Click here for table of Contents
Click here for next Sub-Committee Reports

“The process of maturing intellectually within an environment of people from diverse backgrounds, values, and perspectives on the world is an essential aspect of education.”
(AAU, July 6, 2006)

A GUIDE TO THIS REPORT
WHAT IS CAMPUS CLIMATE?
Click here for pdf format

In 2005, AAC&U’s publication “Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions” stated, “…educational excellence cannot be envisioned, discussed, or enacted without close attention being paid to inclusion.”

In her invitation to members of the campus community to serve on the Campus Climate Task Force Steering Committee, President Kenny spoke of campus climate as “…the pervasive backdrop that motivates and inspires our work at Stony Brook, and key to creating an inclusive community characterized by a “can do” spirit and positive morale.” The Task Force has used this definition, and expanded it to include “… both policy and practice that refer to behaviors within a workplace or learning environment that can influence whether an individual feels safe, listened to, and treated fairly and with respect. It also refers to an organization’s structures, policies, and practices; the diversity of its faculty, staff and students; the attitudes and values of its members and leaders; and the quality of personal interactions and communication.”

HOW IS THIS REPORT AND ACTION PLAN DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS?

The Report and Action Plan of the President’s Task Force on Campus Climate has the ambitious goal of bringing about a lasting change in the campus culture. Therefore, the integration of the recommendations into campus life must follow a process different from the familiar standard operating procedures. This process will effectuate a cultural change with regard to all practices and all policies. Indeed, the success of the Action Plan depends on the implementation and integration of a communication process, outlined under the report’s section on “mapping,” that underpins all the recommendations.

Unless this different approach to communication and decision making becomes pervasive, the implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations will at best prove superficial and fleeting. In its deliberations over the past six months, the Task Force attempted to model this process, characterized by Cornell University as “360 degree communication”; and it now urges the campus community to do the same. For the past six months, posters around campus have proclaimed Stony Brook’s goal “…to become the most inclusive campus community in America.” To this end, the Task Force subcommittees invited participation of the entire campus via town hall meetings, interviews, focus groups, and dedicated web site correspondence, and maintained a high level of visibility for the project across the entire campus. Subcommittees shared their proceedings with one another, progress reports were given to the campus community, and feedback was sought and acted upon frequently. The reader may speculate about the impetus for approaching the implementation of the Task Force’s Action Plan differently than in the past, and the origins of the sense of urgency that characterizes this report.

WHY THIS REPORT?

For over two decades faculty, staff, and students have participated in committees and task forces focusing on how best to address the inevitable academic and social challenges associated with our dynamic and ever-changing campus environment. Typically, these groups produced institutional reports and recommendations that identified a range of issues from access to success of students, to brick and mortar, and from course content to addressing social life on the campus. These reports have resulted in successful diversity efforts that focused largely on the student body. We have been less successful in our efforts to bring more diversity to the faculty and staff. Put bluntly, our success has been within specific segments of the campus, but we have been less successful in providing university-wide attention to our diversity efforts. We believe that diversity and inclusion are not simply additions to the traditional mission of teaching, research, and service, but a prerequisite for its effective implementation.

Previous campus reports reveal a consistent pattern of recommendations that focus on a real need for the University to realistically address issues of diversity and inclusion in our policies and practices throughout all sectors of our campus community (see Appendix A). Whether by employment policies and practices that hinder diversity, attitudes bent on discouraging diversity and inclusion, or ignorance or indifference; these issues appear to remain largely ignored, unattended, or not fully addressed. The Campus Climate report documents a perception that institutional racism, homophobia, sexism and other forms of discrimination persist despite a common belief that we have made substantial progress in eliminating it.

No previous campus survey or report at Stony Brook University has focused solely on the perceptions of faculty and staff related to the overall climate on the campus. The Campus Climate Survey was an important step towards moving beyond simply identifying issues in an isolated fashion. We focus on the relationship of issues to one another and on taking a more holistic approach to developing a more effective change process. The data presented in the Campus Climate Survey will help change institutional behavior by identifying the existence or absence of diversity and inclusion while also documenting the experiences of faculty and staff throughout the campus. The survey also allows us to examine and dismantle assumptions or misconceptions that prove counter to our institution’s diversity goals. By examining data derived from within the campus, we are able to frame specific issues and seek solutions through a continuous process that allows us to identify areas for improvement and assess our effectiveness.

What is needed now is not just acknowledgement of what is wrong, but also an institutional commitment to do things differently. Precisely because the Campus Climate Report documents significant insights and individual experiences of faculty and staff on the campus, we are able to examine attitudes and behaviors that either enable or hinder our diversity efforts. More importantly, we are able to speak to a wider range of issues on how best to incorporate diversity and inclusion in both policies and practices. The task is difficult, but not impossible. In the future, the general test of our university will lie in our ability to align its policies and practices with its stated mission for diversity and inclusion—it is simply a matter of commitment and institutional will.

Gleaned from the results of the 2004 Campus Climate Survey, the 2004 Middle States Self-Study Report, the 2005 Graduate Student Survey, and statistics on the Stony Brook Workforce Ethnic Distribution, the following realities reflect the lived experience of people who work and learn at Stony Brook (for references to the full reports, see the “references” section of this document):

• Approximately 1/3 of employees do not feel like part of the family or team at Stony Brook. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• 3/5 do not believe that people of color always or mostly have a fair representation on policy or decision-making groups. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• ¾ do not believe that people with disabilities always or mostly have a fair representation on policy or decision-making groups. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Almost 30% had observed harassment on the basis of foreign accent over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Almost ¼ had observed harassment on the basis of gender over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Almost ¼ had observed sexual harassment over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• About ¼ of women report that they have observed both gender based and sexual harassment over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• While 9% of Whites agree with the statement that making fun of people based on their ethnicity is acceptable in their department, 27% of Asian/Pacific Islanders agree with this statement. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• About 20% of Blacks, Hispanics/Latino, Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native American/Alaskans report experiencing harassment based on ethnicity by faculty /staff over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• 32% of Asians/Pacific Islanders report experiencing harassment based on foreign accent by faculty/staff over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• 22% of Blacks report experiencing racist harassment by faculty/staff over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• While about 30% of Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos and Asians/Pacific Islanders report observing harassment on the basis of ethnicity by faculty/staff over the previous two years, 16% of Whites report similar observations. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• While about 10% of Christians report that they have observed religious harassment by faculty/staff over the previous two years, over 30% of Muslim/Islamic and over 20% of Hindu respondents report that they have observed religious harassment by faculty/staff over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Over 40% of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered respondents report that they have observed harassment based on sexual orientation by faculty/staff over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Over 15% fewer Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered respondents than Heterosexual respondents report that LGBT are always or mostly treated with respect by every occupational level of administration, faculty, immediate supervisor, professional and clerical staff, support staff and coworkers. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• While 15% of People without Disabilities said they would not choose to work at Stony Brook again, 24% of People with Disabilities say they would not choose to work at Stony Brook again. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Almost ¼ of People with Disabilities report that they have observed harassment based on disability by faculty/staff over the previous two years. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Nearly half (49.5%) of LGBT people are not “out” in their departments. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Nearly one quarter (24.1%) of employees at Stony Brook agreed with the statement “compared to men, women are appointed to less important committees and task forces.” (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Persons with disabilities were more likely than persons without disabilities to say that it is acceptable in their department/work unit to make fun of someone based on disability. 13.8% of people with disabilities reported that it is acceptable as compared to 6.6% of people without disabilities. (2004 Campus Climate Survey)
• Students were asked whether they have observed faculty members denigrating students, i.e. insults, name calling, derogatory remarks with regard to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age country of origin, etc. 15% answered yes, and 7% said they were not entirely sure. (2005 Graduate Student Survey)
• As part of the 2002-2004 Self Study for the Middle States Accreditation, it was found that only 48% of faculty could agree with the statement that Stony Brook has a somewhat or strong sense of community (p. 81)
• The percent of tenured faculty who were Black at Stony Brook rose from 2.4% in 1995-6 to 3.1 in 2005-6 an increase of 7/10 of a percent in ten years. (Stony Brook Workforce Ethnic Distribution)
• The percent of executive/management employees at Stony Brook who were Hispanic decreased from 4% in 1995-6 to 3.8% in 2005-6. (Stony Brook Workforce Ethnic Distribution)
• The percent of executive/management employees at Stony Brook who were Black decreased from 9.6% in 1995-6 to 4.8% in 2005-6. (Stony Brook Workforce Ethnic Distribution)
• The percent of employees on both State and RF payroll at Stony Brook who were Native American remained static at .1% from 1995-6 to 2005-6. (Stony Brook Workforce Ethnic Distribution)

WHAT ARE THE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKS?
Click here for pdf format

Seeking to benefit from the experience of others who have studied these issues and implemented an institutional culture change, the Task Force looked to the best practices of leading educational institutions and corporations for insight.

The Netter Principles

The 1999 Cornell University Netter Seminar brought together organizational leaders, workplace practitioners and trainer/educators from public, private, and non-profit organizations as well as academia to explore the question: What will an inclusive organization look like when it’s achieved? There was agreement on twelve qualities or attributes that describe workplace inclusion. In no priority order, they are as follows:

The Twelve Attributes of Inclusive Organizations

• Demonstrated Commitment to Diversity;
• Holistic View of the Employees and the Organization;
• Access to Opportunity; Accommodation for Diverse Physical & Developmental Abilities;
• Equitable Systems for Recognition, Acknowledgement & Reward;
• Shared Accountability and Responsibility;
• 360 Degree Communication and Information Sharing;
• Demonstrated Commitment to Continuous Learning;
• Participatory Work Organization and Work Process;
• Recognition of Organizational Culture and Process;
• Collaborative Conflict Resolution Processes;
• Demonstrated Commitment to Community Relationships.

The Case for Inclusion from the Corporate Perspective

While the business of a University is typically not seen as that of a corporate setting, it can be argued that the goals of an efficient, productive and “customer” responsive workforce are clearly parallel. Corporate culture has, over the last thirty years, faced the necessity to address issues related to diversity and inclusion, at first in response to regulatory pressures, but increasingly in response to pressures from changing demographics of the workforce, the marketplace and the customer base. Indeed, beyond the issue of good will, the University faces the same pressures as those in the corporate realm to incorporate inclusion and diversity management as central elements of its mission and practice.

Diversity management has been described as looking at:

1. the mind set of an organization;
2. the climate of an organization; and
3. the different perspectives people bring to an organization due to race, workplace styles, disabilities, and other differences.

Reichenberg, Neil E. 2001. “Best Practices in Diversity Management”
United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Managing Diversity in the Civil Service
United Nations Headquarters, New York, 3 - 4 May 2001.

There are several angles from which to assess the “business case” for diversity. These include:

1. The changing demographics of the workforce;
2. The demographics of the “customer” (student, patient, client) base;
3. The cost of neglecting issues of equal opportunity;
4. Changes in productivity by employees;
5. The cost of employee turnover;
6. Benchmarks established by successful corporations;
7. The correlation between employee and customer satisfaction;
8. The correlation between employee satisfaction and employee commitment to the company;
9. he correlation between employee commitment and returns to shareholders, i.e. profit;
10. The correlation between corporate embracing of diversity and returns on investment.

1. The changing demographics of the workforce

• According to Workforce 2000, minorities, women, and immigrants accounted for 85 percent of the growth in the American work force between 1985 and 2000. The highest rate of increase was experienced by Asian Americans and Hispanics.

  Lopez-Campillo, (n.d.) Cultural Differences in the Workplace: Stereotypes vs. Sensitivity

• The Hudson Institute's "Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21st Century," predicts increasing ethnic diversity and the aging of the available workforce as having an impact on the economy. The aging population in upper management will place a strain on government agencies as they begin to retire. In the private sector, organizations realize the importance of human capital to profitability and obtaining a competitive advantage, and are more willing to invest revenue to respond to the challenges of a diverse workforce

  Joann, Charles, (2003) Diversity Management: An Exploratory Assessment of Minority Group Representation in State Government Public Personnel Management, Winter. p.2.

2. The demographics of the “customer” (student, patient, client) base

• Women today purchase 70 to 80 percent of all products; African-Americans spend nearly $500 billion each year on goods and services; and Hispanics comprise one of the fastest-growing consumer groups in the country. A reputation for fair treatment is one of the primary reasons women and minority consumers say they remain loyal to a company.
  “Reaping the Bottom Line Benefits of Diversity” Executive Update Feature. ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership July 2000.
  
• By the end of this year (2000), it is estimated that ethnic markets will comprise more than 30% of the total U.S. market. Also, women are the primary investors in more than half of U.S. households.

  Lopez-Campillo, (n.d.) Cultural Differences in the Workplace: Stereotypes vs. Sensitivity

3. The cost of neglecting issues of equal opportunity

• In 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) resolved over 95,000 cases and awarded monetary benefits of $310.5 billion

  Peter Skalak(2004) – “Diversity boosts business success” Peopleclick Research Institute.
  

• Turning to the micro level, Ashenfelter and Pencavel’s 1976 study of AT&T estimated that by eliminating discrimination based on gender alone, the company could realize cost savings of nearly 4%. In their study on the costs of occupational sex discrimination Dunnette and Motowidlo (1982) estimated that over a ten year period, the net loss to the organization (unnamed) due to excluding women was $7,200 for each person hired (p.16).

  Bates, Michael and David Este. (2000). Creating Workplace Environments That Reflect Human Rights Values: Human Rights and Corporate Productivity” Cultural Diversity Institute as a joint educational initiative of the federal, provincial and territorial human rights commissions May 2000.

4. Changes in productivity by employees

• Employee commitment is associated with job performance. Employees who are committed to an organization work harder and are more productive in their jobs than employees with weak commitment, as measured by sales figures (Bashaw and Grant, 1994), control of operational costs (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987), and supervisors' ratings of overall work performance (Moorman, Niehoff, and Organ, 1993).
  WFD Consulting (2005) “The Business Case”
  

5. The cost of employee turnover

• A recent study by Merck & Company, Hewlett Packard, KPMG and Fortune concludes that the costs associated with the turnover of one employee can run as high as 1.5 times the employee’s salary (p16).

  Bates, Michael and David Este May (2000). Creating Workplace Environments that Reflect Human Rights Values. Cultural Diversity Institute at the University of Calgary..
  

• According to Poole (1997) an initiative of Deloitte and Touche, a large accounting, tax and consulting firm, to address gender equity resulted in a 3.5% decrease in the turnover of managers and an 8.6% reduction in the loss of senior managers.

  Poole, P.J. (1997). Diversity Success Stories. In P.J. Poole Ed. Diversity: A Business Advantage. Altona Manitoba.

• In a study by Johnsrud et al. (2000), the researchers found a strong relationship between morale and midlevel administrators’ intent to leave a job.

  Johnsrud, Linda K., Heck, Ronald H. and Vicki J Srosser. “Morale Matters: Midlevel Administrators and their intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 17(1) Jan-Feb 2000, 34-59.

6. Benchmarks established by successful corporations

• 75% of Fortune 500 companies had programs promoting diversity. By definition, Fortune 500 companies are highly productive.

  Bates, Michael and David Este. (2000). Creating Workplace Environments That Reflect Human Rights Values: Human Rights and Corporate Productivity” Cultural Diversity Institute as a joint educational initiative of the federal, provincial and territorial human rights commissions May 2000
  

7. The correlation between employee and customer satisfaction

• Employee attitudes drive both customer satisfaction and revenue. A study at Sears found that every 5 percent improvement in employee attitudes drives a 1.3 percent improvement in customer satisfaction and a .5 percent growth in store revenues (Rucci, Kirn, and Quinn, 1998). In another study, Xerox used a management and measurement system that enabled the company to track relationships between employee attitudes and behaviors, customer satisfaction, and profitability. The company found a tight link between employee satisfaction measures and customer results (Barr, 1998).

  WFD Consulting (2005) “The Business Case”
  

• Employee retention is a key driver of customer retention, which in turn is a key driver of company growth and profits. Research at MBNA's credit card business showed that a 5 percent increase in employee retention translates into a 125 percent increase in per-customer profits (Reichheld, 1996). Another study showed that a 7 percent decrease in employee turnover led to increases of more than $27,000 in sales per employee and almost $4,000 in profits per employee (Huselid and Becker, 1995).

  WFD Consulting (2005) “The Business Case”
  

8. The correlation between employee satisfaction and employee commitment to the company

• Employees who have supportive work environments (including some flexibility and control over their work, fair and respectful supervisors, and a culture that accepts people as they are and that values differences) report greater job satisfaction and more commitment to helping their companies succeed (1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce, Families and Work Institute).
  WFD Consulting (2005) “The Business Case”
  

9. The correlation between employee commitment and returns to shareholders, i.e., profit

• Companies with highly committed employees had a 112 percent return to shareholders over three years, compared to 90 percent for companies with average commitment, and 76 percent for companies with low commitment (2000 Study by).

  Watson Wyatt Worldwide.(2006). WorkUSA 2000 - Employee Commitment and the Bottom Line

10. The correlation between corporate embracing of diversity and returns on investment

• …private companies with the highest rating on equal employment opportunities have performed better in the stock market than companies with poor performances in areas related to hiring and advancing women and nonwhites. According to research conducted by Covenant Investment Management, the earnings of these highly ranked companies were two and a half times higher on average.

  Diversity Return on Investment. (n.d.). Making the Business Case for Diversity.
  

• Richard (2000) of Louisiana Tech University conducted a study that demonstrates that “in association with growth, racial diversity enhances productivity, and this relationship intensifies as strategic growth increases” (p.171).

  Richard, Orlando C. “Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based View.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, (pp.164-1).

The Case for Inclusion from the Higher Education Perspective

“The process of maturing intellectually within an environment of people from diverse backgrounds, values, and perspectives on the world is an essential aspect of education.”
(AAU, July 6, 2006)

Diverse institutions need to be inclusive. The data in this report demonstrate the university’s efforts to increase diversity within the faculty, staff, and students. Yet, the Campus Climate Survey outcomes suggest a need to recognize the role of inclusion and its impact on campus climate. We believe that engaging diversity within a dynamic ever-changing campus environment must consider multiple facets and a practiced belief that diversity and inclusion are always a work in progress.

The terms compliance, diversity, and inclusion are often used interchangeably, suggesting that there is little or no difference in these terms. For the purposes of this report we define these terms as:

• Compliance brings people into an organization.
• Diversity demonstrates an appreciation for their differences.
• Inclusion creates an environment in which people want to stay.

Most would agree that a well educated populace is a desirable goal and benefits society. A number of reports point out the positive returns to education generally demonstrating the correlation of education with financial and social returns to the individual and society at large. Among the benefits cited are increased tax revenues, higher salaries and benefits, reduced crime, and improved quality of life (IHEP, 1998; Baum and Payea, 2004; Weiss). Other research has linked the importance of high quality education to economic growth (Carnavale and Desrochers, 2001). However, our society has less agreement on how that desired goal can be achieved with both diversity and inclusion among students, faculty and staff.

Diversity and inclusion are matters of both form and substance. Jeffery Milem and his colleagues (Milem, 2005) identify three types of diversity strategies for college campuses: compositional diversity, which is the numerical and proportional representation of students, faculty, and staff from different racial and ethnic backgrounds in a student body; diversity of interactions, through which people gain exposure to alternative views and ideas by interacting with people different from themselves; and institutional diversity-related initiatives, which are activities and events that address issues of diversity, such as ethnic studies courses, structure dialogues, workshops, etc.

Similarly, Gurin (1999) focuses on three types of diversity: structural diversity: The extent to which a campus has a diverse student body; classroom diversity: The extent to which classes address knowledge about diverse groups and issues of diversity as part of the curriculum; informal interactional diversity: The extent to which the campus provides opportunities for informal interaction across diverse groups. She found that structural diversity was necessary, but not sufficient enough to produce benefits. While each of these strategies is sometimes defined and implemented as a singular goal and ends within themselves, this report supports a multidimensional approach that recognizes the impact of each upon the other.

Recent research provides empirical support for the value of diversity in the academic and social development of college students. These studies show that students who graduate from campuses having a more diverse setting are better prepared for participation in a democratic society. (Milem, et. al, 2005 (ACE and AAUP). These studies have also shown that the educational benefits are greater when students are in a sustained and coordinated diversity effort rather than simply settings emphasizing numerical diversity only (Chang, M.J., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. 2003).

While most faculty believe in and recognize the importance of diversity, they often have ambivalent feelings about how best to achieve it. Recent data indicate that 90 percent of the 55,000 Research-I university faculty respondents surveyed by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA agreed that “a racially/ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational experience of all students. Almost 60 percent thought that undergraduate education should enhance students knowledge of and appreciation for other ethnic/racial groups. At the same time, however, almost 30 percent agreed that “promoting diversity leads to the admission of too many underprepared students” in the name of diversity.

These studies open fresh opportunities for faculty and staff to examine the extent to which they have internalized the diversity values of the university and practice inclusion. The studies challenge them to capitalize on the campus’ diversity efforts within the departments, classrooms, and work units. If faculty and staff members view diversity as either unimportant or irrelevant to teaching, learning, or a positive campus climate they will likely ignore it in their classrooms and work units. The result will be that institutions as a whole will be likely to derive little, if any, benefit from diversity. Without courage, action, and accountability most efforts to increase diversity will not go beyond lip service and slogans.

Any serious discussion about creating a campus climate must take into account a need to emphasize diversity and inclusion through all policies and all practices. The recommendations within this report recognize a need for specific structural and behavior changes aimed at maximizing the benefits of diversity. A commitment to the hiring of diverse faculty and students, encouragement and fostering of interracial contact, provision of safe cultural spaces, rewards and support for pedagogical practices to achieve diversity, and an assessment of diversity efforts lead a long list of necessary ingredients for a positive campus climate. We believe that diversity and inclusion are not simply additions to the mission of the university, but prerequisites to its effective implementation (Milem, J.F., Chang, M.J., Antonio, A.L. 2005).

WHAT ARE THE INTERNAL BENCHMARKS?
Click here for pdf format

Stony Brook’s Mission Statement and Statement of Community

In addition to the Netter Principles, Stony Brook’s five-fold mission and its statement of community comprised the basis and context for the work of the Campus Climate Task Force, and continue to provide the guiding purpose for the work of every individual and group of the campus community.

Stony Brook University has a Five Part Mission:

• to provide comprehensive undergraduate, graduate, and professional education of the highest quality;
• to carry out research and intellectual endeavors of the highest international standards that advance theoretical knowledge and are of immediate and long-range practical significance;
• to provide leadership for economic growth, technology, and culture for neighboring communities and the wider geographic region;
• to provide state-of-the-art innovative health care, while serving as a resource to a regional health care network and to the traditionally underserved;
• to fulfill these objectives while celebrating diversity and positioning the University in the global community.

In 1999-2000, the campus community approved the “Statement of Community,” in which the members of the campus asserted …
Statement of Community

“As members of Stony Brook University, we acknowledge that the primary purpose of this community is education, including academic achievement, social development,
and personal growth.

In committing ourselves to study and work at Stony Brook, we agree to promote equality, civility, caring, responsibility, accountability, and respect. We also recognize the importance of understanding and appreciating our differences and similarities.

As members of a respectful community, we will not encroach on the rights of others, either as individuals or as groups. We recognize that freedom of expression and opinion entails an obligation to listen to and understand the beliefs and opinions of others, and to treat others fairly. We strive to be a responsible community. We are accountable individually for our personal behavior and development, and collectively for the welfare of the community itself.

We encourage all Stony Brook community members to celebrate and express pride in our community’s academic, athletic, and social accomplishments, and to involve themselves in the surrounding local and global communities. In affirming this statement, we commit ourselves to becoming dedicated, active, and full members of Stony Brook University in each
and every role we assume.”
The Campus Climate Task Force accomplished its work while mindful that these two guiding documents must be the inspiration for all its efforts, and that the process by which recommendations were devised had to model adherence to the principles contained in both documents, and in Cornell’s “Attributes of Inclusive Organizations” (The Netter Principles)

DO HOW WE BEGIN?
Click here for pdf format

Associated Communication and Mapping Process for the Action Plan

The Action Plan of the Campus Climate Task Force is intended to institutionalize a cultural change on campus characterized by respect, communication, and inclusion. The Task Force notes the need to change entrenched patterns of poor communication where they exist, and the systemic exclusion of stakeholders, particularly those who are ethnically or culturally not of the majority group. Although many of the specific recommendations of the subcommittees addressed specific actions to address these issues, the process for implementing those actions and for ensuring an ongoing positive climate must itself model the “attributes of inclusive organizations.” It must engage the vice presidents who are charged with the ultimate responsibility for implementation and their constituents within their respective divisions in an ongoing dialogue the outcome of which is a cultural change that is felt. In some instances, this dialogue needs to take place across traditional divisional lines as well.

Therefore, to assist in this process and to encourage on-going institutionalization of the action items contained in the Task Force report, the following is given as the communication process of “mapping” for the implementation of the Task Force action items.

These are the few essential elements of each recommendation geared to ensure consistent implementation:

For all Sub-Committee recommendations, "mapping" is defined by the following:

Specific Responsibilities:

Task Force Objectives

President Shirley Strum Kenny convened the Steering Committee of the Task Force for its first meeting on November 29, 2005, charging the group with several objectives:

In addition, the Task Force wanted to ensure that the process of devising the draft action plan modeled many of the 12 attributes of inclusive organizations. A complete description of the rationale for the Campus Climate Survey, the decisions and processes that preceded and followed the appointment of the Steering Committee, a listing of the membership of the Steering and Subcommittees, a description of the process that will follow the release of this draft report to the campus community, and an emphasis on the important overriding role of accountability, please refer to page 56.

THE REPORTS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES
SELECT HIGH IMPACT, LOW RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION
Click here for pdf format
We recommend that a few items from various subcommittees, which appear to require minimum institutional resources and are urgent, be implemented as early as the fall 2006 semester with the approval of the President. Only the actual recommendations are listed here. For more complete information, including the identification of the parties responsible for implementation, the implementation date, the expected outcomes, and the means of assessing each, see the full reports of the subcommittees that follow the bulleted items below. The urgent and high impact, low resource recommendations are:

Click here for table of Contents
Click here for next Sub-Committee Reports