In the spring of 2013, University faculty, staff, and graduate students participated in a Campus Climate Survey sponsored by the University’s Office of Diversity and Institutional Partnerships and conducted by the Office of Institutional Research. The survey, which had an overall response rate of 61 percent, focused on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion; its goal was to help members of the University better understand their attitudes and behaviors with respect to community, access to resources, and general inclusiveness.

According to the results issued by the Office of Institutional Research, about three-quarters of those surveyed reported that they were comfortable or very comfortable with the University environment. Sixteen percent of respondents were neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, while 12 percent stated that they were uncomfortable or very uncomfortable with the climate.

The report revealed one especially noteworthy result: slightly over one in five respondents (22 percent) seriously considered leaving the University due to the campus climate.

“Despite providing generally positive ratings of the climate, half of all respondents report experiencing at some point during the last two years exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (harassing behavior) that has interfered with [their] ability to work or learn at Wesleyan,” the report reads.

When asked to comment on the results of the survey, a member of the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) who wished to remain anonymous stated that ze was unsurprised.

“These numbers are not flattering, but they are, I think, on the mark,” ze said. “We are now in the process of replacing two very high-profile members of the administration [the Chief Diversity Officer and the Director of Public Safety] who likely left in part because of the negative environment of the campus. Their departures accrued significant attention, but scores of others in lesser positions leave for similar reasons.”

Senior Class President Oladoyin Oladapo voiced concerns regarding the level of training that faculty and staff members have in dealing with issues of diversity among the campus population.

“At Wesleyan, we’re ‘diversity university,’ but professors, people of higher status in the administration, don’t have to go through any sort of social justice training as far as I know,” Oladapo said. “Maybe that might be changing. I think that a lot of people in the administration are ignorant or insensitive to the things that we preach and practice at Wesleyan.”

While the average campus climate rating was positive across all demographics, over one third of respondents who experienced detrimental treatment reported their position in the hierarchy as the basis of this negative experience. The two most-often cited sources of detrimental treatment were tenured faculty members and staff members of higher status; respondents generally perceived the University climate as being most favorable for those at the top of the institutional hierarchy or socioeconomic ladder.

President Michael Roth stressed the need for individuals situated at the top of the institutional hierarchy to remain conscious of treating those who work under them with the appropriate level of respect.

“[W]hen we look at the patterns of the response of the Campus Climate [Survey], it seemed that people who had more complaints tended to have complaints about their superiors, the people they reported to,” Roth stated. “I don’t think that’s unusual, actually, but the fact that it’s not unusual doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to ensure that people who are in managerial positions treat those who report to them with respect and dignity.”

Roth also commented on the manner in which promotions may affect how members at the top of the institutional hierarchy treat their subordinates.

“It’s really staff, more than faculty,” Roth said. “There are people who, when they move up the ladder, they forget what it’s like to be lower on the ladder. It’s good to remember that. Just like with a senior and a freshman. These things happen, and I want to make sure that people don’t abuse that [hierarchy].”

Such behavior, Roth noted, is not always intentional.

“I don’t know anyone who intends to poison the atmosphere,” he said. “I’ve met people like that in other places that I’ve worked, and they’re just nasty. But sometimes people don’t realize. I’m guilty of it sometimes. You think you’re being quick or efficient, but maybe you’re being insensitive.”

Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean Michael Whaley called attention to the discrepancies in the socioeconomic class backgrounds of faculty, staff, and students.

“I’m particularly sensitive to this as somebody who was a first [generation college] student,” Whaley said. “We have students here who are on full scholarship and students who are paying the whole bill, so that’s a wide gap. So when you put everybody together, you have to introduce some awareness and some competence in terms of dealing with and talking about those differences. You can’t just assume that everything’s going to be wonderful.”

Whaley said that he will act on the survey results first by focusing on improving communication and cohesiveness within his own department.

“As Vice President for Student Affairs, I cannot impact the whole institution, but all we can do is try to fix our corner of it,” Whaley said. “[W]e’re having a lot of conversations about that right now. We’ve tried to develop some more inclusive meeting strategies so that more people feel informed and involved in what’s going on and in decision-making, because sometimes that’s a source of feeling undervalued… I think we’re trying to unpack [the survey] and figure out what it means right now.”

The report also showed that while half of all respondents experienced detrimental treatment at a certain point within the last two years, this conduct went largely unreported. The most frequently cited strategy for dealing with such mistreatment was to “ignore it,” with faculty and graduate students being more likely than staff to adopt this tactic.

Whaley stressed the need to adjust current reporting mechanisms in order to increase the willingness of individuals to lodge official complaints when faced with incidents of mistreatment or discrimination.

“[Most] people who had experienced some sort of mistreatment…talked to a peer or a friend, but they didn’t actually formally report it,” Whaley said. “So it makes you wonder if people think the reporting mechanisms, if and when they do exist or [if] people know how to access them, are deemed to be appropriate and take things seriously. So that’s a question that I have from this.”

Randy Arthur ’15 also noted the difficulty of creating an environment in which all individuals feel equally at home.

“I don’t feel like it’s the job of the administration to make Wesleyan a place for everybody,” he said. “I don’t think it’s possible for Wesleyan to be this ideal place…where everybody is welcome and happy and loving it. I just don’t think it’s feasible. That being said, I think that Wesleyan should take steps to make it more possible for more people to like it.”

Roth emphasized his continued commitment to ensuring that the University provides a safe and secure working environment for the entire campus population.

“I’m not asking everybody to sing ‘Kumbaya,’ but I want everybody to be treated with respect,” Roth said. “I want to find a way to send the right message. It’s not about being lenient; it’s about being fairer, respectful, sometimes compassionate. We want to be an organization that takes care of one another as best one can.”