The newly released University of California campus climate survey is at best an affirmation of grievances already raised, and at worst, methodologically faulty and politically motivated.
Fact finding is, without a doubt, vital to an enterprise as intricate as improving campus climate. But the long-awaited survey results lack a tangible road map for combating an unhealthy learning environment. Furthermore, administrators must note that simply publishing the survey does not constitute an attempt to fix the problems it illuminates.
According to the survey, roughly a quarter of students at UCLA reported they personally experienced exclusionary, offensive, intimidating or hostile conduct. Whether or not this statistic – one in four – is alarming, it essentially says nothing new or constructive about the university’s campus climate.
During the last few years, UCLA has witnessed students raise heartfelt complaints about macroaggressions and microaggressions occurring in class or on campus. Discussions about passing an Undergraduate Students Association Council divestment resolution revealed a deep divide between various populations at UCLA, with students on each side alleging disrespect and ill will from the other.
Perhaps the first step is to truly recognize the gravity of the students’ concerns and rid ourselves of the naivete that suggests a large-scale study can be a solution.
Campus climate does not exist in a vacuum – a poor campus climate reflects inequality and oppression that are deeply ingrained in social structures persisting outside the University that have been established and reaffirmed for centuries. Certainly, these are serious, difficult challenges that require a genuine commitment and an appreciation of urgency.
While numerous administrators said the report is central to systemwide effort on campus climate, various students, including former Student Regent Jonathan Stein, were more skeptical. During his term as student regent-designate and student regent, Stein said while the administrators’ survey efforts are well-intentioned, the approach lacks the ability to promptly address immediate problems, and he reacted by implementing a separate student-run committee on campus climate.
Additionally, the survey failed to address potential response bias, which was directly pointed out to report authors by the UCLA Faculty Welfare Committee prior to its publishing. The committee said that a voluntary survey of its length, which totaled 93 questions, would yield a low response rate and therefore produce unfixable biases in the results. The survey disregarded these concerns and ultimately fell below its intended response target of 30 percent, likely producing skewed results.
It is unclear why the University ignored concerns about a flawed methodology. Regardless, administrators were negligent in their decision to do so, particularly in spite of publicly touting diversity and inclusion as fundamental values of our campuses.
If administrators are sincerely motivated by enhancing the spirit of free speech and constructive interactions between all members of the University, this board believes its efforts should move far beyond a survey that takes more than a year to complete and depends on defective methodology. Students’ shared experiences of hostility should not need a UC president-commissioned report to be valid in their own right.