At the University of Michigan, one of the most important aspects of the DEI Strategic Plan is how the work permeates every school, college and unit across the sprawling university system. Embedded within every division are DEI leads, U-M staff whose on-the-ground knowledge of the specific needs of their constituents allows them to center programs and initiatives specific to their audience. However, with a revolving student population, recent U-M students may not be aware of these resources or of many of the impactful programs that have come about as a result of the efforts of these leads.
“The most important thing is that we have these individuals in each of the units across campus because we want them to be embedded in the local environment of the unit they support,” said Tyne Lucas, senior program manager in the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. “They have a really good understanding of what climate issues exist in the school, college or unit they’re in, and they can be really responsive to student needs.”
“[DEI leads] can be really responsive to student needs.”
“For students,” Lucas emphasizes, “if they are experiencing climate issues, want to get involved in DEI, or just want to be connected in terms of events and activities, the DEI lead is going to be the person they want to know and be connected with.”
Since the launch of the first DEI Strategic Plan (1.0) back in 2016, many initiatives have been launched as a result of the dialogue between leads and students to better enhance the on-campus experience. As the University evaluates the efficacy of DEI 1.0 and prepares to launch DEI 2.0 in fall 2023, here are just a few of the programs that got their start during this time.
LSA’s Student Employee DEI Certificate program is unique in that all students who are employed within the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts are eligible to participate.
When designing this program, Kelly Maxwell, assistant dean for undergraduate education at LSA, remembers thinking, “what can we do that will be impactful over time for students?” She wanted a program that was “more sustained over time that can make a bigger impact on student’s lives.” In conversations with students, she [heard] that they “wanted transferable skills when they went out into their careers after graduation.”
The idea of a certificate-based program, where participants learned together as part of a cohort, was strategized as the best way to accomplish this. The program, which launched during the 2021-22 school year in a hybrid version, takes place in two parts—the first includes training and workshops around diversity-related issues in the workplace, followed by an independent project. Students must complete both parts in order to receive the certificate, which they can put on their resume and make known to future employers.
The program is a commitment, with Part I taking place over six sessions throughout the fall semester, while Part II takes place in the winter. The students receive a stipend for participating in the first part. “We’ve really tried to have interactive sessions that also offer applied learning. Students reflect on themselves, their jobs, their professional aspirations, applying what they’re learning to case studies,” said Jessica Garcia, LSA’s diversity, equity and inclusion manager.
With the second year of the program just beginning, both Garcia and Maxwell are optimistic about the impacts it will have on both the student participants and the school at large. “We’re creating some cultural change in LSA. As student employees—whatever their role is—if they have more knowledge around other identities, their own identities, and the impact they’re having, if they understand implicit bias, or how coded language can work, then they’re going to be more inclusive employees.”
During conversations with graduate students who identified as having disabilities, as well as advocates for students with disabilities, Ethriam Brammer, assistant dean and DEI lead at Rackham Graduate School, recalls being asked:
What [can] Rackham do better to accommodate the needs of grad students with disabilities? What [can] Rackham do better to accommodate the needs of grad students with disabilities?
It quickly became apparent that there was limited information available about the unique needs of master’s and doctoral students. “In general, when we talk about students with disabilities in the higher ed context, most is about undergrads,” notes Brammer. “One of the most common accommodations for undergrads is to give students time and a half. For many disabilities, that is a reasonable accommodation. However, time and a half to write a dissertation is not helpful. If you’re pursuing a doctorate that requires you to do field research, we have to think of accommodations outside of built infrastructure.” This is one of several ways in which the work of graduate students differs from their counterparts.
In early 2020, Rackham embarked upon a research project “to assess and understand the experiences of graduate students with disability accommodations in graduate and professional programs.” They received survey responses from 1,070 students; 349 identified as having a disability, and an additional 147 felt that they would benefit from accommodations. They also conducted six student focus groups in the winter of 2020 with 20 participants each. The Graduate Student with Needs Assessment was published at the end of 2020, at a time when most U-M students were learning remotely. However, graduate students were often the first requested back to campus, particularly those who worked in labs and whose research could not be completed from afar. For students with disabilities, who may have been at an increased risk for severe complications should they contract the coronavirus, accommodations were made for them to park closer to their workplaces so as not to have to take public transportation.
Another issue that the Needs Assessment highlighted was the struggle many encountered as both students and University employees, as the funding for many graduate students requires them to be employed as a graduate student instructor or research assistant. “Unfortunately, the ADA treats student accommodations differently from employee accommodations. There are two different offices on our campus, one that supports the needs of faculty and staff, and another that supports the needs of students. For a person with disabilities, it’s a fluid experience. Your disability profile didn’t change even though your employment classification did,” said Brammer. He also expressed that it is not uncommon for a student accommodation (which could include having special furniture or screens) to expire when the individual becomes an employee, even when working in the same office with the same needs.
The Needs Assessment is likely the first of its kind in higher education, and Brammer says it is a critical step in an ongoing process. “We are continuing to educate campus around all these nuances—the very important differences between grad and undergrad student populations and how disability and accommodations need to be treated differently for these two populations. We are also continuing to educate our faculty and the leadership within our graduate programs.”
The Trotter Multicultural Center is not new. Its storied history at the University of Michigan dates back to black student activism in the late 1960s. The original Trotter House opened in 1971 at the corners of South and East University Street as a Black Student Cultural Center, becoming the Trotter Multicultural Center in 1981. Student activism, a central tenant for many generations of U-M students, continued over the decades, and in 2014, Kyra Shahid, Trotter’s director, recalls that “the #BBUM Being Black at Michigan movement—that was the movement that was truly influential and spearheaded the movement to move Trotter to central campus.”
Students, too, were involved in creating the new space—“everything from the furniture choices to the word bubbles that are present in our meeting rooms, to students being influential in the naming of the Sankofa lounge and the photos in that space,” said Shahid.
Its move to central campus in 2019 recentered Trotter as a hub for student activities; however, the building has not been fully utilized due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The start of the 2022-23 academic year brings a busy slate of programming and activities, finally activating the space students have desired for so long.
Shahid started in her role in June 2022, and she says that her “charge when I started was to take Trotter’s mission and vision and put it into better alignment with the history and heritage of the center.” That mission of building upon its history “of strengthening relationships” and working to “disrupt patterns of inequity, restor[ing] and celebrat[ing] cultural heritages, and cultivat[ing] racial healing within student experiences” is at the fore of Shahid’s work.
The fact that the Trotter Center’s new director is also a DEI Lead within Student Life reiterates the intention of the space and the value of having leads actively engaged in these places. “That space being available for students, and particularly having a space where marginalized students can come together and be in community with one another is an important space on campus for students. Trotter in the past was a de facto space where people gathered, and it became a multicultural center,” said Tyne Lucas. “It’s now a bit more formalized with it coming to central campus.” Its current calendar suggests that it remains an important gathering space for U-M students.
A majority of the University of Michigan community rates progress made in the campus climate related to diversity, equity and inclusion as being much or somewhat better than at the start of the DEI strategic plan in 2016, according to results from a 2021 survey.
The data show 61% of U-M faculty rated the perception of DEI progress in 2021 as much or somewhat better than 2016, while 59% of staff and 57% of students rated progress as much or somewhat better. In addition, 28% of the faculty, 33% of staff and 37% of students reported the climate as about the same.
The 2021 sample survey results will inform next steps as the university plans its transition to DEI 2.0. Members of the U-M community are invited to further discuss the 2021 survey findings and compare them with the 2016 results at two on-campus sessions:
Both sessions will be livestreamed, recorded and posted on the U-M Diversity, Equity & Inclusion website. In addition, follow-up sessions with campus community groups will be available, as needed, in the future.
While reports of U-M’s DEI progress were overall positive, the survey findings also show that survey respondents in 2021 rated the climate more critically than did respondents in the 2016 sample.
For example, when faculty, staff and students were asked in 2016 if they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall climate at U-M, nearly 70% reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall climate at the university.
The 2021 survey showed a decrease in the percentage of all respondents reporting satisfaction with the overall climate at U-M, and this was consistent across faculty, staff and students. This pattern was similar for respondents’ personal climate experiences, such as feelings of belonging and value at the university.
The surveys were given during the two different years to provide a comparison of campus members’ climate perceptions at the beginning and end of the DEI 1.0 Strategic Plan period. As such, the two survey samples did not come from the same individuals.
The survey team also is considering ways the broader societal context may have contributed to community responses and why some climate experiences were reported less positively in 2021. Factors could include unprecedented elements of COVID-19, the racial reckoning in the United States that was sparked in 2020, and local and national political divisiveness and unrest.
“The feedback we received from the survey will help us understand the diversity of experiences of our campus community, which can further our efforts to support actions and practices that foster an inclusive living, learning and working environment,” said Tabbye Chavous, vice provost of equity and inclusion and chief diversity officer.
“Comparisons between the 2021 and 2016 survey results provide one important indicator of the university’s progress. Coupled with other forms of observable data and community feedback, the survey results will inform the university’s efforts to create an environment where everyone feels welcome, supported and valued, where all have equitable opportunities to thrive.”
The 2021 survey, which launched last fall, is a follow-up to the university’s 2016-17 DEI campus climate survey, which solicited the Ann Arbor campus community’s opinions and experiences related to diversity, equity and inclusion at U-M.
Survey data were collected in two ways. A census climate survey went to all campus members to ensure that each campus unit would have adequate representation. The data described above were drawn from a sample survey of 1,500 faculty, 3,500 staff and 3,500 students who received a slightly longer version of the climate survey, in order to adequately represent the U-M community.
The sample survey produced high response rates, with 64% for faculty respondents, 62% for staff and 49% for students. To safeguard privacy and confidentiality, both surveys were facilitated by SoundRocket, an independent, third-party company.
The campus climate survey data from 2016 was used as a benchmark and helped inform DEI 1.0 planning to support a diverse, equitable, inclusive and vibrant campus community.
The U-M community can expect to review high-level data findings in the public sessions and learn more in depth information about our community’s current experiences compared with the results from 2016.
The sessions also will explore in more depth and provide context on variation among identity groups’ responses to the climate surveys, and implications for supporting an environment that is diverse, equitable and inclusive for all.
The 2021 survey, developed by the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in consultation with a faculty advisory committee and the Institute for Social Research, asked questions about demographics, perceptions of the campus and DEI climates, interactions with other members of the university community and experiences of discrimination at U-M.
Additional high-level data points, which will also be shared in more depth at the public sessions, include:
One facet of the data looked at a student’s likelihood of having reported discrimination at U-M in the past year and found how the less privileged are more likely to experience U-M less positively.
For example, a student multivariate risk model to predict which social identities — including gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability status, and racial and ethnic identities — were more likely to report feeling discriminated against at U-M in the past year found that members of the LGBTQ+ community and those students who reported a disability were more likely to report feeling discriminated against in the past year when compared to their counterparts.
Additionally, African American, Asian American and Hispanic students were more likely to report feeling discriminated against when compared to white students. Similar findings were reported for faculty and staff for other variables related to their experiences at U-M.
A key element behind the value of the data collection is that the survey collected demographic data not collected elsewhere on campus. For example, in the demographic section, information was gathered on religious affiliation, sexual orientation, political orientation and more. Data collected for this initiative expands what is captured in other traditional institution data sources.
Mental and physical well-being data was collected in 2021 that was not part of the 2016 survey. This unique aspect of the 2021 survey grew out of the COVID-19 pandemic and related societal challenges.
The 2021 results show significant proportions of U-M faculty, staff and students self-reported mental health challenges. The sample survey reported that 55% of faculty, 43% staff and 25% students rated their mental health as “fair” or “poor” in 2021.
When looking at how well U-M is doing on DEI issues compared with other institutions, 40% of faculty, 48% of staff and 50% of students reported U-M is best or better than most institutions.
In addition, 53% of faculty, 47% of staff and 44% of students reported that U-M is about equal in DEI compared with other institutions. Overall, a large majority reported efforts at U-M as being best, better than most or about equal.
U-M faculty, staff and students are invited to further discuss the findings from 2021 and compare them with the 2016 results at the Sept. 27 and Oct. 6 sessions.
Furthermore, the university is preparing to establish a faculty working group in early 2023 to engage deeper analysis of the campus climate survey results.
The 2020-21 academic year marked the conclusion of the university’s initial Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Five-Year Strategic Plan, known as DEI 1.0. It also marked the beginning of a yearlong evaluation process in which central and unit-level content and actions from DEI 1.0 were thoroughly assessed.
Findings from the evaluation period will be shared this fall in conjunction with the annual DEI Summit. The DEI Summit will launch Oct. 12, with the Community Assembly & Discussion, and a special DEI 1.0 Evaluation Report information session will take place Oct. 19 and will help guide a yearlong planning phase for the university’s next DEI strategic plan, DEI 2.0.
The second five-year initiative will launch in October 2023.
This article originally appeared in the Monday, September 26, 2022 edition of The University Record
To the University Community,
As I begin my tenure as U-M’s Vice Provost for Equity & Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer, I’m excited for what the future holds, and I am humbled to lead and collaborate with our University community in the next phase of our diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
As a member of the University of Michigan community for nearly 24 years–as a faculty member and administrator–I’ve learned so much about this institution. The people, passion, and innovative approach to all we do are what truly make U-M a place like none other. With this experience also comes a renewed commitment to learning from our community – to better understand what has worked, what we can improve upon, and what still needs to be done in order to help make U-M a place where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and be successful.
A phrase that I use often is that “two things can be true at the same time.” Indeed, as a woman of color in this society, the experience of living with multiple truths is a familiar one and is an experience that is shared by many members of historically marginalized communities and their allies. That is, we can acknowledge and celebrate ways that–through the strategy and efforts of many–we have made tremendous progress over time as an institution and society with regard to advancing opportunity, access, and equity for many individuals and groups.
At the same time, we also recognize a reality where interconnected systems of gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic and ability-status inequalities (among multiple types of inequality) still exist and are still embedded in our societal and institutional practices and processes in ways that can cause and reinforce harm and prevent equitable thriving opportunities for all.
Understanding and acting on these multiple truths is the ongoing work of DEI.
As we continue to move forward together on this journey, our success will require involvement from our entire community – faculty, staff, and students. This is our university, our community, and a diverse range of perspectives derived from all of us is essential to becoming the University we want to be.
Throughout the University’s initial five-year DEI strategic plan (DEI 1.0), we have made substantial progress through approximately 2,700 action items that were developed and executed by our community. These actions focused on improving access, representation, and experiences among our students, staff, and faculty. Although the first phase of our DEI plan has concluded (DEI 1.0), the work has not ceased. Throughout this spring and summer, our Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion has reviewed each of our 51 campus units’ evaluations of their own DEI 1.0 plan efforts – including successes, challenges and stumbling blocks, and key lessons learned. Our Office also led community conversation sessions with faculty, staff and students to help us better understand what will be required of us as an institution to be successful moving forward. These efforts, among others, are part of our continued commitment to DEI as we build toward our next DEI strategic plan (DEI 2.0).
With a new academic year just around the corner, I’m eager to connect with our student, faculty and staff communities, and begin our next phase of this crucial work.
I wish all of you a great remainder of your summer and look forward to collaborating with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Dr. Tabbye Chavous
Vice Provost for Equity and Inclusion
Chief Diversity Officer
Skepticism remains nationally over diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education.
The recent report “Racial and Ethnic Equity in U.S. Higher Education” indicates that since 2020 more than 130 research institutions have publicly shared plans or aspirations to diversify their student bodies and workforces, and build equitable and inclusive communities where people of color have access to the same resources as white students and feel like they belong.
But despite these good intentions, it has been difficult to move the needle as it relates to representation, and inequalities persist for underrepresented groups.
Although DEI work is difficult and progress can feel slow, leaders across the University of Michigan say they are steadfastly committed to DEI for the long term, and they point to academic excellence as the through-line for why it is so important.
“We simply cannot fulfill the mission of the university without a commitment to DEI,” said Sheri Notaro, DEI director for the Institute for Social Research. “The promise for higher education really is access and opportunity for all.”
In her work, Notaro oversees the implementation of the ISR DEI Strategic Plan, as well as the activities of four working groups that focus on specific components of the plan.
In 2016, U-M launched its first diversity, equity and inclusion five-year strategic plan and named Robert Sellers the university’s first chief diversity officer.
The plan represented the shared and overarching themes and strategies represented in 50 individual DEI plans created by the university’s 19 schools and colleges, Student Life, Athletics, Michigan Medicine and other administrative units across campus.
Since then, U-M has seen institutional success in the areas of DEI skill building, new policies and processes, new and expanded DEI community support, accessibility and affordability.
Before blindly committing to a new plan however, Sellers — who will soon turn the CDO title over to Tabbye M. Chavous — and Katrina Wade-Golden, deputy chief diversity officer and director of implementation for the campuswide DEI Strategic Plan, have been intentional about ensuring the university’s next plan is meaningful and its outcomes can be measured.
“The past five years have yielded experience and data that allows us to sharpen our approach and act with increased precision and skill,” Wade-Golden said. “As we evaluate our initial plan, we are seeing positive results in a number of student, faculty and staff focused initiatives.”
Following a year of evaluation and another year of community engagement, the university is set to launch DEI 2.0 in October 2023. An evaluation report, highlighting DEI successes and areas of opportunity, will be shared during this year’s Annual DEI Summit in October.
This summer, the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion brought together university leadership teams — including deans, executive officers and unit directors — and DEI implementation leads representing the 50 planning units for a series of full-day retreats in which participants reflected on the outcomes of the previous plan and strategized for DEI 2.0.
The groups took inventory of existing initiatives and activities, assessed resources, identified areas for partnership and collaboration, and began to develop measurable strategic goals and priorities for the future.
The retreats also provided a space for colleagues to reconnect after nearly two years of working virtually, and to re-energize. Many of U-M’s DEI leaders are the first to respond when the campus community is grappling with societal racial tensions and the residual impacts of a global pandemic.
“I heard from others that this work can be hard and lonely,” said Tiffany Marra, the director of the Center for the Education of Women+ and who has worked at the university for 21 years. “The retreat gave us a chance to discuss some of the challenges we were facing individually, but hearing others talk about their challenges gave me reassurance that I wasn’t alone.”
CEW+ provides immediate and ongoing services and the financial support needed to ensure educational success and degree completion. Women and underserved students are CEW+’s primary constituency, but all students are welcome.
The university’s DEI journey has revealed that the pursuit of a diverse academic environment is challenging. And that within any diverse organization, there will be competing priorities and not everyone will agree.
But, while coming to a consensus about how this work should be carried might be difficult, committing to the work is without question.
“It can feel like investing time, energy and resources into diversity, equity and inclusion takes those things away from other institutional priorities,” said Jessica Garcia, DEI manager for LSA. “But (DEI) is all of our responsibilities because it helps us achieve our mission of academic excellence.
“We must demonstrate our commitment to learn, commitment to listen, commitment to resources, commitment in the face of resistance and competing priorities, and commitment to keep working at it because this work takes time. It is not a quick fix, and it’s never done.”
This article originally appeared in the July 25, 2022 edition of The University Record