Computer Science & Engineering Division College of ..., Study notes of Software Engineering

Download Computer Science & Engineering Division College of ... and more Study notes Software Engineering in PDF only on Docsity! Computer Science & Engineering Division College of Engineering RESULTS REPORT TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY August 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 II. GOALS ...................................................................................................................1 III. CREATION OF THE SURVEY .............................................................................2 IV. RESPONSE RATE AND PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS ............................3 A. PARTICIPATION BY POSITION ..................................................................3 1. Students ..................................................................................................3 a. Undergraduate Students .........................................................3 b. Graduate Students ...................................................................4 2. Faculty and Staff .....................................................................................4 3. Former CSE Students (“Alumni”) .........................................................4 B. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................6 1. Student Comparisons ............................................................................6 2. Staff & Faculty Comparisons .................................................................7 3. Sexual Identity ........................................................................................8 4. Religious Identity ...................................................................................8 5. Immigration Status .................................................................................8 6. Disability .................................................................................................8 V. METHODS OF ANALYSIS ...................................................................................8 A. CREATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPING ..........................................8 B. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ....................................................................9 C. ONEWAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ........................................................10 D. X2 OR CHI-SQUARE ...................................................................................10 E. CORRELATIONS ........................................................................................11 VI. SURVEY RESULTS – BY TOPIC ...................................................................... 11 A. GENERAL CULTURE AND ATMOSPHERE ..............................................11 B. DIVERSITY ..................................................................................................18 1. Views Regarding Diversity in CSE .......................................................19 2. Views on Future Steps to Take Relating to Diversity .........................24 2 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering III. CREATION OF THE SURVEY Giffen & Kaminski, LLC (“Giffen & Kaminski”) was hired to design, execute, and analyze the Towards the Future Survey. Giffen & Kaminski is a women-owned law firm experienced in Title IX work, climate assessments, surveys, and investigations. Giffen & Kaminski developed the Towards the Future Survey in consultation with and input from members of CLASS, a statistician, and a small group of CSE faculty, staff, and students. The final survey reflects that collaboration. Giffen & Kaminski has preserved the confidentiality of the people who participated in the development of the Towards the Future Survey. No comments or suggestions made by any person have ever been attributed to that person. During development of the Towards the Future Survey, Giffen & Kaminski reviewed numerous resources, including prior surveys and information developed by CSE and CLASS in the last year. A Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) section was included in the Towards the Future Survey and each Participant had to review the FAQs before they agreed to take the Towards the Future Survey. The FAQs section was used to inform Participants about the nature and purpose of the Towards the Future Survey. The FAQs section highlighted that Participants would remain anonymous and alerted Participants that certain of the questions sought sensitive information. At launch, the CLASS Chair emailed the potential Participants, and her email included a link to the Towards the Future Survey. The Towards the Future Survey was sent to a total of 7,782 potential Participants made up of all CSE current Undergraduate Students (5,246), all current CSE Graduate Students (843), all Post Docs (11), all current Staff (59), all current Faculty (153), CSE Discontinued Graduate Students (32), and all CSE Alumni who graduated within the past three years for whom email addresses were known (3,134). The total number of people by position is greater than the total number of surveys sent because many of the people invited have multiple roles but only received one invite. For example, some of the Staff are also Undergraduate Students. The Towards the Future Survey was open from May 26, 2021 until June 9, 2021. Reminder emails were sent to encourage potential Participants to complete the survey. The initial question of the Towards the Future Survey asked if the Participant was over 18 years of age and if they were willing to take the Towards the Future Survey. Of the 825 people who opened the Towards the Future Survey, only 2 declined to proceed. Most questions in the Towards the Future Survey were optional. Questions about overall climate were asked of all Participants. Other parts of the Towards the Future Survey were available only to Students and/or Alumni, and another part pertaining to employment issues was open only to Faculty and/or Staff. There were often follow- up questions that were presented only to those with specific responses to an initial question. For 3 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering example, if a response indicated that there was no involvement by the Participant in a certain type of action, then the next set of follow-up questions were not presented to that Participant. Participants in the Towards the Future Survey were not identified, and there was no electronic method to determine the identity of the person who provided any particular response. Participants were informed that their responses would not be a report of misconduct to the University of Michigan or any of its offices or resources. Resources regarding where and how to report sexual misconduct or discrimination were provided in the Towards the Future Survey. IV. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE AND PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 825 people opened the Survey out of the 7,782 invited to participate, and 823 Participants took the Survey. The demographics of Participants are generally representative of CSE overall. An analysis of the demographics of Participants is found below. Overall, it is reasonable to deduce that responses to the Towards the Future Survey are reasonably representative of the attitudes and experiences of the entire CSE community. A. PARTICIPATION BY POSITION The Participants were asked to classify themselves into the following groups of similarly situated people (“Position(s)”). 1. Students 27%1 of the Undergraduate and Graduate Students were employed at CSE. 6% indicated they transferred from another UM college to CSE and 6% from a school not associated with UM. a. Undergraduate Students 353 Participants identified their Position as an Undergraduate Student. Of those who identified as Undergraduate Students, they identified their CS Major or CS Minor status or intentions as follows: 1 All percentages in this Report are rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore may not equal 100%. 4 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Declared CS Major 274 Does not intend to declare CS Major 21 Uncertain whether to declare CS Major 6 Declared CS Minor 50 Does not intend to declare CS Minor 0 Uncertain whether to declare CS Minor 2 Of the Undergraduate Students, only 8% were first-generation college students, and 67% were enrolled in the College of Engineering with 28% enrolled in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. There was a split in how many Undergraduate Students had taken computer science classes in high school or in a postsecondary school with 60% indicating that they had. 61% of the CSE Students were enrolled as a first-time Undergraduate Student. b. Graduate Students 124 Participants identified their Position as Graduate Students. Of those who identified as Graduate Students, 102 reported that they are in a CSE doctoral program, and 22 identified that they are in a CSE master’s program. 19% indicated they were first-time Graduate Students. The breakdown of CSE Graduate Student funding was fellowship 10%, research assistantship (GSRA) 6%, teaching assistantship (GSI) 9%, and no CSE funding 21%. 54% of the Graduate Students responded that they had never been employed as a Graduate Student instructor at CSE. 2. Faculty and Staff 95 Participants identified their Position as Faculty or Staff. Of the 57 who identified as Faculty, 42 reported that they are Tenure-Track Faculty, 11 reported that they are Lecturers, and 4 identified that they are a Research Scientist, Research Fellow, or Postdoc. 38 Participants identified as Staff. 3. Former CSE Students (“Alumni”) 233 Participants identified their Position as a former Undergraduate or Graduate Student who participated in a CSE program within the last three years. The Alumni Participants further identified themselves as follows: TABLE 1 7 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering People who identified as Asian/Asian American, and to a lesser extent Participants who identified as White/Caucasian, were over-represented in the Survey as compared to their representation in the CSE community overall. 2. Staff & Faculty Comparisons Table 5 compares the demographics for Staff and Faculty. TABLE 5 Category Staff Overall Staff Participants Faculty Overall Faculty Participants Female 70% 64% 19% 12% Male 30% 21% 81% 77% Hispanic 2% 0% 2% 0% American Indian or Alaska Native 0% 0% 0% 0% Asian/Asian American 5% 9% 35% 12% Black/African American 2% 0% 3% 0% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 0% Caucasian/ White 89% 70% 57% 71% Two or More Races 2% 0% 2% 0% Unknown 0% 16% 2% 14% Unlike the Student categories, Women are not over-represented among Staff or Faculty Participants. The most significant deviation between overall populations and Participants is the over-representation of those who identified as Caucasian/White among Faculty and the under-representation of those who identified as Caucasian/White among Staff. The effect of the Survey’s category of “prefer not to say” is evident in the “unknown” category. 3. Sexual Identity 78% of all Participants identified as heterosexual or straight, and 8% identified as bisexual. 8% preferred not to answer the question regarding Sexual identity. All other Participants identified among a range including gay, lesbian, queer, and questioning. Data on the sexual identity of the overall population of CSE are not available. 8 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering 4. Religious Identity A variety of different religious identities (and lack of religiosity) was identified by Participants. The most numerous Participant identifications were 24% as Christian, 24% with no group, 20% as atheist, and 15% as agnostic. The only other group reaching 10% was the group that preferred not to answer the question at 10%. 5. Immigration Status The majority (78%) of Participants were U.S Citizens. The remaining Participants reported 14% Non- U.S. Citizen, 3% Permanent Resident, and 5% preferred not to say. As shown by the lack of discussion of the differences in this Report, Survey responses showed little to no statistically significant difference based on Immigration status. 6. Disability 8% of Participants identified as disabled physically or mentally (“Disabled”), and 10% preferred not to identify one way or the other. Of those who identified as Disabled, they were asked what their disability impacted and could select more than one category of impact. 73% indicated their disability impacted their mental health, 31% identified that it impacted their learning, and about 10% indicated vision, hearing, or mobility. More than 60% indicated that public spaces, bathrooms, classrooms, meeting rooms, and computing resources met their needs. 45% indicated that work areas, facilities other than classrooms, instructional material, online learning, break rooms, and teaching methods met their needs, which indicates some improvement is needed in these areas. Only 17% indicated that the lockers met their needs. Of those identifying as Disabled, 48% indicated that they had requested an accommodation related to their disability. 52% of those requesting an accommodation were satisfied or very satisfied with the response to the request, and 36% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the response. V. METHODS OF ANALYSIS A. CREATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPING An important part of the analysis was focused on comparing what various groups of Participants viewed as the issues facing CSE and what these Participants identified as their preferred potential ways to address these issues. Some of the potential identities discussed in Section IV above had too few Participants to use them as a group for purposes of analysis and comparison with other groups. For example, while 294 people indicated that they are White/Caucasian and 268 identified as Asian/Asian American, fewer than 5 selected Black/African American, Native American/Indigenous Person, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander or Native Australian. 9 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Proper data analysis requires that there be enough responses within each group to ensure variability in the responses, and for the Towards the Future Survey, it was determined that to properly represent a group, at least 20 people were required to identify as part of the group. As a result of the need for at least 20 in a group, some of the selections offered to Participants were combined in this Report to create groups deemed suitable for analysis. The following groups were used for results analysis: VARIABLE ANALYSIS GROUPS Position Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni Gender identity Women, Men, Other Gender identity Sexual identity Bisexual, Heterosexual, Other Sexual identity Race/Ethnic identity Asian/Asian American, White/Caucasian, Other Racial identify Immigration status US Citizen, Non-US Citizen, Other Immigration status B. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT For all reported analyses, a p level of .01 or less is considered statistically significant. The p level indicates the likelihood that there is a reporting of group differences that do not exist. So, for example, p < .05 means there is a 5% or lower probability that the reported group differences are spurious findings. A p < .01 means there is a 1% or lower probability while p < .001 indicates that there is a tenth of a percent or lower probability of a spurious finding being reported. Thus, a lower p level means less error in terms of reporting non-existent differences as real, but there is a trade- off. The lower the p level, the more likely a group difference could be missed, i.e., reporting no difference when there is indeed a difference. Conversely, when there are many participants, it is easier to find a significant difference between groups and hence to “overidentify” such differences. Therefore, although statisticians typically use a p level of .05 or less to indicate statistical significance, in larger sample studies, especially those with many questions, a lower p is used to avoid reporting group differences that are random findings. Often, the p level would be lowered to .001 or even .0001 when the number of Participants and the number of questions are as high as they were in the Towards the Future Survey. However, because the Towards the Future Survey is exploratory and designed to identify many possible concerns and solutions, it was determined that it was best not to be overly conservative and to instead report anything with p < .01 as statistically significant. 12 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Disatisfied Disatisfied Very Disatisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TABLE 6 41% of Participants indicated that they were either very satisfied or satisfied while 35% responded that they were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. Thus, there is a wide gap in the Participants opinion of the overall climate, and this gap is reflected through the responses. As indicated in Table 7, there are groups that were relatively more dissatisfied with the climate than other groups. TABLE 7 Group Difference by Level of Dissatisfaction F Statistic Position Graduate Students > Undergraduate Students, Staff, & Alumni F (4, 750) = 9.99, p<.001 Gender identity Other gender > Men F (2, 630) = 7.97, p < .001 Sexual identity Not significant (NS) Race/Ethnicity identity NS Immigration status NS 13 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering The level of dissatisfaction for Graduate Students is greater than the level of dissatisfaction for Undergraduate Students, Staff & Alumni, and for the group Other Gender, the level of dissatisfaction is greater than it is among Men. As to Covid, the Participants overwhelmingly indicated that CSE responded well to the pandemic. In response to Question Number 5, only 9% of the Participants indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that CSE responded well to Covid. Question 8 asked Participants their the level of agreement with statements that used specific descriptors for the climate in CSE. The level of agreement for each description of the climate is set forth in Table 8. TABLE 8 STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Welcoming 17% 43% 20% 15% 3% Diverse 10% 31% 23% 25% 10% Competitive 41% 41% 12% 6% 0% Racist 2% 10% 25% 39% 24% Supportive 10% 41% 27% 17% 6% Sexist 10% 22% 27% 26% 15% Cooperative 12% 48% 24% 13% 4% Hostile 5% 15% 24% 40% 17% Isolating 17% 30% 23% 22% 8% Homophobic 2% 4% 29% 36% 30% Respectful 14% 52% 21% 10% 3% Ageist 4% 8% 35% 33% 21% Transphobic 2% 5% 32% 34% 27% Inclusive 10% 41% 29% 16% 4.% Contentious 8% 25% 40% 20% 6% Safe 16% 37% 29% 11% 6% Collegial 14% 41% 36% 7% 3% 14 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Over 50% of Participants agree that CSE’s climate is welcoming, competitive, supportive, cooperative, respectful, inclusive, safe, collegial, not transphobic, not ageist, not homophobic, not hostile, and not racist. While many Participants had positive views of CSE’s climate, many Participants viewed the climate as not diverse, competitive, sexist, and isolating. Participants were asked in Question 9 how satisfied they were with the reputation of CSE. 39% indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied, and 40% rated themselves as dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. 20% were in the middle, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Undergraduate Students and Alumni indicated greater satisfaction with CSE’s reputation than did Graduate Students, Faculty, and Staff. A value of 3 was the midpoint of the scale (“neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”), and average scores for Undergraduate Students and Alumni were 2.8 and 2.9 respectively. So, at best, their satisfaction with the reputation could be described as tepid. The other Position groups are closer to being dissatisfied (a score of 4) with mean scores of 3.5 for Graduate Students, 3.7 for Faculty, and 3.7 for Staff. Otherwise, there was broad agreement across Gender identity, Sexual identity, Race/Ethnic identity, and Immigration status, with an overall mean of 3.06. Question 10 tested how strongly Participants agreed that CSE considers offensive language, jokes, and behaviors unacceptable. Here, 55% agreed, but a large percentage (24%) disagreed, which is another example of a large disparity in experiences or reaction to experiences. The other statistically significant differences were Graduate Students, who disagreed with the statement more than did Undergraduate Students, and Other Gender identity disagreed more than did Men. Question 11 asked the Participants to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with certain statements about their experience at CSE. Table 9 indicates Participants who agreed or strongly agreed as “Agree” and Participants who disagreed or strongly disagreed as “Disagree.” Participants who neither agreed nor disagreed make up the remainder of the group and are not indicated. Table 9 also demonstrates the differences between groups and the level of difference using the continuum of 1 for strongly agree and 5 for strongly disagree. TABLE 9 POSTION GENDER IDENTITY SEXUAL IDENTITY RACE/ ETHNICITY IDENTITY IMMIGRATION STATUS I feel valued Agree 47% Disagree 32% Alum > Staff Woman, Other Gender identity > Man NS Other Race/ Ethnicity > Asian/Asian American NS 17 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Alumni were asked in Question 119 if they would recommend CSE to prospective students. 81% said yes, and 19% said they would not. In the Narrative to this question, Alumni indicated that they would recommend CSE despite the negative culture and atmosphere because the education provides a great launching point to a good job. Alumni also noted that they would recommend CSE with a warning about how Women are not well treated, how CSE lacks diversity on all levels, and how CSE is extremely competitive for no valid educational reason. When asked to rate how important it is to expand mental health resources to various groups, the Participants responded as set forth in Table 12. TABLE 12 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT LESS IMPORTANT Improve, develop, or expand mental health resources for Students 67% 26% 6% Improve, develop, or expand mental health resources for Faculty 45% 41% 14% Improve, develop, or expand mental health resources for Staff 46% 42% 12% All Participants were asked in Question 58 to rate the importance of various other potential activities in order to increase a sense of community. The ratings are set forth in Table 13. TABLE 13 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT LESS IMPORTANT Develop mentoring program between more senior and more junior Students 32% 44% 24% Develop mentoring program between new Faculty and Faculty with high teaching reviews from students 48% 41% 11% 18 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Develop department- level programming to increase new Students’ feeling of being welcome and included 46% 40% 15% Foster group work among the Students 38% 39% 23% Develop opportunities for Student peer review 22% 42% 37% Offer opportunities to work with students and faculty outside of assigned labs 40% 44% 199 16% 70 Provide organized study groups for Students 31% 39% 30% Encourage break-out discussion groups for Students in class 23% 41% 35% Develop chat platforms for undergraduate students 22% 37% 41% Develop chat platforms for graduate students 18% 39% 43% The two highest-rated ideas were to develop a mentoring program for new Faculty with Faculty who have high teaching reviews from Students and develop programming to increase new Students’ feeling of being included. The two least-rated programs were to develop chat platforms for Undergraduate Students and for Graduate Students. A summary of the Narrative responses applicable to this category is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A summary of the Narrative responses relating Participants’ favorite part of their experience at CSE is attached as Exhibit 4. B. DIVERSITY One of the conclusions that can be drawn from the Towards the Future Survey responses is that CSE should continue to increase its efforts to diversify. Participants were asked for a Narrative response to this question: What are the top three ways CSE could improve its culture, climate, or itself? There were 454 responses listing the person’s top 3 ways to improve, and of those, 88 included some 19 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering mention of the need to promote diversity at all levels of CSE. In the second and third listing of the top ways to improve, promoting diversity was among the most often mentioned. While this list is not exhaustive, it includes ideas suggested multiple times by Participants: • Fix the gender imbalance and place more women in leadership • Educate male students about the experience of female students • Put more emphasis on individual uniqueness • Have different tracks for students to encourage diversity • Decrease use of sexist language by professors • Have a more diverse student population • Have a more inclusive atmosphere • Have more celebration of diversity • Ban the use of discriminatory language • Greater commitment to women’s groups on campus • Create a board of diverse students for leadership to listen to their thoughts and opinions • Faculty should correct misogyny from students when they hear it • Faculty should have more training on inclusive teaching • Develop a strong network for minority students • More student diversity training • Less sexism Additional Narrative responses to other questions fit this category as well. A summary of the Narrative responses using the words of the responses and applicable to this category is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Thousands of statistical tests were performed in reviewing the data for this Report. The differences were frequent and consistent with respect to Gender identity as it relates to concerns about diversity. That said, there was consistently no difference among the other groups, which could indicate that the Participants are unified in their support for increasing diversity. 1. Views Regarding Diversity in CSE Question 8 asked the Participants to rate their level of agreement with various descriptive characteristics of CSE, several relating to diversity. A summary of those responses is set forth in Table 8 above. Table 14 below shows statistically significant differences between various groups in their responses to Question 8 regarding the characteristics that reflect views on diversity. 22 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering TABLE 16 VERY FREQUENTLY FREQUENTLY OCCASIONALLY RARELY NEVER DO NOT KNOW Race or ethnicity is different from your own 40% 35% 120% 4% 1% 1% Nationality is different from your own 36% 31% 24% 6% 1% 2% Gender is different from your own 39% 28% 22% 9% 1% 1% Sexual identity or sexual orientation is different from your own 12% 12% 21% 21% 3% 30% Educational background is different from your own 17% 24% 21% 16% 3% 19% Socioeconomic background is different from your own 19% 24% 21% 11% 2% 24% Thus, as to interaction with Students of a different Race/Ethnic identity, Nationality, and Gender identity, more than 60% of the Participants indicated they frequently interacted with people in groups different from their own. As to interaction with Students of different Sexual identity, educational background, or socioeconomic background, less than 50% indicated that they frequently interacted with people in groups different from their own. Question 21 asked the same question with the same scale but concerned interaction with Faculty. The results were similar in all categories with Race/Ethnic identity, Nationality, and Gender tending towards frequent and Sexual identity, educational background, and socioeconomic background being less frequent. Question 22 looked at frequency of interaction with different Staff. The responses were different:57% as to Race/Ethnicity identity, 41% as to Nationality, 54% as to Gender identity, 15% as to Sexual identity, 32% as to educational background, and 25% as to socioeconomic background. Overall, the numbers were lower for interaction with Staff who are not in the same groups as the Participants. 23 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering The number of interactions with non-faculty researchers who are different from the Participants was even lower: 21% as to Race/Ethnicity identity, 20% as to Nationality, 16% as to Gender identity, 6% as to Sexual identity, 11% as to educational background, and 10% as to socioeconomic background. The next set of questions (Questions 24-28) tested Participants’ views as to how much various groups care about diversity, equity, and inclusion (collectively “DEI”), and the lower the score the more the Participant believed that the group cared. Question 24 probed the view as to the level of caring about DEI among Undergraduate Students. The only differences among the Participants in responding to this question was that Other Gender identity Participants thought that there was less caring among the Undergraduate Students than did Men. Over 57% of Participants strongly agreed or agreed that Undergraduate Students cared. Only 14% strongly disagreed or disagreed. There appears to be little concern about the commitment of Undergraduate Students on the issues presented by DEI. Question 25 then probed the same issue regarding Graduate Students’ caring about DEI Undergraduate Students and Alumni rated Graduate Students’ caring about the issue less than did Graduate Students, Faculty, and Staff. While it was less as among the groups, just under 7% of the entire Participant group disagreed or strongly disagreed that Graduate Students care about DEI, and 63% agreed or strongly agreed that they cared. Question 26 looked at the same issue as it relates to Faculty caring about DEI. While 61% agreed or strongly agreed that Faculty care about the issues, nearly 15% disagreed or strongly disagreed that Faculty care. The only differences found were Graduate Students and Alumni rated Faculty as caring lower than did Undergraduate Students, and Other Gender identity rated Faculty lower than did Men. Question 27 asked about Staff’s level of caring. 64% of the Participants indicated that the Staff cared about DEI, and only 8% indicated that they did not care about these issues. As to group differences, Other Gender identity found that Staff cared less than did Men, and Bisexual Participants found that Staff cared less than did Heterosexuals. Finally, Question 28 asked about the level of concern the Participant had about DEI. 86% of Participants indicated that they strongly agreed or agreed that DEI was important to them, and only 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was important. There were some group differences as set forth in Table 17 24 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering TABLE 17 GROUP DIFFERENCES F STATISTIC Position NS Gender identity Men > Women; Other Gender identity > Women F (2, 572) = 13.31, p < .001 Sexual identity NS Race/Ethnicity identity Other Race/Ethnicity > Caucasian/White F (2, 573) = 5.33, p = .005) Immigration status Other status > Non-Citizen F (2, 573) = 5.48, p = .004 The differences reflect how strongly the Participants agreed that DEI was important to them. For example, in the Gender identity category, the mean score was 1.5 for Women and 1.9 for Men where 1 = strongly agree and 2 = agree. When the Faculty were asked if they believed that the CSE leadership demonstrated that DEI was important (Question 161), more than 60% were satisfied or very satisfied with the leadership’s demonstration, and about 17% indicated they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. First-generation students (“First Gen students”) self-identified. Question 29 inquired whether adequate support was given to First Gen students, and more than 50% neither agreed nor disagreed that enough support was given. The remainder of the responses were evenly split between agreeing that enough support was given and disagreeing. There were no marked differences among the groups. 2. Views on Future Steps to Take Relating to Diversity The Towards the Future Survey questioned Participants regarding potential steps to take to increase DEI. Questions 50-55 tested how important it was to increase efforts to recruit and retain various groups in various Positions. The scoring scale indicated that a score of 1 meant it was more important and a score of 3 meant it was less important. So, the higher the score, the less important increased DEI effort was to the Participant. In response to Question 50 regarding the importance of increasing efforts to recruit and retain Women in various Positions, more than 60% thought it was very important to recruit and retain Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, Tenure Track Faculty and Lecturers. 50% indicated it was very important to recruit and retain Staff. There were some differences among the groups as set forth in Table 18. In Table 18, “greater than” means less important than the other, e.g., Men greater than Women means Men found it less important. 27 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Across the board on this Question, Women listed the solutions as more important than did Men. 50% or more of the Participants found it was important or very important to take these steps with the most important being to provide unconscious bias training to Faculty. Question 61 asked Participants to rate various strategies to attract more Women students from a score of 1 being the least important to a score of 5 being the most important. The Participants responses by percentage are set forth in Table 20. TABLE 20 1 (LEAST IMPORTANT) 2 3 4 5 (MOST IMPORTANT) Hire more women tenure track faculty 7% 4% 19% 35% 36% Hire more women lecturers 7% 6% 22% 35% 31% Establish more one-on-one mentoring 8% 11% 25% 31% 25% Hire more women research faculty 8% 9% 29% 31% 24% Additional training for Faculty on gender sensitivity issues 8% 11% 26% 25% 30% Have more women in positions of power in CSE 7% 4% 20% 26% 43% Have more women in positions of power at UM 8% 7% 20% 26% 389% Highlight CSE women’s achievements in marketing materials 9% 10% 30% 28% 23% Highlight women with successful careers in computer science in marketing materials 11% 5% 26% 33% 25% Have more women’s affinity groups on campus 12% 12% 33% 24% 19% Modify the qualifications for admission to graduate programs 31% 21% 23% 11% 12% Modify the qualifications for admission to undergraduate programs 32% 21% 24% 13% 11% Modify the qualifications for CSE major declaration 32% 23% 21% 14% 11% Recruit from different places than currently 19% 15% 28% 18% 20% 28 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Provide less of a competitive environment 17% 16% 21% 20% 26% Better enforcement of anti- harassment policies 7% 5% 19% 24% 44% Better enforcement of anti- discrimination policies 8% 7% 22% 23% 40% Adopt more comprehensive and stricter anti-harassment policies 9% 9% 20% 23% 38% Adopt more comprehensive and stricter anti- discrimination policies 10% 8% 22% 22% 37% There is overwhelming consistency in Participants’ level of endorsement of these strategies independent of their Position. Similarly, there is remarkable consistency across Sexual identities. On the other hand, there are numerous differences related to Gender identity. It should be noted that Women endorse all policies, except those related to changing requirements and in the noted areas in Table 21 and do so to a greater degree than do Men. TABLE 21 Position Gender identity Sexual identity Race/Ethnicity Hire more tenure track women NS Women > Men NS NS Hire more women lecturers NS Women > Men, Other Gender identity NS Caucasian/White > Other Race/ Ethnicity Establish more one- to-one mentoring NS Women > Men NS NS Hire more women researchers NS Women > men, Other Gender identity NS NS Gender sensitivity training for faculty NS Women > Men, Other Gender identity NS NS More women in positions of power at CSE NS Women > Men, Other Gender identity NS Caucasian/White > Other Race/ Ethnicity More women in positions of power at UM NS Women > Men, Other Gender identity NS NS Highlight women’s CSE achievement NS Women > Men, Other Gender identity Heterosexual > Other Sexual identity NS Highlight women in computer field NS Women > Other Gender Identity Heterosexual> Other Sexual identity NS 29 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Add women’s affinity groups NS Women > Men NS NS Modify grad school qualifications NS NS NS NS Modify undergrad qualifications NS NS NS NS Modify major NS NS NS NS Recruit from new places NS Women > Men NS NS Less competitive environment Undergrad > Grad Women > Men NS NS Enforce harassment policies more NS NS NS NS Enforce anti- discrimination policies more NS NS NS NS Stricter harassment policies NS Women > Men NS NS Stricter anti- discrimination policies NS Women > Men NS NS In the Narrative responses to this question (Question 61), there was a wide range of opinions. Predominately, the comments suggested that ridding CSE of harassment and/or a culture that ignores harassment would help diversity efforts. Several Participants mentioned that couples should not be hired if one member of the couple is a superstar and the other is hired only to encourage the superstar to come to CSE. It was noted that it might be better to make it more competitive and difficult for students so that regardless of Gender, the best rise to the top. In Question 62, Participants were asked about various strategies to attract more minority students with a rating of 1 being the least important and a rating of 5 being the most important. The responses by percentage as to each strategy are set forth in Table 22. Over 40% rated as most important the hiring of more minority tenure-track faculty, having more minorities in positions of power at CSE, and better enforcement of anti-harassment policies. Modifying any of the qualifications was rated below 15% as being the most important option and by 25% as being the least important option. 32 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Highlight minorities in computer field NS NS Add minority affinity groups women > men NS Modify graduate school qualifications NS NS Modify undergraduate student qualifications women > men NS Modify major qualifications NS NS Enforce harassment policies more women > men NS Enforce anti-discrimination policies more women > men NS Stricter harassment policies women > men NS Stricter anti-discrimination policies women > men NS C. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT The Towards the Future Survey asked numerous questions regarding Sexual Misconduct. Sexual Misconduct was defined as any kind of improper, non-consensual sexual touching of any nature whatsoever, including non-consensual sexual intercourse or forcible touching. It also includes sexual slurs; demeaning jokes; use of explicitly sexual pictures or videos whether delivered verbally in writing or electronically through emails, texts, or social media; and stalking or unwanted contact that makes an individual feel unsafe. Regarding the prior publicized claims of Sexual Misconduct, 55% of the Participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that information about these claims was handled appropriately, and only 15% agreed or strongly agreed that the information was handled appropriately. There was little group difference in the responses to this question, but Graduate Students had a higher disapproval of how the information was handled than did Undergraduate Students, Staff, and Alumni. Women also disapproved more than Men. When asked what information, other than confidential information, Participants would like to know in the future, the responses were varied. The most often repeated suggestion was that it should be known that an investigation is being conducted, the timeline for a decision, and the outcome of the investigation. There were numerous suggestions that the accused should be placed on leave until the investigation is concluded and the determination is made. The other suggestions that were repeated more than 5 times were: inform students what procedure is being followed; provide a timeframe for decision; decide more quickly; require administrators and faculty to report suspected improper 33 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering behavior; share actions taken to protect other students; inform as to where the misconduct occurred; survey to learn of issues and publicize survey results; provide more information on prevention; provide more resources on reporting; annually publicize the number of reports; publicize investigations and the general outcome of each investigation; make everything public; keep everything confidential and offer more help to the victims. The overall tone of the 280 Narrative responses was upset, angry, and displeased with the method or timing of the information provided. In an effort to determine if there were ongoing boundary issues that did not yet rise to the level of harassment or Sexual Misconduct but could be early warning signs or signs of boundary confusion, the Participants were asked if Faculty had engaged in certain conduct or made certain requests. The responses are set forth in Table 24. TABLE 24 NEVER 1 - 3 TIMES 4 - 7 TIMES MORE THAN 7 TIMES Referred to you by pet names 97% 2% 1% 0% Asked you questions about sexual preferences, history, or fantasies 99% 1% 0% 0% Referred to you in a demeaning way 89% 8% 2% 0% Asked you to perform personal errands 97% 1% 0% 1% Led conversations on sexual topics 97% 2% 1% 0% Requested you do work that is not credited or compensated 89% 7% 2% 3% Disregarded professional obligations to you, such as a letter of recommendation 95% 5% 0% 0% Engaged in disrespectful conversations with you regarding your personal beliefs or aspects of your identity 96% 2% 0% 1% Expected work significantly above your level 76% 16% 5% 3% Expected work significantly below your level 89% 8% 1% 1% Students were asked the same series of questions regarding Staff, and the responses to each question were more than 91% in the Never category with most of the categories being 98% or above. “Expected to work significantly above your level” had the highest recorded incidents, but even that was 5 in the 1 to 3 times response. 34 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Reviewing responses from all Students regarding whether they had experienced in the last 7 years any Sexual Misconduct from anyone at CSE, 7 Participants (3%) indicated that they had (“Survivors”) and 238 said they had not. While a low percentage, having any “yes” responses to this question is reason for concern. The Survivors identified the persons who had engaged in the Sexual Misconduct as 3 Undergraduate Students, 4 Graduate Students, 2 Faculty, and 1 work supervisor. Given these numbers, some of the Survivors identified more than one person with whom they had experienced Sexual Misconduct. 6 of the Survivors told a friend about the conduct, 2 told family, and 2 told Faculty. None of the Survivors reported to the police or to any other office or administrative person at CSE or UM. When asked why they did not report to CSE or UM, only 2 Survivors responded and indicated either that they felt the incident was too minor or that CSE and UM are not trustworthy. In Question 80, all Students were asked if they believed that CSE would respond effectively to a report of hostile, harassing, or intimidating behavior at CSE. 51% of Students indicated they were not confident that the response would be effective while 26% indicated they were confident that the response would be effective. This low confidence level reveals a low likelihood that Students will report. Question 81 tested if Students know where to report by asking how knowledgeable the Students are about certain campus offices. The responses regarding the campus offices are in Table 25. TABLE 25 VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE KNOWLEDGEABLE SOMEWHAT KNOWLEDGEABLE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE AT ALL I know where to go in CSE to get help if I or someone else Experiences Sexual Misconduct 8% 25% 43% 24% I know the formal procedures in CSE to report an incident of Sexual Misconduct 6.% 17% 34% 43% 37 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Disregarded professional obligations to you, such as a letter of recommendation 80% 17% 3% 0% Engaged in disrespectful conversations with you regarding your personal beliefs or aspects of your identity 90% 5% 2% 3% Expected work significantly above your level 70% 20% 7% 5% Expected work significantly below your level 80% 15% 3% 2% When the Graduate Students were asked the same set of questions with respect to research scientists, research fellows, and postdocs, virtually all the responses were Never. When Alumni were asked if they experienced any Sexual Misconduct from anyone associated with CSE, 6 people indicated that they had: 3 with an Undergraduate Student, 1 with a Graduate Student, and 2 with Faculty. 3 Alumni indicated that they told no one, and 3 indicated that they had reported it to someone. The 3 who reported informed more than one person and, unlike the current Students, they did use CSE and UM resources as follows: 1 told the Title IX office, 2 told CSE Faculty, 2 told other UM Faculty, 1 told CSE Staff, 1 told the UM health services, and 1 told the human resources office. The 3 who did not report indicated that they did not think the incidents were serious enough to report, they were concerned about being believed, and they felt CSE and UM could not be trusted to do the right thing. Two members of the Faculty and Staff responded that they had experienced Sexual Misconduct from a Faculty member. Both Participants indicated that they reported the Sexual Misconduct and did so to Faculty, Staff, and one to the human resources office. One reported experiencing worry, and one reported absence from work. Faculty and Staff were asked in Question 158 how confident they were that CSE would respond effectively to hostile, harassing, or intimidating behavior at CSE, and 38% indicated they were either confident or very confident while 45% indicated they were only somewhat or not confident. Again, this confidence level needs to be raised in order to increase the likelihood that Sexual Misconduct is reported. As with other groups, Alumni did not indicate a strong belief that CSE would respond effectively to hostile, harassing, or intimidating behavior. 49% responded that they were not confident or not at all confident that the response by CSE would be effective, and only 29% indicated they were confident or very confident that any response would be effective. 38 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering As with the Students, the response to Question 159 inquiring how knowledgeable Participants felt regarding various reporting structures, the responses indicated a need for further education. The responses are shown in Table 28. TABLE 28 VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE KNOWLEDGEABLE SOMEWHAT KNOWLEDGEABLE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE AT ALL I know where to go in CSE to get help if Someone Experiences Sexual Misconduct 30% 34% 27% 9% I know the formal procedures in CSE to report an incident of Sexual misconduct 17% 27% 45% 11% I know my UM rights if I experience Sexual Misconduct 14% 22% 34% 30% I know my UM rights if I were accused of Committing Sexual Misconduct 6% 15% 28% 51% As with Students, and even more so, Faculty and Staff do not think that enough information regarding the outcome of investigations into Sexual Misconduct has been provided. 63% indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree that enough information has been provided while only 20% agree or strongly agree that there was enough information. 44% of Participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the educational opportunities to learn about Sexual Misconduct, and 25% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the opportunities. Women were more dissatisfied than Men, and Bisexuals were more dissatisfied than Heterosexuals. As has repeatedly been the case, there are few significant group differences with respect to the views on Sexual Misconduct. But, as has also been common, the differences that do emerge show that Men and Heterosexuals are generally more comfortable and satisfied at CSE than are Women and those with sexual identities other than Heterosexual. This theme is repeated in several of the following questions. Generally, there is little difference in the Sexual Misconduct data. But the four differences that did emerge all indicate that Graduate Students are less comfortable with and confident about CSE’s 39 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering handling of Sexual Misconduct and the overall climate. Overall, Students are generally at best unsure of the responses to Sexual Misconduct, which is illustrated by a score of around 3, which indicates a negative reaction/attitude as the mean score approaches 4. In an effort to determine what, if any, correlation there was between general discontent with overall climate and atmosphere and responses to Sexual Misconduct, Pearson correlations among 3 variables were analyzed: (1) satisfaction with CSE’s climate (Question 3); (2) the appropriateness of CSE’s response to recent claims about sexual misconduct (Question 46); and (3) confidence that CSE will respond appropriately to reports of Sexual Misconduct (Question 80). Pearson correlations can range from -1.00 to 0 to 1.00. If two variables change in the same direction (i.e., as the score on one increases the score on the other increases), then the correlation will be positive (as all correlations reported in Table 29 are). The asterisks in Table 29 indicate that the correlation is statistically significant at p <. .001. Finally, the strength of the correlation may be interpreted as follows: around .10 is weak, about .30 is moderate, and anything .50 or greater is considered strong. These are all strong, positive relationships. So, people who report a lack of confidence in CSE’s ability to handle Sexual Misconduct claims also report dissatisfaction with how recent claims have been handled as well as less comfort with the overall environment. Similarly, those reporting dissatisfaction with how recent claims were processed also were less satisfied with the overall climate. TABLE 29 Question 3 Question 46 Question 80 Question 3 General Climate Satisfaction 1.00 .59*** .61*** Question 46 Handled Prior Claims Properly 1.00 .68*** Question 80 Would Handle Future Claim Properly 1.00 D. DISCRIMINATION All Participants were asked how frequently they personally experienced discrimination of any kind at CSE. The responses are set forth in Table 30. 42 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Supervisor or employer in CSE 6% Co-worker in CSE 4% Do not know the association with CSE or UM 8% Not associated with CSE but associated with UM 4% Of those experiencing discrimination, only 8% of them, or 19 people, reported their experiences to anyone in authority at UM or CSE. Of those reporting, only 5% were satisfied with the response while 20% were dissatisfied and 35% were very dissatisfied. This level of dissatisfaction is a major issue and is also something which must be addressed if the desire is to increase reporting. All Participants were asked where they would go at UM and/or CSE for information or help if they were to experience discrimination. Response percentages are set forth in Table 33. TABLE 33 I WOULD GO FOR INFORMATION I WOULD GO FOR HELP UM Title IX webpage 98% 12% UM Title IX Coordinator 64% 54% UM campus counselor 50% 74% UM campus health services 51% 72% UM campus security 43% 71% CSE Staff member 63% 64% CSE Faculty member 59% 73% UM (Non-CSE) Faculty member 70% 57% UM (Non-CSE) Staff member 74% 47% 43 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering My Supervisor at work 65% 66% The Chair of my Department 66% 60% Dean’s Office 60% 62% Human Resources Department 66% 56% Michigan Engineering CARE Center or Office of Student Support & Accountability 66% 63% CSE Diversity Committee Chair 72% 60% Other 70% 57% 41% of Participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the opportunities offered to learn about discrimination or civil rights, and 24% were not satisfied with those opportunities. To determine what impact experiences of discrimination had on overall responses regarding culture and atmosphere, several statistical tests were performed to see if there was a correlation between experiencing discrimination and overall dissatisfaction. Question 37 asked Participants to check as many bases of discrimination as they experienced at CSE. Most of the categories were not checked frequently enough to analyze. About 300 people reported that they had never experienced discrimination. A bilevel variable was created for the group that checked the option they had not experienced discrimination and the other group that did not check that option. The Chi-Square test analyzes the level of association between the demographic characteristic and the experience variable. Cramer’s V tests the strength of the association. A value of less than .2 is considered weak (although it may still be statistically significant), .2 to .6 is considered moderate, and greater than .6 is interpreted as strong. Woman Man Other Gender identity I have not experienced discrimination at CSE 82 209 9 Choice not checked 154 142 37 Total 236 351 48 Chi Square (2) = 50.22, p <.001. Cramer’s V =.28, p < .001. 44 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering This is a moderately strong association. A smaller percentage of Women and people identifying as Other Gender checked the “I have not experienced discrimination” box. Bisexual identity Heterosexual identity Other sexuality identity I have not experienced discrimination at CSE 8 250 41 Choice not checked 31 230 72 Total 40 480 113 Chi square (2) =19.77, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .18, p < .001. While most people identifying as Heterosexual said they had never experienced discrimination, a substantial majority of people identifying as Bisexual or Other Gender did not check that box, which suggests that they have experienced discrimination. Asian/Asian American Caucasian/White Other Ethnic Identity I have not experienced discrimination at CSE 132 134 34 Choice not checked 116 145 71 Total 248 279 105 Chi square (2) = 12.92, p = .002, Cramer’s V = .14, p = .002. As has been the case throughout this Report, people identifying as Asian/Asian American are least likely to have indicated any concern or problems with discrimination. These results are consistent with other areas indicating that Men, people identifying as Heterosexual, and people identifying as Asian/Asian American are more satisfied and comfortable at CSE. These three groups are also less likely to report that they have ever experienced any incident of discrimination at CSE. Indeed, most of the Participants in each of these groups indicated that they had never experienced any form of discrimination. A T-test was also used to examine whether there is a significant difference between the scores on Question 3 regarding general culture and atmosphere for people who checked that they had experienced discrimination at CSE versus those who did not check that they had experienced discrimination. 47 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering The results of the three T-tests are the same as for the derogatory comments variable. People who reported having been “singled out” at least once had higher scores on each of the three questions. A summary of the Narrative responses using the actual language of the responses that are applicable to this category is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. E. ACADEMICS AND FACULTY Numerous questions probed Participants’ views of the educational experience at CSE, including interactions with Faculty. Some of the questions were divided by Position and some were to all Participants. All questions about academics and instruction are discussed in this section of the Report. The first question posed was to all Participants (Question 6) and asked how satisfied the Participant was with the attention that Faculty give Students, with a rating of 1 indicating very satisfied and a rating of 5 indicating very dissatisfied. 53% indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied, and 36% indicated they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The different Positions did not have significant differences in their ratings on this question, but Other Gender identity was more dissatisfied than Men, and Bisexual identity was more dissatisfied than Heterosexual identity. All Participants were asked (Question 7) if they agreed that Faculty communicate well with Students outside of the classroom, with 1indicating strongly agree and 5 indicating strongly disagree. 49% agreed or strongly agreed that the Faculty communicate well outside of the classroom while 21% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Again, Other Gender identity disagreed more than did Men. Caucasian/White and Other Race/Ethnicity identity disagreed more with the statement than did Asian/ Asian Americans. There were no other significant differences in the responses among the groups. Some of the characteristics asked about in Question 8 (results summarized above in Table 8) are relevant to this inquiry as well as to general climate, e.g., the ratings describing CSE as competitive, supportive, hostile, and collegial. In Questions 6, 7, and 8, there was consistency in the relative dissatisfaction with Faculty support of people who identify as Oher Gender identity. Question 56 asked the Participants to rate various curriculum improvement suggestions from 1 being very important to 3 being less important. The two rated by the most Participants as very important were to place teaching-focused Faculty in core courses (60% rated very important) and increase Student access to instructional Faculty (59% rated very important). Table 34 shows the breakdown of responses by percentage. 48 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering TABLE 34 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT LESS IMPORTANT Place teaching-focused faculty in core courses 60% 32% 8% Reduce workload for undergraduate students 32% 34% 34% Reduce workload for graduate students 23% 37% 40% Reduce class size 36% 36% 28% Develop effective waiting lists for classes 54% 33% 12% Increase student access to instructional faculty 60% 33% 7% Offer more preparatory instruction before core courses 29% 38% 33% Offer more resources to non-CSE majors 26% 34% 40% For each course, provide recorded walkthroughs of basic information and concepts that can be reviewed by students at any time 47% 37% 16% Restructure graduate student program to allow more flexibility in concentrations 29% 47% 24% Undergraduate Students placed more importance on reducing workloads, more effective class waiting lists, and more recorded walkthroughs. Where any differences between the groups related to a suggestion emerged, these differences are shown below in Table 35, and the suggestions with no differences are not shown. 49 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering TABLE 35 Position Gender identity Sexual identity Race/Ethnicity identity Immigration Status Teaching focused faculty in core courses Graduate Students, Faculty > Alumni NS NS NS Other status > U.S. Citizen Reduce undergrad workload Graduate Students, Alumni > Undergraduate Students Men > Women NS NS NS Effective waiting list for classes Graduate Students > Undergraduate Students, Alumni NS NS NS NS Offer more prep before core courses NS Men > Women NS NS NS Recorded walk- throughs for all classes Faculty > Undergraduate Students NS NS NS NS Restructure grad programs for greater flexibility in concentrations NS NS NS Caucasian/ White > Asian/ Asian American NS Regarding communications, Question 57 asked Participants to rate intra/inter student/faculty/staff communication suggestions from 1 being very important to 3 being less important. The suggestions most of the Participants found to be very important (from 60% to 69%) was for CSE to clearly and quickly respond to issues and that CSE should explain the decision process and timing as to any issues. The percentage responses are set forth in Table 36. TABLE 36 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT LESS IMPORTANT Communicate response to issues in CSE clearly as they arise 69% 29% 2% Communicate responses to issues in CSE quickly 62% 34% 4% 52 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Students alone were asked in Question 66 if Faculty members treated them with respect when they asked a question, and the potential responses could range from 1 being always to 5 being never. The responses were heavily skewed towards always and most of the time (85%). Only 1 person rated it as rarely and no one chose never. People identifying as Other Gender expressed less positive feeling than did those identifying as Men. The remaining groups had no significant differences in their ratings. Undergraduate Students were asked in Question 88 to select actions they believed would have made them more successful in their core courses, and they were permitted to select as many actions as applied. In Question 89, Undergraduate Students were asked the same question regarding other 200-, 300-, or 400-level EECS courses. The responses to Questions 88 and 89 are presented by percentage in Table 38. TABLE 38 ANSWER CHOICES Core Courses Other Courses Greater preparation before enrolling in the course 44% 15% Dedicating more time to study and project completion 62% 22% Joining a study group 49% 8% Greater access to instructional assistants, supplemental instruction, or other instructional aids 62% 22% Greater access to the instructor 45% 8% Better treatment by classmates 11% 1% Better treatment by course staff 16% 3% More opportunities to gather with classmates outside of class 46% 8% Did not take 12.50% Undergraduate Students were asked if there were any other suggestions as to what would have made them more successful in the courses. The most selected answers included less cheating by others, more time for assignments, less emphasis on “weeding out” students, and having Faculty who care about teaching the courses. 53 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering A relatively high number (44%) of Undergraduate Students indicated that they had requested to withdraw, to have an incomplete, or to have a pass/fail grade in an EECS course. In a list of how good or poor the Undergraduate Students experiences were with various interactions, the vast majority (upwards of 50 – 60%) of the responses were positive, but some of the negatives were substantial and are repeated in other questions. The highest positive response was to Undergraduate Students’ interest in computer science, with 39% of Participants indicating their interest was very good and 52% indicating it was good. The responses to Question 91 are summarized in Table 39. TABLE 39 VERY GOOD GOOD NEITHER GOOD NOR POOR POOR VERY POOR Your level of interest in or engagement with computer science 39% 52% 7% 2% 0% Your preparation for core classes: EECS 203, 280, and/ or 281 18% 48% 23% 9% 2% Your preparation for upper- level classes: EECS 300- and 400-level 18% 40% 35% 6% 1% Instructional faculty presenting what is expected of you in your courses, e.g., assignment directions, 22% 50% 21% 4% 3% Your understanding of where to go when you need help in any of your courses 27% 46% 18% 7% 1% The quality of instruction in core classes: EECS 203, 280, and/or 281 27% 48% 19% 6% 0% The quality of instruction in upper-level classes: EECS 300- and 400-level 18% 36% 41% 4% 1% The amount of interaction you have with your Instructors 6% 26% 30% 29% 9% The amount of interaction you have with instructional assistants or tutors 13% 39% 26% 17% 5% 54 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering The amount of interaction you have with fellow students to discuss or collaborate on coursework 16% 31% 31% 17% 4% Your instructors’ ability to diagnose your learning needs 6% 21% 38% 23% 12% Your instructional assistants’ ability to diagnose your learning needs 7% 30% 40% 18% 5% Your access to instructors or instructional assistants about questions 11% 40% 26% 20% 3% The degree to which your questions about class work are fully and clearly answered 13% 43% 26% 15% 3% In general, your opportunities to interact socially with other students outside of classes 12% 23% 28% 26% 12% Undergraduate advising and assistance with declaring a major, selecting courses, and program completion 18% 34% 28% 13% 7% CSE’s responsiveness to Students’ concerns or complaints 5% 26% 38% 16% 13% Where Graduate Students were asked about their experiences, there was too small a sample to find any statistically significant differences among the various groups. 65% of Graduate Students indicated that they had a mentor(s) at CSE, and in every case, the mentor was a Faculty member. A majority (84%) of Graduate Students with mentors indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their mentor. As to satisfaction with their classroom experience, 67% of Graduate Students indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied while only 6% indicated they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Satisfaction of Graduate Students with their research group experience is a bit lower, with 24% saying they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, but a majority (57%) indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied. One of the Narrative responses expressed concern about not being given proper credit for ideas and ideas being credited to others; hence, the low rating. 79% of Graduate Students receive their academic advising from a Research Advisor and 12% from the Graduate Advising Office with the remainder from the Program Guide. The Graduate Students are mostly satisfied or very satisfied (68%) with the academic advising they are receiving, with 27% 57 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Your understanding of where to go when you needed help in any of your courses 23% 46% 17% 12% 2% 2% The amount of interaction you had with your instructors 7% 30% 27% 27% 7% 2% The amount of interaction you had with instructional assistants or tutors 15% 47% 22% 8% 4% 3% The amount of interaction you had with fellow students to discuss or collaborate on coursework 17% 49% 17% 15% 2% 1% Your instructors’ ability to diagnose your learning needs 47% 21% 30% 27% 10% 9% Your access to instructors or instructional assistants about questions 10% 47% 22% 16% 3% 2% The degree to which your questions about classwork were fully and clearly answered 9% 57% 18% 12% 3% 2% In general, your opportunities to interact socially with other students outside of classes 7% 36% 29% 17% 8% 3% Advising assistance 7% 25% 19% 23% 21% 5.% CSE’s responsiveness to students’ concerns or complaints 1% 21% 27% 13% 26% 12% The degree to which your questions were fully answered in your research group 3% 18% 9% 4% 3% 64% The amount of interaction you had with leaders in your research group 3% 19% 8% 3% 4% 64% Your research group leaders’ ability to diagnose your learning needs 2% 14% 13% 4% 3% 63% Your understanding of where to go when you needed help in any of your research groups 3% 15% 10% 4% 4% 64% 58 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Some important information contained in these responses include rating of responsiveness to Student concerns or complaints as very poor by nearly 26% of Alumni, rating of advising assistance as very poor by 21% of Alumni, and rating areas directly related to learning or help with coursework as good or very good by more than 50% of the Alumni. VII. RESPONSES TO PROGRAMS This section addresses Participants’ answers to questions about their experiences of CSE programs or other efforts to address issues concerning Sexual Misconduct, Diversity, Discrimination, and Overall Climate. CSE has held many programs, dialogues, and discussions to address concerns raised by the Sexual Misconduct complaints, which had public attention, and start improving the culture and atmosphere at CSE. It has been obvious that trust needs to be rebuilt. The Survey asked numerous questions to learn who had attended the various activities and programs and what impact, if any, they were having. The reactions to these past efforts were reviewed in order to help shape future actions. Question 42 asked all Participants to identify any programs related to Sexual Misconduct that they had attended. The results are set forth in Table 42. TABLE 42 ANSWER CHOICES Not applicable 15% Attended a formal training by UM staff 25% Attended a program not a formal training 10% Attended a rally 1% Saw posters around CSE or UM about prevention 26% Saw posters around CSE or UM about reporting 26% Saw or heard CSE staff or faculty discuss prevention or reporting 29% Read a report about CSE or UM prevention or reporting 34% Attended a discussion group 12% 59 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Attended a Town Hall in which these subjects were discussed 20% Viewed a CSE or UM web site for information 31% Read or heard about it in a student publication or media outlet 47% Did not attend or engage in any of the above 12% Interestingly, the most reported activity (nearly 47% of Participants) indicated they had read about issues in a student publication or a media outlet. Despite all the programming held by CSE, most people did not attend or get information from these programs. The same question was asked about programs related to discrimination or civil rights. Responses revealed that less than 20% of Participants had attended or participated. The exceptions were hearing the Faculty or Staff discuss reporting (20%), attending a training (23%), and reading or hearing about it in a student publication (30%). Participants were also asked to identify any activities in which they had participated or would be interested that were designed to improve culture. Table 43 shows the responses by program. TABLE 43 PARTICIPATED WAS INTERESTED BUT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE WAS NOT INTERESTED DID NOT KNOW ABOUT Climate and Diversity Town Hall 20% 25% 30% 24.% Climate Activities Survey 38% 10% 21% 31% Effective Office Hours Working Group 5% 8% 19% 68% Overwork & Mental Health Working Group 2% 12% 19% 66% Inclusive Environment Working Group 3% 11% 18% 69% Gathering to Address Issues Related to Black Lives Matter Protests 10% 21% 21% 48% Juneteenth Celebration 8% 19% 28% 45% 62 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Graduate Fellowship Workshops 36% 5% 42% 11% 7% Women in Computing 36% 3% 38% 18% 6% OnBoarding Buddies 41% 3% 41% 13% 4% MEECS 42% 5% 41% 8% 4% ECSEL+ 33% 3% 37% 11% 15% Other student or community group (such as GEECS, SWE, HKN, KTP, etc.) 18% 5% 23% 19% 34% Gathering on anti-Asian Racism 39% 6% 38% 13% 5% Climate and DEI Speaker Series 31% 5% 39% 17% 9% Students were asked about possible future programs and to respond whether they would participate in them in the future. The responses are in Table 45. One-on-one mentorship and increased office hours by Faculty were the activities in which Students indicated the most interest. Group tutoring in introductory classes and affinity groups had the least interest. It is not surprising given the make-up of the Student Participants that affinity groups held little interest. As among the diverse Students and Women, affinity groups had more interest. TABLE 45 PROGRAM YES NO MAYBE One-on-one mentorship program 50% 18% 32% Group mentorship program 31% 33% 36% Affinity group 20% 43% 37% Organized study group 34% 34% 31% Increased office hours by faculty 58% 17% 25% Group tutoring on introductory classes 30% 42% 28% Anti-bias training 28% 36% 36% 63 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Speaker series on discrimination and/or harassment 21% 36% 43% Training regarding how to spot and report discrimination and/or harassment 28% 33% 39% Development of a Code of Conduct for students 25% 39% 36% Unconscious bias training 34% 31% 36% Student chat platforms 38% 26% 36% VIII. ADDITIONAL RESPONSES BY GROUP A. COMBINED FACULTY & STAFF A section of the Towards the Future Survey posed questions only to Faculty and Staff. The first such question inquired if Participants agreed that they could influence, contribute to, or participate in decisions made by CSE. 47% reported that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, and 35% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed. So, as with many other areas, there is a significant divergence of views. There was more agreement on the satisfaction Staff and Faculty had about receiving feedback on their job performance. 56% of Staff and Faculty reported being satisfied or very satisfied with feedback, and only 16% indicated they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The remainder was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. With about the same level of difference, the Faculty and Staff indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with understanding what they needed to succeed at CSE, and 11% indicated they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. More than 50% of the Staff and Faculty felt they had opportunities for advancement or promotion at CSE, and 27% did not feel they had any opportunity. The remainder was in the middle. When asked for a Narrative response offering specific suggestions for improvement, the comments were far-ranging and contradictory, again reflecting divergence of belief. Comments included no longer focusing on past misconduct as well as comments that past misconduct needs to be further explored and punished before moving forward. Some proposed that the Student population should be reduced or the Faculty number increased. Others stated that the current system was working well to make sure only the best survived. There was resistance to Faculty being asked to do anything more because they were already underwater. Others suggested that the Faculty could do more to reach out to individual students. Some commented on the need to further diversify at all levels. 64 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Others commented that forced acceptance of diversity was not proper and less emphasis should be placed on diversity and inclusion. No clear consensus on any course of action could be found in the Narrative responses. One area important to atmosphere and culture is feeling that high performance is supported. 62% of the Staff and Faculty responded that they were satisfied or very satisfied that high performance was supported, and only 10% felt that it was not. Concerning DEI, 60% were satisfied or very satisfied, and 10% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their supervisors showing that diversity and inclusion are important. A majority (52%) felt that their salary was determined by a fair process while 25% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the process. On reporting issues, 29% of Faculty and Staff expressed fear of retaliation if they report an issue about CSE. While not a majority, nearly a third is a large enough group to indicate that fear of retaliation needs to be addressed. The Faculty and Staff were asked about what programs they would participate in if the programs were offered. Table 46 collects their responses. TABLE 46 PARTICIPATE YES NO MAYBE A mentorship program 49% 22% 29% An affinity group 21% 27% 52% Small group discussions among faculty and staff on how to improve the student experience 45% 17% 38% Feedback sessions with student groups on how to improve the student experience 56% 21% 24% Training on gender identity issues and sensitivity 44% 24% 32% 67 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Communication seems to be an area Faculty Participants think should be improved. The Faculty were asked if they agree or disagree with various statements regarding communication. The results are set forth in Table 48. TABLE 48 STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE CSE communicates changes well 3% 31% 11% 46% 9% CSE keeps me up to date on information I need 6% 50% 14% 22% 8% CSE has handled communications about recent claims of sexual misconduct appropriately 8% 11% 19% 19% 42% Conflict is resolved quickly and effectively 0% 9% 23% 23% 46% Most Faculty agreed or strongly agreed that they know the appropriate behavior toward Students, Staff, and Faculty. 71% of the Faculty indicated that they had the materials and equipment to do their job, with only 6% disagreeing that they had the materials and equipment they needed. In another area where there is substantial difference of opinion, 44% of Faculty indicated they had enough time for research or pursuing their goals while another 28% disagreed that they were given enough time. No Faculty indicated that they were very dissatisfied with the support they were provided for research, but 17% rated their level as dissatisfied. 58% were either satisfied or very satisfied. 20% of Faculty indicated a desire for more support in their teaching duties. On a positive note, only 8% (3 people) indicated dissatisfaction with Chair and Executive Committee support while 54% responded they were satisfied or very satisfied with the support they received. In another more uniform response, 76% of the Faculty indicated satisfaction with Staff Support, and there were no responses that indicated any dissatisfaction. 85% of the Faculty agreed that coordination among the teaching Faculty is important, and only 3% thought it was not. A vast majority (74%) of the Faculty said they were treated with respect when coordinating with other Faculty, and 5% indicated they were not. 68 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering 67% did not think that too much emphasis was placed on hiring research Faculty, and only 8% thought there was too much emphasis. A higher number (79%) did not think too much emphasis was placed on hiring teaching Faculty, and again, 8% thought there was too much emphasis. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the data from the Towards the Future Survey. While there are many subjects of concern to the CSE community as analyzed and set forth above, the major concerns can be summarized and grouped into three main categories. The Towards the Future Survey Participants also suggested in their Survey responses and in the Narrative many potential steps to take in the future. Those suggestions were considered in creating these recommendations. The recommendations are aimed to address and improve the three main categories of deepest concern to the CSE community, which are as follows: 1. The lack of Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Sexual identity diversity in all Positions. All groups within the CSE community believe that diversity, equity and inclusion are important and, while there are varying levels of concern, all groups agree that CSE is not sufficiently diverse. 2. The need for healing from the prior much-publicized Sexual Misconduct. This includes the need to re-build trust in both the institution’s commitment to intolerance of Sexual Misconduct and in its ability to competently handle complaints of Sexual Misconduct. There is a fear of retaliation for reporting improper conduct and/or the belief that wrongful or improper conduct will not be properly handled. 3. Significant portions of the CSE community have concerns about the academic experience of Students in CSE. There are divergent views as to what the best academic experience is and how best to achieve it. There is a tension between alternative views on how best to continue to achieve academic excellence. The following are recommendations to address each of these concerns. The recommendations are not intended to be exhaustive, not intended to suggest that some of the efforts are not already ongoing and are not presented in any particular order. A. Steps to Improve Diversity, Equity and Inclusion The data from the Towards the Future Survey show: (a) there is a lack of diversity as reflected in the underrepresentation of non-Male, non-Caucasian/White, and non-Heterosexual (collectively “Underrepresented”) individuals in all Positions in CSE; (b) Underrepresented individuals experience the culture and atmosphere in CSE more negatively than other categories of individuals; and (c) a significant number of people are dissatisfied that CSE has not achieved a greater level of diversity, equity and inclusion. 69 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Importantly, the Report does not include a fair representation of the range of voices and opinions of African American/Black or Latino/Latinx Americans or other ethnic or racial minorities because there are so few people in the CSE community and therefore so few Participants who identify as belonging to these ethnic or racial minorities. The same is true of people who identify as belonging to the Other Gender group and the Other Sexual identity group. The recommendations are: 1. Publicize the results of the Towards the Future Survey so everyone knows that their voices are being heard, that diversity, equity and inclusion is a goal of the majority, and that the desire of the community is being acted upon. 2. Improve recruiting of Underrepresented individuals for all Faculty and Staff Positions. This includes defining available positions accurately but as broadly as possible to reduce self-deselection by potential Underrepresented candidates. Encourage open searches for candidates. Use expressed institutional values and policies that encourage Underrepresented candidates to respond to advertising for open positions. Establish goals of identifying candidates who are different from existing Faculty or Staff and reward those who are most successful in expanding Underrepresented candidates in candidate pools. Identify individuals at CSE or other institutions who are mentoring Underrepresented Students, Faculty, and Staff, and request suggestions for candidates and references. Request a statement by all candidates for open positions about their contributions to creating institutional change with respect to diversity, equity and inclusion. Create diverse search committees that include Underrepresented individuals. Search committee members should receive training and resources that increase their knowledge of the impact of evaluation biases and ways to overcome them. Ask search committees to document their efforts to maximize the diversity of the applicant pool, the fairness of their procedures, and the fairness of their outcomes. 3. Improve recruiting of Underrepresented individuals for Student Positions by diversifying the schools from where students are recruited, including reaching out to and creating partnerships with other institutions that have successfully created a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion in Computer Science. Reach out to Historically Black Colleges and Universities for help. 4. While not a substitute for improved recruiting of Underrepresented Faculty, Staff, and Students, acquire Underrepresented individuals to fill temporary roles in CSE, such as guest lecturers or workshop participants. Apply similar strategies to filling these roles as the strategies noted above for more permanent roles. 72 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering regarding Sexual Misconduct. Publish any requests for change in procedure or personnel made by CSE to the University. Continue publicizing future requests for changes and changes made. 6. When the investigations into the Prior Complaints close, to the extent possible and without violation of privacy concerns, publish the results of the investigations and at a minimum let the CSE community know that the issues raised have been dealt with closed. 7. Where there is reported or suspected retaliation in any case, an investigation should be conducted, and appropriate actions taken quickly. The policy against retaliation should be widely publicized through all Student networks and social media. 8. Periodically publish the number of investigations in the previous time frame, such as annually or semi-annually, and the outcomes in general terms so that the community can understand that actions are being taken based on reporting. (For example – 10 investigations with 5 violation findings) This type of reporting would increase confidence that the reporting of issues is taken seriously and acted upon. 9. Require Faculty and Staff to be trained on when, where and to whom to make a report and encourage the use of the CSE and University resources. 10. Make training on misuse of power imbalances a requirement for Faculty and Staff. The training should include how certain conduct impacts Students, such as use of derogatory comments, singling out of Students and assigning Students work that is significantly beyond or below the Students’ abilities. 11. The reporting process and procedures must be readily available and easily found by everyone. 12. Have the University offices responsible for compliance with policies and conducting investigations appear on campus to answer questions and provide information so that the University people are visible to and known by the CSE community. C. Steps to Address Concerns Regarding the Student Academic Experience Many of the responses to the Toward the Future Survey show significant levels of dissatisfaction with the academic experience of Students and/or a dispute over what the academic experience should be. For example, one area of dissatisfaction is the proper Student-to-Faculty ratio. Participants sense that ratio goals based on sound pedagogical reasoning and balancing academic needs and fiscal realities have not been made or have not been communicated clearly to the CSE community. The community 73 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering feels that growth has not been controlled or that there was inadequate preparation for the growth and no thoughtful decision was made as to proper Student-to-Faculty ratios. Another example of a disagreement is the tension between alternative views on how best to continue to achieve academic excellence. Some believe the best way is to continue current practices. Others believe that with proper additional preparation, Students whose backgrounds did not prepare them as well as others, such as first-generation students, could thrive and excel in the CSE environment. Regardless of the approach, the key is to decide the proper approach and communicate the approach to the community to reduce confusion and dissatisfaction. The following are recommendations regarding the academic experience: 1. Leadership should identify and concisely set forth the goals as to Student-to-Faculty ratio at the various Student levels and evaluate what is needed to achieve the ideal ratio. This analysis should be reviewed on a regular basis and should be communicated to the community so that the community is aware that growth or reduction is planned and purposeful and that it is geared towards improved academic experience for both Students and Faculty. 2. Leadership must decide the proper approach and communicate the approach to the community regarding how best to continue CSE’s academic excellence. The approach should develop healthy competition that promotes academic excellence but discourages unhealthy toxicity that continues old networks and ideas that are exclusive and discriminatory. In particular, leadership should consider the degree to which Students who have not had an opportunity, for whatever reason, to be as prepared as others for the rigors of CSE should receive additional resources for further preparation. 3. Develop specific methods and procedures to regularly provide feedback to Faculty and Staff about their job performance and include as part of the feedback adherence to and adoption of the CSE-wide goals, including efforts to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion. 4. Further develop mentoring programs, including between more senior and more junior Students and between new Faculty and Faculty with high teaching reviews. 5. Develop department level programming to increase new Students’ feeling that they are welcome and included. 6. Foster group work among Students and in so doing, review the Code of Honor and determine if any changes are required to help foster proper and appropriate group work among Students. Communicate the review and the results to CSE. 74 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering 7. Offer opportunities for Students and Faculty to work together outside of labs. 8. Place teaching-focused Faculty in core courses. 9. Increase Student access to teaching Faculty, including additional office hours. 10. CSE should quickly respond to issues that impact the full CSE community, and given all the recent leadership changes, CSE should explain the decision process as to any issues that arise. 11. Help Students find and join a study group by, at a minimum, providing more opportunities for Students to gather with classmates outside of class. 12. Improve, develop, or expand mental health resources for Students. The current system is not enough, and there is a long waiting period to receive professional services. 77 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering I feel like I received a good education but know some professors have said things like “More students should be failing these classes.” These classes seemed to require significantly more time than any other courses and it seemed the lack of sleep everyone was getting was almost a competition. I feel very welcome in the CSE community and have only had positive experiences with faculty and staff in CSE. I love our culture of curiosity and inclusivity! Students seem to be in a constant state of stress. There is a scarcity of teaching resources (office hours, large class sizes, etc). In order to get through office hours, teaching staff and student teachers tend to provide answers rather than teach students how to solve problems, creating a student dependence on office hours and causing a feedback loop which further exacerbates the situation. This department is broken. The existing power structures prevent any real change that might improve climate. All the recent Chairs have been grossly incompetent. I am actively attempting to persuade my advisor to change universities. I’m extremely impressed with the dedication to excellence, advancement of science, and respect of all people in the faculty I work with. Lots of competitiveness between students, lower level classes were made to be stressful for the sake of it. Moreover, the students in the CS department are overwhelmingly bigoted, competitive, unempathetic, and jealous. CSE is generally an excellent community and an excellent place. The downsides are not huge, but the stresses on students from the enrollment explosion and their difficulty in getting into classes they need or want is a significant downside. I feel like there isn’t much community in the CSE environment. It’s very competitive, and there’s so many students that it’s hard to meet others and make real friends. Thus finding support or feeling like I’m belong in this “climate” is difficult at times. I’m not thrilled with the climate surrounding the Engineering Honor code, as I feel in many aspects it encourages students to look for help on Google rather than from fellow students. The core staff and faculty are committed and friendly, and really want to make this a great place to work and study. In my opinion, when we fall short, it is often due to our huge numbers and resultant inability to give students the individual attention they deserve, or that spot in the class they want. 78 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Focus on improving the student-faculty power imbalance through an emphasis on reviewing and crediting faculty mentorship. Hire a student advocate staff person. Hire more faculty to deal with the size of CSE-majors. Cut down on cheating. It damages the integrity of the university. Lessen the competition. More office hours. Hire a PR person because these public statements are idiotic and harmful. Hire more faculty to deal with the size of CSE-majors. Allow for anonymous feedback for faculty. CAPS needs to be improved especially for students who need long term therapy. I know CAPS always has a huge wait list so it’d be cool if there was a CSE-specific CAPS. CSE points students to outside resources for well-being like CAPS, but the internal culture doesn’t support students taking care of their health. Requiring teaching faculty to explicitly discuss mental health and options that support students’ health in the context of each class-- like the option to defer classwork or take a class pass/fail--would be a good start. CSE should have stricter declaration requirements. The fact that almost anyone can declare CS leads to a very crowded and competitive environment. Offer one-on-one mentorship with experienced staff or faculty. Not try to actively kill us. Reduce workload. Reduce coursework. Allow extensions on assignments. More breaks. More mentoring opportunities. 79 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering EXHIBIT 2 DIVERSITY NARRATIVE The institutional climate has become increasingly racist and sexist against those who don’t identify as a “minority,” with special attention and preference (including funding opportunities) given to only to those who do not identify as Asian, white, or cis-male. Furthermore, there has been an upward trend in hostility towards all those who do not loudly tout strong left-wing political orthodoxy (an effect that, though apparent university-wide in the past, has only more recently become prominent within CSE as well.) We have a culture of sexism, racism, and general tolerance of abuse of students. We need strong reform now. Nobody in power speaks up or does anything much to stop harassment or abuse. Faculty in particular create the abuse and/or turn a blind eye to others. Some make inappropriate comments. There is often no supportive culture from the faculty towards their students. it’s just really sexist and elitist, lifting up disgusting sexual predators and putting down women, poc, or any other minorities in the major. Very male dominated and not enough was being done to attract female students. CSE’s climate is one of marginalization. When someone makes a diminishing comment towards a group, most faculty avoid intervening -- I believe because they prefer to avoid conflict and focus on their own career priorities. all men and most of them have bad social skills or are too competitive. CSE is not a welcoming place for someone not in the “correct” one-third of the political spectrum. I have seen students, faculty, and job candidates mocked and belittled by faculty for having the “wrong” opinion. The lack of respect for those with differing opinions breaks the trust needed for dialectic. It is scary being a woman in this department because of all of the past actions of members in this community. I have also seen many male students ignoring and talking through lectures addressing sexual misconduct and that really hurts to see as a woman. If anything, it was other students who often perpetuated an exclusive culture. But once I found my group of friends who were also underrepresented students in CS, I had a good time! CSE has demonstrated an effort toward diversity, which is wonderful, but I believe it has backfired 82 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering experiences/struggles. More outreach to undergraduate students to from underrepresented groups to encourage them to study computer science because it is a field that they might not have ever considered studying it but they might find that they like it and it is not as scary and difficult and elitist as they might think. I think the DE&I committee should be chosen based on a vote of everyone hired in CSE including graduate students every few years. Open suggestions and complaint boxes would be of help. Also all decisions that are made should be transparent and a periodic report on actions taken towards DE&I would help too. Make the current climate more hospitable for minority members of the community so that we can honestly say that CSE is a good place to study/work when participating in recruiting. Also, look beyond traditional resume items for people who would make CSE a good place to study/work. Most of the damaging things I’ve heard or experienced have been shared in private. I’m not sure how you get people to believe that women are as capable of computer science as men, or that minority candidates are not being unfairly given jobs, positions, and funding because of their demographics, or that accusations of sexual misconduct have consequences beyond reputational damage to the department or the accused. Maybe making these things more clearly abhorrent through increased community and social norms will decrease their frequency, because apparently, they are not yet regarded as harmful sentiments. I think it also comes back to the fact that most people in CSE just don’t care enough to inconvenience themselves into helping. My sense is that most people think their research and teaching subject matter is value neutral (it’s not) and think DEI get in the way of the “real mission” of the department. Better incorporating ethics and the social impacts of technology into the coursework could help make these topics *matter* more to the people who are here. Or at least make the next generation have a better chance. I think a good place to start is to seek to offer more mentorship and support programs for our students of minority populations and backgrounds. I think there needs to be better attention focused on DEI when recruiting faculty and staff as well. While ongoing trainings and workshops for DEI are good to continue prioritizing and developing this area, it will not make a difference if the folks that are being recruited to teach and work in the department are continuously perpetuating these harmful behaviors with no remorse or desire to change. Hold events targeting underrepresented groups, use employee trainings to diminish using a white heterosexist male lens in favor of a more general, less exclusive one. The problem lies in lack of adequate mechanisms and support for reporting and investigating sexual and racial discrimination. Much of this has been delegated to OIE, which appears dysfunctional. 83 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Put more women in leadership. CSE should seriously consider recruiting from institutions other than the usual slate of CMU, Stanford, UC-Berkeley, etc. Also, if we wish to recruit more diverse students, faculty and staff, we are going to have to really improve our standing with communities of color. Perhaps offer more scholarships or fellowships? Or step up our presence at cooperating institutions and at diversity conferences? Speaking for myself, I would be very interested in participating in these types of efforts, if given the opportunity. More female faculty. I had one female professor in CSE all 4 years. I think CSE has done this successfully. CSE should look to actively support various minority support groups within CSE. Supporting things like WISE is probably a good way to go. Profs + Lecturers + GSIs should be trained on what it can feel like to be a minority in the room (encourage empathetic teaching) + how they can make everyone feel welcome through their instruction. Again, when it comes to hiring CSE may have fundamentally shift its priorities. Is the purpose of a prof to churn out papers + research, or is it to be an effective leader + teacher + mentor in the department? I’d prefer it to be the latter. CSE needs to have regular communication and emotional investment into 1) uncovering and explaining the existing process(es), 2) detailed examinations of how those processes have failed in specific contexts, and 3) crafting creative new policies to address the existing problems. I cannot stress this enough that this is paramount to rebuilding CSE. Provide information more proactively. Better communication and recognition that students need a soundboard to express their opinions openly and responsibly. A mandatory class in conflict resolution, sexual harassment, bias, and ethical responsibilities would be desirable for all students (and faculty). Hire more women and remove faculty with a history of misconduct from their positions, especially teaching positions. No specific suggestions, but it’s ridiculous how if you look at an intro CS class you see way more women & people of color than you do if you look in an upper level CS class. Many students in CSE know who is repeatedly disrespecting marginalized students (whether it be faculty or other students). There is no way to hold these people accountable and reporting them does nothing. There absolutely needs to be a way to remove these people from the program because they won’t change. 84 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Female and Black students are seriously unrepresented without any intention to increase their enrollment. Stop continuing to allow professors and staff who have been accused of harassment to continue interacting with students. Actually enforce policies against sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Fire the staff with demonstrated patterns of sexual abuse. Make literally ANY effort to hold those people accountable in any way. Otherwise, never expect to recruit diverse talent again. Hire people based on merit and nothing else. Focus more on diversity of thought and background. It often feels like we are bucketed by race, gender, etc. versus how we think, how we grew up, etc. Many pockets of CSE faculty still believe that DEI in recruiting is a secondary effort, or even that it goes against the goal of recruiting the best individuals. As a result, they continue to recruit individuals from majority groups, as they feel more confident of those individuals’ potential for success. In the graduate student space, a proven successful approach is that to recruit a “cohort” of students at the program level, which would then identify an advisor of choice after their arrival. In faculty recruiting, the most successful programs at attaining diversity in their ranks are those that 1) actively pursue diverse candidates, instead of evaluating the pool (and this takes place with the chair’s direct effort and involvement), and 2) work proactively and set process to ensure that those individuals feel welcome and are supported for success. I think groups like ECSEL+ play a huge role in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. But student- led groups can only do so much. The DEI committees should be more effective and have more buy- in from faculty members. Lack of funding or time cannot be an excuse for the inactions of faculty members. Faculty need to be more open to acknowledging issues and being active parts of solutions to these issues. Speaking from a staff perspective looking at our CSE staff in particular I don’t think it reflects a racially diverse group. I also think that some of the conversations I have been privy too or witnessed in my onboarding period reflect culturally ignorant and damaging practices towards racialized people that enter into CSE. I am unsure if the lack of accountability or having dialogue when these things are being said is because other colleagues don’t find issue with the statements. Or if they are also unaware of the harm and negative that they are having on their colleagues and students. I would say that more conversations around these topics and in particular within specific functional areas/offices and departments are needed. This should be a part of evaluating and assessing our practice and should happen often. 87 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering Hire more student women and underrepresented groups to teach classes. Do not allow professors who are undergoing allegations regarding sexual/professional misconduct to teach. Take more action against those who are creating a hostile environment. Require DEI sessions that are outside of class lectures. When done in a huge lecture hall most students ignore it and there is little participation. Hire more tenure track women. More minor affinity groups. More women in leadership. Talk to the underrepresented minorities, ask them what would help them. More follow ups on the results of those investigations. More communication about what is going on and how CSE is addressing it. Put more women/minorities in power. Speak up when people say discriminatory things. Make more educational programs about sexual misconduct or discriminations required instead of optional. Listen to people of color, women and non-binary people, and other members of target identity groups—and then carry out meaningful action to support what they are saying. Introduce mandatory sensitivity training for students, staff and faculty More women in power positions in my classes that I could go to for help or advice I would do it so much. As it stands now, I have difficulty for asking what I really need 88 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering EXHIBIT 3 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT NARRATIVE Apart from the 3 recent allegations of sexual misconduct, my personal experience of the CSE climate has been very positive. I am dissatisfied not due to personal experience but because of the recent allegations against more than one member of the CSE community. Whether or not these allegations are true, it is very unsettling to hear about multiple occurrences from my faculty. There is such a long list of things that are wrong with how climate is being addressed in the department. But I want to point out that the survey description started out as “this survey is not intended as a general climate survey or to review misconduct in the past. Rather, this survey is intended to look forward and begin a proactive approach to developing a culture and climate desired by a majority of the CSE community.” Without reviewing misconduct in the past, we cannot move forward. Without talking to the people who have actually suffered due to the existing climate policies, how can you expect people to “look forward” and “take a proactive approach”? The proactive approach must include centering the survivors, and those who have been forced to leave due to issues that have existed. If CSE actually wants to take a proactive approach, they need to first acknowledge there is a problem. That it was never a matter of “if” but a matter of “when,” all this would become public. Harassment has been occurring in the department for years. Students have been aware of this, and there have existed whisper networks. Well I mean we got the rapist faculty that won’t get dealt with by admin. I am very concerned about the various misconduct charges that have occurred over the last year or so. I am disgusted that CSE and the College have seemingly take no visible action in response to the very visible and publicly reported cases of sexual misconduct that have occurred in the department. Despite all the pretty words we have heard to the contrary, this lack of action sends a clear message to faculty, students, and the rest of the world that this type of behavior is indeed tolerated at this university and in this department. I feel that the only actions that have been taken (including this very survey) are aimed at protecting the University from liability, rather than actually trying to protect students. Most of my personal interactions with faculty, staff, and students have been very positive. Yet, I am dissatisfied with the way that the department has handled very public sexual harassment allegations recently. More than any other issue, this is shaping the climate of the department right now. 89 RESULTS REPORT | TOWARDS THE FUTURE SURVEY Computer Science & Engineering Division, College of Engineering The number of sexual harassment issues by faculty is seriously alarming (and all within the past 2 years or so). Rampant sexual abuse issues. CSE seems to just be letting professors who have been accused of sexual assault do what they want. The only part holding back from me saying very satisfied is the recent allegations and events of CSE professors. The students are great, but due to recent scandals, I am losing trust in my professors. I am disheartened by the level of sexual harassment uncovered in the department, and while I believe that the faculty and administration general want to do the right thing, I believe there unseen abuse of students (overwork, hostile environments, etc). Sexual misconduct allegations over the past few years have made me lose trust in the department. Especially when people who used to be in the head chair of the department are being charged... Most notably, the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct (and their fallout) have left feelings of mistrust, confusion, anger, and frustration. There is a general sense that “the hits just keep on coming,” despite the real and positive efforts that so many are making. The amount of faculty misconduct and sexual misconduct in CSE is ridiculous. There have been some worrying developments regarding sexual assault, but they are handled pretty quickly. I am very satisfied with my direct experience, but very concerned by the experiences I have heard about.