Hiring and Advancement for Diversity, Inclusion, and Mission

FINAL REPORT June 2018

Hiring and Advancement for Diversity, Inclusion, and Mission

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Hiring and Advancement for Diversity, Inclusion, and Mission Working Group was convened in Summer 2017 by President Eric Spina to identify practices that will result in the effective recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement of women and persons from domestic underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. This work is rooted in our Catholic Marianist mission and tied to larger efforts to achieve inclusive excellence at UD. The Staff Subgroup and Faculty Subgroup generated a comprehensive list of recommendations based on a two-day workshop facilitated by Dr. Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, Vice President for Intercultural Affairs at Loyola Marymount University, a critical review of current policies and practices at the University of Dayton, benchmarking of peer institutions, and review of the literature on best practices on the hiring and advancement of women and individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. The subgroups and larger working group met monthly throughout the 2017-18 academic year. A summary of major recommendations from the staff and faculty subgroups are as follows:

Cultivate diverse applicant pools through targeted and strategic recruitment efforts locally, regionally, and nationally ranging from pipeline development and relationship-building with locally-based affinity groups for underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, to targeted advertising to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions and in-person recruitment at academic conferences.

Develop a comprehensive marketing plan and revise recruiting materials to emphasize the University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion in position announcements and online materials, including UD’s website and social media presence.

Coordinate hiring processes, including the review of all position descriptions, collaboratively between the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Human Resources, and the Office for Mission and Rector.

Require training on implicit bias by all those involved in faculty and staff searches. Assign an individual to serve on each search committee as the “Diversity, Equity, and

Inclusion Advocate” who will be charged with providing guidance regarding adherence to policy and protocol intended to address diversity, equity, and inclusion, and charged with challenging the committee to recognize biases throughout the selection process.

Collect and publicize disaggregated data on the demographic breakdown of the University of Dayton workforce to measure and assess the institution's progress in hiring, retaining and advancing individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and women.

Reward inclusive excellence and intercultural competencies in performance evaluations and through small grants and public recognition.

Develop clear and transparent guidelines for achieving promotion for faculty and establish structured, funded pathways to promotion and advancement for staff.

Resource affinity groups for underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and create mentoring programs to support women and underrepresented faculty and staff.

Critically evaluate current benefits related to work-life balance and develop new policies and practices which promote gender equity.

Utilize the results of the Halualani and Associates Diversity Mapping Project and AIM4 Community Excellence survey to drive strategy in recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement for mission.

In addition, the Working Group recommends the development of an Implementation Team, which will be charged with developing and executing a comprehensive strategy to implement and assess the recommendations contained in this report. This report also contains action items and next steps which build on the recommendations from the two subgroups.

Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Work Group Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

Objectives:............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Inclusive Excellence at UD ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Workforce Diversification at UD: A Critical Look ......................................................................................................... 4

Report Structure ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Recruitment .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Hiring ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Retention ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Advancement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

FACULTY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Recruitment ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Hiring ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Retention and Advancement ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Post-Tenure ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Policies .................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 16

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................................................. 51

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................................................. 71

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................................................. 85

APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................................................................. 87

Hiring and Advancement for Diversity, Inclusion, and

Mission

FINAL REPORT

June 2018

Working Group Leadership: Lawrence Burnley (chair), Lisa Borello (ex officio) Staff Subgroup Composition: William Fischer (chair), Merida Allen, Maura Donahue, Jen Duwel, Claudette Groeber, Beth Harrison, Edel Jesse, Tim Kao, Patsy Bernal-Olson, Amy Tanaka, Troy Washington, Lynn White Faculty Subgroup Composition: Carolyn Phelps (chair), Amy Askren, Rachel Collopy, Peggy DesAutels, Hector Escobar, V. Denise James, Scott Schneider, Andrew Slade, Donald Wynn Institutional Research Support: Susan Sexton, Director of Institutional Reporting Elise Bernal, Institutional Research for Academics Administrative Support: Maiella Hollander, Women’s and Gender Studies and Women’s Center Diversity on college campuses is not achieved through quotas. Nor does diversity justify or warrant admission of unqualified applicants. However, the diversity we seek and the future of the nation do require that colleges and universities continue to be able to reach out and make a conscious effort to build healthy and diverse learning environments that are appropriate for their missions. The success of higher education and the strength of our democracy depend on it.

—American Council on Education Board of Directors, June 2012

1

Background

In August 2017, Dr. Lawrence Burnley, Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion, and Dr. Carolyn Phelps, Associate Provost for Faculty and Administrative Affairs, collaborated in hosting a two-day workshop for members of the University community who are involved in faculty and staff search and hiring processes. The purpose of the workshop was to “engage in a two-day examination of best practices of a similarly-situated institution with a proven track record in the recruitment, hiring, retention and promotion/advancement of faculty, staff and administrators from underrepresented racial/ethnic populations at Predominately White Institutions (PWIs) and movement toward the achievement of gender equity.” To facilitate this professional development experience, the services of Dr. Abbie Robinson-Armstrong were secured. Dr. Robinson-Armstrong serves as Vice President for Intercultural Affairs at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California and is a nationally recognized authority on diversifying academic workplaces. The workshop was attended by 70 individuals, including members of the Working Group.

Work Group Purpose

The purpose of the Working Group was to identify, develop, implement and measure best and promising practices that will result in more effective and efficient recruitment, hiring, retention and promotion/advancement of faculty, staff and administrators from domestic underrepresented racial/ethnic populations at PWIs and to achieve gender equity. This process intentionally and strategically targeted historical and contemporary patterns of underrepresentation of these groups. The work of the group will inform the University and better position it to understand, develop, and implement best and promising practices associated with underrepresented persons from other diverse populations. (e.g., LGBTQ+, faith traditions, etc.).

Objectives:

1. Identify and secure the services of an outside consultant to lead a professional development workshop to develop a framework for a comprehensive strategy to launch an efficient and sustainable campus-wide effort aimed at achieving a more equitable and inclusive1 faculty, staff and administration.

2. Engage in a two-day examination of best practices of a similarly-situated institution with a proven track record in the recruitment, hiring, retention and promotion/advancement of faculty, staff and administrators from underrepresented racial/ethnic populations at PWIs and movement toward the achievement of gender equity.

1 For the purpose of this initiative, “inclusion” is intended to address disparities in underrepresentation of domestic racial/ethnic populations and gender equity.

2

3. Lead a process for campus leaders in an institutional benchmarking and review of selected literature addressing the goals of the working group. Assist the University in:

a. Completion of a SWOT analysis of current policies and practices b. Examination of effective and efficient function and utilization of the Vice

President for Diversity and Inclusion relative to the primary goals of this effort.

c. Examination best and promising practices. d. Development of a framework that will inform recommendations moving

forward.

Introduction The University of Dayton has articulated, as well as demonstrated, its resolute commitment to the celebration of diversity, the achievement of equitable outcomes across multiple measures of academic achievement and social indicators of success, and to model inclusion throughout the life of the institution. This commitment is rooted in and driven by our Catholic and Marianist mission which begins with the affirmation that “each person has been created in the image and likeness of God.”2 Based on this belief, the University promises to deliver an education for all students that will “educate the whole person for leadership, service, justice, and peace.” To accomplish this, the University of Dayton aspires to be a university for the common good and recognizes the importance of “building community across diversity” in order to achieve and sustain this effort. Without question, UD’s efforts to become a more diverse and inclusive campus community is an informed response to historic and persistent underrepresentation of students and employees from particular racial and ethnic populations, as well as limited advancement of women, particularly women of color. Researchers have long established that the experiences of students of color at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) can and often does produce negative social stigma (Fries-Britt 1998; Fries-Britt and Turner 2001, 2002; Steele 1992, 1997, 1998; Steele and Aronson 1995) and “minority status” stressors (Prillerman, Myers, and Smedley 1989; Smedley, Myers, and Harrell 1993; Smith 2008) that adversely affect academic performance and persistence (Milem, Chang, Antonio 2005). Similarly, researchers (Eagan and Garvey 2016; Turner and Grauerholz 2017) have noted discrimination-related stress among underrepresented faculty and staff; women of color - who experience the double jeopardy of being both a minority and a woman, or “gendered racism”, face both macro- and micro-aggressions in their quest for access to and advancement within higher education (Essed 1991; Gutiérrez y Muhs et al. 2012). It is crucial to note that such underrepresentation undermines the quality of learning and knowledge production of all members of the campus. Researchers have shown conclusively that a more diverse community positively impacts all community members by improving learning and problem solving, enhancing research and innovation, and strengthening organizational culture and teamwork (Cox, 1991; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Paige, 2007; D. A. Thomas, 2004).

2 Characteristics of a Marianist Education, 1991.

3

Inclusive Excellence at UD

President Spina’s passionate embrace of UD’s mission, as well as his recognition of the value proposition that diversity, equity, and inclusion brings to our educational mission, is clearly demonstrated in his inauguration address when he stated:

We must ensure that a University of Dayton education is affordable and accessible to all who are qualified, and we must achieve greater diversity from the boardroom to the student body. . . . We must also create a more diverse, welcoming, and interculturally inclusive campus. By definition, excellence requires greater diversity, as it enriches our learning environment and expands our institutional intelligence and creativity. While we welcome all forms of diversity, including religious, gender, sexual orientation, geography, country of origin, (dis)ability, and ideology, we recognize a special obligation to embrace socio-economic and racial diversity.3

Informed by core values of the Catholic and Marianist charism, President Spina’s comments suggest that to be excellent, the University of Dayton must be inclusive. Inclusion refers to how institutional practices, policies, and traditions function in ways that include diverse people and perspectives, especially those from historically underrepresented and underserved populations. In the Marianist tradition, the intentional and sustained practice of inclusion impacts campus culture and climate and advances the Marianist educational efforts to merge and expand ideas into solutions for the common good. The conceptual framework of inclusive excellence (IE) was developed in 2005 by a group of scholars commissioned by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U, 2005). Inclusive excellence is synonymous with academic and institutional excellence. It’s a recognition that the University of Dayton’s ability to successfully advance its Catholic and Marianist mission is dependent on its ability to align its infrastructure with its stated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Inclusive excellence requires a fundamental transformation of the institution, calling for it to embrace and implement the means for the comprehensive, cohesive, coherent, and collaborative amalgamation of diversity, equity, and inclusion into the University’s pursuit of being a University for the common good. Inclusive excellence refers to the University of Dayton’s active, intentional, and sustained engagement with and celebration of diversity in every dimension of institutional life. A concrete example of the University’s recognition of the intrinsic value of diversity is the development of a strategy to achieve greater racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity among the undergraduate student population. During the 2013-2014 academic year, students from underrepresented racial/ethnic populations (domestic) at the University of Dayton represented 8.5% of the student body. Today, these students represent 13% of the undergraduate student body. This increase is a direct outcome of the recognition of the value greater racial/ethnic diversity brings to the educational experiences of all students when such diversity is appropriately and effectively leveraged by faculty, staff, and administrators to achieve specific learning outcomes. This enrollment outcome is also the direct result of strategic planning and investment of financial and human resources, such as Flyer Promise Scholarship, which is intended to achieve such an outcome.

3 Eric F. Spina, “The University for the Common Good,” Inaugural Address, April 4, 2017.

4

Workforce Diversification at UD: A Critical Look

While strategic innovation and significant investment of resources has been employed to achieve greater racial/ethnic diversity in undergraduate student populations, the same cannot be said with regard to the faculty, staff, and administration at the University of Dayton. A review of demographic data of UD’s workforce over the past 10 years reveals moderate improvement in the racial/ethnic composition of some areas of the faculty and staff, and little-to-no improvement in others. In some cases, demographic gaps have widened during this period. In 2017, individuals from racial and ethnic populations comprised 19 percent of all tenure-track faculty at UD. Women comprised 43.5 percent of tenure-track faculty and women of color accounted for only 14 percent of all female full-time instructional faculty (or 32% of faculty who identify as racial and ethnic minorities). Among exempt staff and administration at UD, individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic populations account for 15 percent of employees; women comprise 52% of full-time staff, but women of color account for only 15% of that population and only 8% of the total staff workforce. (See Appendix A for UD workforce data, and for comparative data among peer institutions and four-year institutions in higher education, and for U.S. demographic data.)

It is important to note that representation does not equate to equitable outcomes or experiences. Hall and Sandler (1982) coined the term “chilly climate” to describe patterns of inequitable treatment women in academia face, including sexual harassment, inhospitable department and classroom climates, biases in hiring processes, inequitable allocations of work responsibilities particularly regarding service obligations, and policies that penalize women’s role in managing work and family responsibilities (Britton 2017; Armstrong and Jovanovic 2015; Bilimoria and Liang 2014). The “glass ceiling” - or the systemic barriers that prevent women from obtaining senior-level positions - exist throughout most segments of academia (Johnson 2017). Women’s exclusion from informal networks, limited mentorship opportunities, lack of standard and transparent promotion policies, and lack of recognition for their contributions further prohibits their advancement within higher education, with particular ramifications for women of color (Brooks-Immel 2016; Vargas 2002; Dominici, Fried, and Zeger 2009). Kimberle Crenshaw’s (1989) term “intersectionality” is a useful framework for understanding the ways in which women of color experience multiple oppressions based on the intersection of racism and sexism, with implications for their career trajectory in higher education. The lack of substantive movement in addressing demographic disparities among faculty, staff, and administrators raises a number of questions that must be addressed if UD is to truly become a University for the common good. What factors have informed the persistence of racial and gender disparities across the faculty, staff, and administration at UD? What interventions, strategies, or remedies have been attempted over the years to address this issue? What assessments have been undertaken to determine strengths, challenges, opportunities, and threats to efforts to recruit, hire, promote, and retain individuals for greater racial/ethnic diversity and achieve gender equity throughout the workforce at UD? Do leaders, at every level, view the diversification of the faculty, staff, and administration and the achievement of gender equity as essential to excellence and the advancement of UD’s mission? In other words, is there broad belief and resolute commitment among decision-makers at the University of Dayton to bring to bear the necessary resources to make real President Spina’s assertion that “. . . we must achieve greater diversity from the boardroom to the student body?” Do we believe that UD’s ability to deliver on its promise to provide an integral and quality Catholic and Marianist education is inextricably tied to “hiring and advancement for diversity, inclusion, and mission?” Does there exist at UD an institutional will to achieve greater racial/ethnic diversity and gender equity among the faculty, staff, and administration or does the claim posited by Dr. Marybeth Gasman of the University of Pennsylvania

5

have merit: “The reason we [PWIs] don’t have more faculty of color among college faculty is that we don’t want them — we simply don’t want them.”4 Persistent racial/ethnic and gender-related disparities among staff and administrative ranks in higher education begs for reasoned explanations that challenges the validity of Dr. Gasman’s claim of intentional indifference to inclusive and equity-related hiring practices. An oft-cited point is made that students from underrepresented racial/ethnic populations need “role models” in the classrooms and positions of authority in the academy. This is true and increasingly important as UD advances its efforts to increase racial/ethnic diversity among the student body. But what is not often cited is the need for students whose racial identities are overrepresented to be exposed to “role models” different from their own racial identities and gender. They too are in need of experiences that will challenge preexisting racialized stereotypes and their lack of exposure to marginalized epistemologies and the narratives of underrepresented groups. Faculty, staff, and administrators of color bring such experiences into curricular and co-curricular spaces of learning, living, working, and decision-making. Persons of every gender identity are in need of and will benefit from “role models” who differ from their own identity. This is especially true in spaces where women are underrepresented both in terms of workforce demographics and in terms of the lack of gendered epistemological presence at the center of intellectual discourses across multiple academic disciplines and administrative decision-making.

The world is changing rapidly. The homogenous and privileged spaces created by various forms of systemic and structural forms of discrimination are resulting in the creation of a very different and diverse global market economy and landscape. How is the University of Dayton preparing our students and its workforce to lead, teach, learn, serve, and compete in such a world? In his last State of the Union address, President Obama asked, “How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?” How do we, can we, educate our students and prepare our faculty, staff, and administrators for adaptation and change in an increasingly diverse and complex world?

To quote Blessed Father William Joseph Chaminade: “New times call for new methods.” This report offers observations and recommendations of new methods for hiring and advancement for diversity, inclusion, and mission in these new times.

Report Structure

It became clear to members of the working group that the charge to “develop, implement, and measure best and promising practices” is beyond our scope of this report. This report outlines a summary of recommendations put forth by the Staff Subgroup and the Faculty Subgroup; the full subgroup reports are available in Appendices B and C, respectively. Both subgroups framed their work within the context of common definitions of recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement (see Appendix D for a glossary of terms); recommendations are provided in each of these

4 Pauline Hayes, “The Missing Piece in Diverse Faculty Hiring: Professional Development on Implicit Biases,” Insight

Into Diversity,” December 22, 2016, http://www.insightintodiversity.com/the-missing-piece-in-diverse-faculty-

hiring-professional-development-on-implicit-biases/.

6

categories. This report also provides a set of recommendations which cut across the entire workforce, with respect to implementation of the proposed recommendations, as well as actionable items which can be undertaken in the short-term.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recruitment

1. The Committee recommends that the University leverage the skills of the Marketing and

Communication Division to engage the “Common Themes” document, the results of the Halualani consultancy, and the diversity mapping efforts to develop a comprehensive marketing plan for the University. The plan would guide the development of marketing materials grounded in the Catholic, Marianist identity, including web and social media that showcase the University as a “welcoming” place where all can flourish. We recommend the development of materials to be used specifically for faculty and staff hiring purposes.

2. The Marketing and Communications Division should review all webpages for messages about diversity as the new platform is launched. In particular, the jobs.udayton.edu site should have more welcoming messages and should actively engage underrepresented populations.

3. The University should proactively expand its outreach to targeted markets. There seems to be strong efforts in terms of student recruitment. However, the University lacks a coherent plan when it comes to staff (and faculty) positions.

4. Efforts to create and continue to strengthen relationships with affinity groups must continue, both internal and external to the University. Local affinity groups include, but are not limited to, LGBTQ groups, the local chapter of NAACP, Urban League, and more. It is important that there are key positions involved in relationship-building so the University can increase recruitment efforts.

5. Education and training is needed on what individuals and departments can do to create and cultivate applicant pools. Diversity and inclusion competencies need to be defined in order to engage in proactive recruitment practices. There is a need for all employees to understand and be able to explain the value of diversity and inclusion at the University of Dayton. This could be facilitated through creating talking points for employees to communicate coherently about diversity and inclusion.

7

Hiring

1. Rather than train a large number of people, focus our efforts on training a handful of

individuals to build capacity and institutionalize practices within units. Assign “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advocate” duties to individuals with authority, whether it be because they hold key leadership positions or as approvers in the hiring process or both. This develops expertise and oversight outside of Human Resources and the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, while also creating consistency and continuity from hire-to-hire. This can be more powerful than the broad and often diluted “train everyone” approach. Well-trained advocates, in turn, can themselves conduct trainings for their departments or units. They can also co-develop and review job descriptions and suggest ways to reach underrepresented populations.

2. For many years, faculty have been able to participate in a hiring for mission training retreat.

While the topics may differ between faculty and staff, the opportunity for staff to spend time learning and discussing best practices in hiring for mission can be valuable. Through our research, the committee has learned that Boston University provides an annual training to search committee members about the search process. LMU and the University of Washington provide specific training and information on implicit bias. The staff hiring for mission training could include topics such as implicit basis, best practices in conducting a fair and equitable search (i.e., search committee etiquette, role of the position description, designing a fair interview process), and best practices in onboarding. This training could be offered to key leaders, approvers, supervisors, and/or employees who will or have served in a search committee role.

3. Make University data on diversity available to key stakeholders in units and departments so that they can tailor their approaches to their own needs and conduct benchmarking. Data that sheds light on the diversity of the unit and the applicant pool is vital. Data not only tells us where we are, it also tells us how far we have come. Boston University instructs its search committees to “Review the relevant data concerning representation in [their] department and nationally. They also encourage search committees to review the “Candidate pool data” that is available on their website.”

4. Position descriptions should be reviewed to ensure they include language that is inclusive and welcoming to all. At LMU, for instance, position descriptions describe the importance of diversity at the university. During the workshop, Dr. Armstrong stated that the Office of the VP for Intercultural Affairs reviews all job descriptions. UC Berkeley suggests providing examples of how the department values diversity and inclusion when writing the job description. Hiring managers should be asking if they are narrowing the applicant pool too much with specific qualifications or are they casting a wide net to allow for more applicants with diverse backgrounds. Are the current minimum qualifications actually required and necessary to perform the job? Could they be written a different way to attract a more diverse pool?

8

Retention

1. Retention efforts for staff should be aligned with the University’s mission and vision and

Catholic, Marianist identity. These values include an emphasis on faith, community, mission, and Mary. An institution that commits resources and investment best demonstrates inclusive excellence, a model the University is striving to acclaim. A key lesson learned is that administrators are champions who demonstrate the will of the institution, and the attention to diversity and inclusion as core values of the institution. Training and education on executing effective retention strategies, for all faculty and staff dovetail with this report’s recruitment recommendations.

2. Recommendations for improving retention efforts of staff on campus are based on the findings of the current campus climate project that the University is undergoing. The Implementation Team should analyze and utilize data provided from the results of the AIM4 Community Excellence Project led by UD’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion in collaboration with Halualani & Associates and Dr. Rona Halualani, Managing Principal and Founder.

3. LMU’s Campus Climate and Intergroup Relations Project provides a confidential way for people to speak up about their experiences at LMU and an opportunity to share their ideas on how to improve their learning and working environment. This project considers racial interactions on campus. LMU assesses the campus racial climate to communicate the benefits of inclusive excellence and determines whether the initiatives are effective. This assessment also identifies and creates allies across the University environment, facilitates opening doors for people of color and women, and improves overall working environments. Specific factors that impact retention include:

a. Communication. Sharing the project results will provide transparency and an unbiased view of the University’s diversity and inclusive environment. Also, comprehensive and updated mechanisms can provide opportunities to share professional development, campus and community engagement, and awareness. Messaging from Human Resources and University communications should illustrate inclusive language and images, such as expressing gratitude for service, acknowledgment of accomplishments/contributions, and awards. These types of messages have been found to positively impact staff retention, particularly of underrepresented populations. Lastly, addressing issues and challenges, such as bias-related incidents, intra- and intergroup communication, and other staff concerns in a timely and comprehensive manner are also critical to retention efforts.

b. Mentorship programs. Pairing new staff members with more experienced staff will provide a platform for new hires from underrepresented backgrounds and experiences to feel welcome. Onboarding new staff with designated mentors will increase their connection to the institution. Mentoring, coaching, and sponsoring for diverse internal candidates is another example of investments the institution can make in current employees considering professional development or advancement opportunities. The institutional goal is to nurture talent and enrich experiences at UD. The development of a mentoring toolkit is recommended.

9

c. Affinity Groups. Affinity groups need to be created, and established groups, such as the Black Employee Association, Brotherly Ties, and Makidada Sisters, need to be fostered and resourced by the institution. The formation and support of additional affinity groups, such as LGBTQ+, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Asian American, and multiracial employees are vital recommendations for retention. Recognition of the importance of the groups and creative opportunities for participation present the institution and its members with unique opportunities to build trust, engage with one another, and develop additional channels of communication. Dedicated funding and support for other affinity groups that would support staff and others on campus should be considered.

4. Human Resources and Talent Development: Establish and incorporate diverse and inclusive competencies in performance evaluations to create a system of accountability. Administrators’ demographic diversity is contingent on the pool of current employees. Accordingly, a relationship exists between recruitment of diverse populations at all levels of the institution, and the retention of staff at all levels. In order to retain a diverse population, it is equally important to continue to recruit and promote diverse candidates and employees. Allocation of resources for professional development and training opportunities increases employees’ knowledge, skills, and awareness of diversity and inclusion. All employees have an ability to impact retention at the institution. Additionally, many faculty and staff have direct relationships with students in curricular, co-curricular, and operational roles. Specifically, staff serve as role models, increase social equity, and have organizational impact. The University should conduct “stay” and “exit” interviews with employees. Stay interviews are a useful measure to assess commitment and intentions.

Advancement

1. As LMU has done, UD should consider developing equity-oriented tools in which data are

disaggregated to determine who is succeeding and who is not. This data should be gathered and reviewed not just at the aggregate level, but also at the department level. A profile of faculty and staff could be developed, as LMU has done, to highlight the ethnic and gender composition of the faculty, staff, and students. This is the first step to achieving critical mass, interactional diversity, curricular/co-curricular diversity, and an inclusive campus climate utilizing descriptive data to foster a culture of inquiry.

2. Data acquired from these tools could be analyzed regarding advancement and promotion through the lens of diversity, inclusion, and gender equity. Based on the analysis of this data, the University can determine what advancement and promotion opportunities for people of color and women look like at the University of Dayton. This is useful for developing practices that support diversity, inclusion, and gender equity in advancement and promotion.

3. In recent years, there also seems to have been a greater emphasis on productivity and effectiveness with many capable staff promoted to leadership positions. Culturally speaking, mindsets seem to have changed. The University should build on this development because a critical part of any advancement and promotion strategy requires a cultural shift in how promotion and the qualities that are associated with high performance are understood. As employees who are exceeding role expectations are identified, the University must make

10

efforts to ensure they are professionally developed and afforded opportunities to support their advancement.

4. The University of Washington included in their best practices for staff diversity, development of policies that encourage internal promotions of diverse staff members to supervisory positions. UD could consider a similar practice.

5. Some have also echoed concerns about a lack of “career-pathing” at UD with little room for upward mobility in staff positions. The path itself can also be unclear because what warrants a promotion is identified in definite terms. Merit increases only go so far in meeting the salary demands of high performing staff, who without timely and commensurate recognition, may be disenfranchised or lost to a competitor. Have tools and resources available so employees are aware of opportunities for internal mobility.

6. Develop base-funded sources for promotion and advancement, so that the University can provide funding to departments to use for promotions possibly from Human Resources (much like equity dollars) or from the Provost for academic departments.

7. There is no University-wide strategy for recommending promotions. The process by which

the University identifies and recognizes high-performing staff varies from unit to unit and lacks intentionality or coordination.

8. The University needs to institutionalize a performance management and evaluation

process. During this process, competency for diversity and inclusion should be included. For example, what is the employee doing proactively to increase his/her knowledge of diversity and inclusion? Do they show the willingness to promote the implementation of new diversity and inclusion initiatives?

9. Additionally, performance evaluations should be considered to provide merit-based raises

as opposed to providing the same raise, based on the pool, to all employees. This should be done in an effort to ensure that those who are exceeding expectations are recognized at a different rate than those that are just meeting or falling below expectations.

10. A sponsorship program should be considered, as opposed to mentoring, in which the

sponsor is a senior-level staff member who helps drive the protégé’s career vision and connects them to high profile assignments, pay increases, and promotions through use of the sponsor’s influence. The sponsor should also involve the protégé in experiences that enable advancement and enhance their visibility.

11. Supervisors should encourage professional development through the use of tuition

remission and participation in programs through the Center for Leadership.

11

FACULTY RECOMMENDATIONS

Recruitment

1. Encourage faculty members to attend or host sessions related to diversity, inclusion, or in

alignment with University mission at discipline-specific conferences and workshops. Develop a process for faculty members to document contacts from these sessions in a central repository (EAB Report).

2. Develop a future faculty development program where PhD candidates are invited to campus

for faculty development opportunities. Direct communications to deans at peer institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), as well as house contacts in a central repository that are used to promote the future faculty development program (Virginia Tech and Southwestern University (EAB Report pgs 13-14) / UD SOE ARC Program).

3. Create a “stealth recruitment portal” with information about UD, Dayton, and the

University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. This site would also highlight faculty development at UD and include a portal for prospective faculty members to submit their CVs and teaching and research statements for consideration regardless of an open line. This site would be distributed at conferences and other external engagement events where potential candidates may exist (Metropolitan State University of Denver (EAB Report)).

4. Commit time at the deans’ council for discussion of annual hiring requests and potential

cluster hires. Additionally, provide time for discussion of long-range hiring plans and potential cluster hires.

Hiring

The Search Process

1. Position descriptions a. The position should be described as broadly as possible in order to widen the pool

of potential candidates. b. Describe the position with reference to equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives

and priorities especially in the department and unit. These statements should also be related to specific positions. The search committee should review where position postings will be disseminated and identify venues where there may be a more diverse audience.

2. Search committee composition a. Commitment to diversity should be a consideration in the selection of search

committee chairs. b. One committee member (a tenured member of the committee or external observer)

should be designated to advocate for diversity, prompt the use of tactics to reduce

12

bias, listen for blind spots and biases in the conversation, and ensure consideration of all candidates. Membership should rotate to ensure this individual does not become the “diversity person” on future committees.

c. All members are required to attend training on implicit bias, campus resources, etc. d. A diverse search committee is a factor in identifying and attracting

underrepresented faculty. Current UD hiring guidelines suggest that committees “should make every effort to include female and minority members.” Consider changing the language to “females and underrepresented racial and ethnic faculty members” and the inclusion of males on committees in female-dominated fields. Women and minority faculty are often asked to do more service than their colleagues so it is important to be mindful of overall service load.

e. It has been shown that the presence on a search committee of only one female and one faculty member from an underrepresented racial and ethnic group does little to influence considerations. Thus, at least two females and individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups should be included. In order to meet this requirement, departments can utilize outside tenured faculty members as committee members. Similar, to the recommendation above, it is important to be mindful of overall service load of female and underrepresented racial and ethnic minority members. Note: The female or underrepresented racial and ethnic minority members should not be the diversity advocate for the search committee. Increasing diversity on campus must be treated as a University goal.

f. Potential committee members, regardless of their demographic profile, should be included who are committed to diversity, able to support the candidacy of highly qualified non-traditional applicants, and have experience serving on successful search committees.

3. A formalized process documenting how the search process intends to target a diverse population should be set up. The document should list ways in which the committee intends to recruit a diverse pool. This documentation could either be submitted before or after the search process.

4. Review of Applications a. To minimize implicit bias:

▪ Prior to beginning review, the search committee meets to decide on definitions of terms and meaning of criteria.

▪ Be sensitive to professional bias related to academic pedigree. Criteria should be rated on the quality of the work or experience in a candidate’s portfolio rather than the school from which one graduated. Use a rating form that describes each criteria in the hiring decision. For example, clarify “ability to conduct scholarly research,” with “publications in high-quality journals,” “potential to secure external funding” (See EAB, p. 36).

▪ Use a rating form that ranks the priority (weighting and value) of each criteria in the hiring decision.

▪ Explicitly prioritize candidates’ ability to contribute to strategic diversity priorities in ranking the candidates.

▪ Ratings should refer to evidence from the candidate’s application materials. Rating should also indicate which materials were reviewed.

▪ Seek out similar information on all candidates.

13

▪ Have individual committee members review and rate all candidates in advance of meeting as a committee to determine medium list, short list, candidates to bring to campus, and final recommendations.

▪ Have candidates remove identifying information from research submissions to allow a blind review.

▪ Identify key checkpoints throughout the process to monitor the diversity of the candidate pool: how does the diversity of the initial pool compare to the diversity of recent PhDs in the field nationally? How does the semi-finalist pool compare to the diversity of the original pool of applicants? As called for, revisit top candidates from underrepresented populations.

▪ Allow “departments to invite one additional finalist to interview on campus provided they would increase the diversity of the department and there is already a candidate who could increase the diversity of the department on the short list” (EAB, p. 39).

5. Interviewing a. Increase the search committee’s interaction with diversity candidates by conducting

interviews of a larger pool of candidates via phone or Skype. The committees should be aware that phone / Skype interviews may be problematic as candidates differ in their access to private settings with internet access, appropriate lighting, quality audio, etc.

b. Decide on diversity-related questions to ask all candidates (e.g., demonstrated commitment to diversity, diversity-related scholarship, working with a diversity of students, etc.).

c. Review what questions may not be asked. Identify someone outside the department who can have confidential conversations (e.g., dual career resources) with candidates.

6. Debriefing a. Each search committee should provide to their dean and the provost a brief of

summary of the search process which should include aspects that were particularly successful and those which were challenging.

b. Each year, the provost’s office will review the data, in conjunction with EEOC, regarding candidate pools, candidates brought to campus, and newly hired faculty.

c. Information from the search processes are shared with the deans’ council.

Retention and Advancement

Pre-Tenure

1. New faculty should be provided a clear explanation of expectations for tenure and promotion. This should be done through a one-on-one conversation with the department chair, or other designated senior faculty members in the department. This conversation should take place in the first semester of the faculty member’s appointment. In each subsequent year leading to tenure, following receipt of the annual review letter, the chair or designee should meet with the faculty member to go over the feedback received, review expectations for tenure and promotion, and to discuss resources and opportunities

14

available for continued development.

2. Clear and Transparent Tenure Process & Expectations: a. Develop and promote tenure preparation workshops for tenure-track faculty.

b. Establish a single online repository for information and resources related to tenure, promotion, and other policies.

c. Provide resources for external guidance and support, such as that provided by National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity (www.facultydiversity.org).

3. Professional Development: a. Promote the LTC resources with regards to pedagogical improvements.

b. Provide support for research supporting diverse research and pedagogical issues.

c. Provide funding for pre-tenure faculty to have exposure to and network with senior faculty at other universities.

d. Provide career advising which begins in the pre-tenure period but continues through and beyond the tenure process (Getting and giving career advice: A guide for junior and senior faculty; University of Michigan).

4. Climate: a. Establish formal mentoring within department.

b. Establish resources for informal mentoring program outside the college/school. c. Encourage frequent communications between department chair and faculty. d. Provide greater clarity regarding expectations related to teaching, scholarship, and

service.

5. Work-Life Balance:

a. Provide protection from and the ability to say no to excessive service and teaching demands, with respect to time.

b. Provide resources to support faculty work-life balance, including family caregiving and dual career resources ranging from back-up child care, priority placement for faculty at the childcare center, and a travel fund for faculty traveling with children on professional business.

c. Document and recognize unusual time demands for diverse faculty members through annual reviews, merit determinations, and course assignments.

Post-Tenure

1. Each year after tenure decisions are made, the provost’s office should analyze the data over

time to identify widespread negative or positive trends with respect to tenure and promotion. This information is used in training and development for new faculty, department chairs, and departments.

2. Post-tenure reviews should have more specific and clear outcomes and expectations. It

should be decoupled from the sabbatical process.

3. The University should engage in faculty development orientated toward associate professors and professors.

15

a. Provide post-tenure workshops specifically oriented toward associate

professors. Former unit P&T committee members could help to inform the topics and areas for development based on their experiences evaluating success and unsuccessful applications for promotion. Suggestions for the workshops include the following:

▪ Awareness of available career opportunities. An example of this is Michigan State’s Academic Advancement Network (https://aan.msu.edu/about/)

▪ Assistance in developing long-term career goals ▪ Identifying and acquiring resources to support career progression

b. Establish regular, forward-planning review processes to provide guidance for promotion

▪ Similar to annual reviews provided to pre-tenure faculty, faculty who are looking for toward promotion, should be encouraged to request a formal pre-promotion review which focuses specifically on the criteria for promotion to professor. Departments should develop bylaws regarding the content and timing or these reviews.

c. Develop and provide workshops and mentoring for those interested in careers in administration.

d. Provide internal grant or micro-grant opportunities specific to tenured faculty should be developed. These could include grants for team projects, professional development in teaching, scholarship or administrative skills.

Full Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (FTNTT) It is important that UD develops practices that involve FTNTT faculty in the University community without exploiting their interests and willingness to serve. Many of the findings and recommendations made here in references to tenure-line faculty will also apply to non-tenure line faculty. However, there are several areas that UD ought to focus on in regard to FTNTT faculty. It is expected that a number of the questions below will be addressed as departments and units begin work on promotion criteria for FTNTT faculty.

1. Review the responsibilities and expectations of FTNTT faculty in each department and unit should be conducted.

a. Departments and units should assess the level of involvement of the FTNTT faculty with respect to promoting membership in the community and exploiting time. For example, in what ways are the FTNTT faculty included in the governance of the unit or department? Do they have voting privileges? What is the expectation for their presence in the department? Are FTNTT faculty expected to do service or research? If so, in what capacity? How are FTNTT faculty reviewed?

2. Create practices and procedures in the hiring and retention of the FTNTT faculty that are transparent, fair, and timely.

3. Provide faculty development opportunities and mentoring for those FTNTT faculty who are interested in pursuing tenure-track positions.

16

Policies

Mentoring Policy

1. The University should develop and resource mentorship programs based on multiple markers of identity and difference.

a. These programs could take several forms: ▪ A renewed mentoring program in the Women’s Center and/or new diversity

and inclusion-focused mentoring programs. 2. The University should implement a policy that requires units to establish unit appropriate

mentorship programs directly related to tenure and promotion. a. These programs could take several forms.

▪ Mentorship of pre-tenure faculty by senior colleagues inside and outside of their home departments.

▪ Mentorship of associate professors by full professors in the same unit. ▪ Formal department-level mentoring programs that clearly state the goals of

the programs and that are regularly assessed for their efficacy. Consensual Relationship Policy

1. UD should adopt a consensual relationship policy that prohibits sexual or romantic relationships between undergraduate students and faculty or staff persons who might hold positions of authority over students.

2. UD should broaden its consensual relationship policy to prohibit all “inherently unequal relationships” and provide a list of examples (e.g. senior and junior faculty).

3. UD’s policy should also include a discussion of sanctions that will apply if this policy is violated.

NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Building on the recommendations brought forward by the staff and faculty subgroups, the following workforce-wide recommendations are made:

1. Create an Implementation Team convened by President Spina to develop, implement, and assess strategies based upon the recommendations contained in this report.

2. Convene a President’s Commission on Women to more closely examine gender-related policies and practices to more effectively promote gender equity at UD.

3. Through a collaborative effort among the leadership of Human Resources, Provost’s Office,

Mission and Rector’s Office, and the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, develop, deliver, and assess mandatory training for hiring managers, heads/chairs of units/departments, search committee chairs and all who will serve on search committees, members of the President’s Cabinet, and conduct periodic sessions with trustees.

17

4. Allocate base funding to create a full-time position – Director for Inclusive Workforce Recruitment and Retention – to resource a campus-wide strategy to enhance the recruitment, hiring, retention and promotion/advancement of faculty, staff and administrators from domestic underrepresented racial/ethnic populations and achieve greater gender equity.

5. Compile and make widely available workforce data to measure and continually assess progress on increasing the representation of women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in the faculty and staff ranks.

6. Resource and charge the Office of Diversity and Inclusion with the responsibility of

providing administrative support for racial/ethnic affinity groups.

7. Resource and charge the Women’s Center with the development and execution of a mentoring program for women faculty and staff and/or the development of a mentoring toolkit for departments/units that wish to create their own mentoring programs.

8. The Office of Diversity & Inclusion and Mission and Rector’s office should be included, as

part of a protocol, to review and approve all job descriptions to assure mission and diversity, equity and inclusion emphasis and alignment. This recommendation does not presume to “add” this to the existing protocol for position approval. It does, however, presume that the existing protocols will undergo a review and revision based upon the findings and recommendations of this report. The goal will be to build upon existing practices for the purpose of achieving greater efficiency in advancing the University’s mission as it relates to talent identification and acquisition for its workforce.

9. Update and revise language used for all hiring-related communication (website, job

descriptions, etc.) for a strong and cohesive University-wide messaging regarding UD’s value of diversity, equity and inclusion in its hiring

18

19

REFERENCES

American Council on Education. (2017). American College President Study 2017. Accessed March 30, 2018 from http://therivardreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ACPS-Report-FINAL-web.pdf. American Federation of Teachers Higher Education (2011). Promoting Gender Diversity in the Faculty: What Higher Education Unions Can Do. Accessed March 11, 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520168.pdf. Britton, D. M. (2016). Beyond the Chilly Climate. Gender & Society, 31(1), 5-27. doi:10.1177/0891243216681494 Brooks-Immel, Demerris (2016). Challenges in the Hiring Process for Prospective Administrators. In Betty Taylor (Ed.), Listening to the Voices: Multi- ethnic Women in Education (pp 79 - 88). San Francisco, CA: University of San Francisco. Cox, T. (1991). The Multicultural Organization. The Executive, 5(2), 34-47. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165006 Crenshaw, Kimberle (1989). "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1989 , Article 8. Dunn, Dana; Gerlach, Jeanne M.; and Hyle, Adrienne E. (2014). "Gender and Leadership: Reflections of Women in Higher Education Administration," International Journal of Leadership and Change: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 2. Eagan, M. Kevin Jr. & Garvey, Jason C. (2015) Stressing Out: Connecting Race, Gender, and Stress with Faculty Productivity, The Journal of Higher Education, 86:6, 923-954, DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2015.11777389 Edghill, V. (2006). Women of color in the administrative pipeline: Where are we? On Campus With Women, 35(2). Retrieved May 11, 2011 from http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume35_2/feature.cfm El-Alayli, A., Hansen-Brown, A.A. & Ceynar, M. (2018) “Dancing Backwards in High Heels: Female Professors Experience More Work Demands and Special Favor Requests, Particularly from Academically Entitled Students,” Sex Roles, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0872-6 Essed, P. (1991). SAGE Series on Race and Ethnic Relations, Volume 2: Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483345239 Finkelstein, M., Conley, V., and Schuster, J. 2016. Taking the Measure of Faculty Diversity. TIAA Institute. Accessed March 23, 2018 at https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/files/presentations/2017-02/taking_the_measure_of_faculty_diversity.pdf

20

Flaherty, C. (2016). More Faculty Diversity, Not on Tenure Track. Inside Higher Ed. August 22, 2016. Accessed March 23, 2018 from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/22/study-finds-gains-faculty-diversity-not-tenure-track. Fries-Britt, S. (1998). Moving Beyond Black Achiever Isolation: Experiences of Gifted Black Collegians. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(5), 556-576. doi:10.2307/2649110 Fries-Britt, S. L., & Turner, B. (2001). Facing stereotypes: A case study of Black students on a White campus. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 420-429. Fries-Britt, S. & Turner, B. (2002). Uneven Stories: Successful Black Collegians at a Black and a White Campus. The Review of Higher Education 25(3), 315-330. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gutierrez y Muhs, Gabriella, and Niemann, Yolanda Flores, and Gonzalez, Carmen G., and Harris, Angela P., (Eds.), 2012. Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Johnson, Heather L. (2016). Pipelines, Pathways, and Institutional Leadership: An Update on the Status of Women in Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Lennon, T. (2013). Benchmarking Women’s Leadership in the United States. University of Denver Colorado Women’s College: Denver, CO. Accessed March 20, 2018 from https://womenscollege.du.edu/media/documents/BenchmarkingWomensLeadershipintheUS.pdf Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2006). Making Diversity Work on Campus: A Research-Based Perspective. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and Universities. Milem, J.F., E.L. Dey, and C.B. White. (2004). Diversity Considerations in Health Professions Education. In B.D. Smedley, A.S. Butler, and L.R. Bristow (eds.), In the Nation's Compelling Interest: Ensuring Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce, DC: National Academies Press (2004) 345-390. Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., & Alexander, A. (2008). Gender Equality in Academia: Bad News from the Trenches, and Some Possible Solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 6(2), 215-233. doi:10.1017/S1537592708080572 Moore, M. (2017). Women of Color in the Academy: Navigating Multiple Intersections and Multiple Hierarchies. Social Problems, 2017, 64, 200–205 Prillerman, S. L., Myers, H. F., & Smedley, B. D. “Stress, Well-Being, and Academic Achievement in College.” In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (eds.), Sage Focus Editions, 109. Black students: Psychosocial issues and academic achievement (1989) 198-217. Smedley, B. D., Myers, H. F., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority-status stresses and the college adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 434-452. Smith, D. (2008). “Color-Person-Environment Relationships”, ‘Color Research and Application, 33: 312-319. doi:10.1002/col.20424 Steele, C. M. (1998). Stereotyping and its threat are real. American Psychologist, 53(6), 680-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.680

21

- “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance.” American Psychologist 52/6 (1997) 613-629.

- “Race and the Schooling of Black Americans.” The Atlantic Monthly 69/4 (April 1992) 68-78. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African-Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995) 797-811. Thomas, D.A., “Diversity as Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, 82. 98-108, 138. Turner, C., & Grauerholz, L. (2017). “Introducing the invisible man: Black male professionals in higher education.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39 (2017) 212-227. University Leadership Council (2008). Breakthrough Advances in Faculty Diversity Lessons and Innovative Practices from the Frontier. Washington, D.C. Vilian, V (1999). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press Wilson, R. (1989). Women of color in academic administration: Trends, progress, and barriers Sex Roles 21: 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289729 Women’s Center, University of Minnesota. (2012). Changing the Toolkit for University Staff and Administrators in Higher Education. Accessed March 23, 2018 at https://diversity.umn.edu/women/sites/diversity.umn.edu.women/files/WC_StaffToolKit_Final.pdf