identification of existing courses, programs, certificates, and the like will contribute to greater recognition of student success in this area.

1. More Data Needed: What are campus attitudes toward DEI as a curricular Student Learning Outcome? At present, there is little formal data to help answer this question. Campus climate provides important information about existing attitudes and perceptions regarding the institution, but more focused information about the curriculum is needed to make decisions about how to improve and how to assess progress.

In addition to data on campus attitudes about DEI in the Curriculum, more data is needed to map out existing curricular DEI efforts. In recent years, several Colleges, Departments, and Offices within Academic Affairs have created DEI Committees and Councils. More information is needed to understand how these committees and councils currently relate to and interact with one another, and what possibilities may be created for collaborations across the University.

Outcomes:

Committee members were instrumental in two university-wide policy changes:

●                   New language for Policy 3.06 Attendance to require reasonable accommodations for students’ religious observance

●                   Drafting and finalizing the Free Speech Syllabus Statement

Future Outlook and Planning for this Committee:

This committee was not able to interview as many stakeholders as it originally envisioned. In the next academic year, this committee intends to interview and collaborate with the new Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, the New Director of General Education, Social and Behavioral Sciences Dean’s Office, College of Business Administration Dean’s Office, Director of the School of Music, Office of Academic Advising, and individual faculty proposing courses in the new UNIFI General Education curriculum.