Abstract
ABSTRACT
In April 2011, a nationwide survey of all 28 US veterinary schools was conducted to determine the comfort level (college climate) of veterinary medical students with people from whom they are different. The original hypothesis was that some historically underrepresented students, especially those who may exhibit differences from the predominant race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, experience a less welcoming college climate. Nearly half of all US students responded to the survey, allowing investigators to make conclusions from the resulting data at a 99% CI with an error rate of less than 2% using Fowler's sample-size formula. Valuable information was captured despite a few study limitations, such as occasional spurious data reporting and little ability to respond in an open-ended manner (most questions had a finite number of allowed responses). The data suggest that while overall the majority of the student population is comfortable in American colleges, some individuals who are underrepresented in veterinary medicine (URVM) may not feel the same level of acceptance or inclusivity on veterinary school campuses. Further examination of these data sets may explain some of the unacceptably lower retention rates of some of these URVM students on campuses.
Veterinary medicine has been considered one of the least diverse professional fields.1,2 As schools and colleges of veterinary medicine strive for admission goals that meet the needs of society, a non-supportive college climate associated with low diversity and poor inclusivity at veterinary institutions has been suggested as a major barrier to recruitment and retention of individuals from various groups underrepresented in veterinary medicine (URVM).3–6 The term URVM refers to groups considered underrepresented in veterinary medicine that may not be considered as such in other areas of science. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at some colleges of veterinary medicine, unacceptably low retention rates of URVM students may be the result of hostile college climates.7 As veterinary medicine works to improve diversity and inclusivity in the profession, addressing college climate is an important and necessary component in any comprehensive plan. While the very presence of individuals from different backgrounds results in diversity, college climate on the other hand refers to the experiences and perceptions of individuals and groups in a college and the interaction among those various groups and individuals. Diversity and inclusivity efforts are not complete unless they also address college climate.
College climate consists of four dimensions: the campus history with respect to diversity, its structural or representative diversity, the psychological climate of the campus, and the behavioral climate of the campus.8 Taken together, these dimensions compose the students' “total environment.”9 Although the definition of individual comfort is arguably elusive and highly dependent on contextual usage,10,11 students' perceptions about their relative comfort in their environments are considered an appropriate methodology for assessing the psychological and behavioral components of institutional climate.12–14
Higher education literature has long explored and documented the impact of college climate on student growth and learning.15,16 There is evidence that a climate of acceptance and understanding of differences is pertinent to successful professional medical education of both majority and minority students.15 In addition, literature exploring climate in medical schools reveals that the attitudes and values that medical-school graduates bring to the profession are, in many cases, either started or molded in the medical-school curriculum, both in the classrooms and teaching hospitals and during informal interchanges between faculty, staff, and students.8,17–19
Recognizing the critical role of a supportive college climate is a key factor in ensuring that veterinary medical institutions are both welcoming and inclusive of all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or other areas of difference.3–6 This inclusivity not only reduces the stress of students within the curriculum, but also helps prepare the students for life as veterinary professionals. If students experience college climates that reinforce positive interactions with people who are different, these values will carry over into their interactions post-graduation, resulting in a professional who is able to interact and communicate effectively with a broad spectrum of clientele.17,20 The extent to which veterinary medical institutions are able to effectively carry out their mission of educating and producing successful veterinarians depends in part on the campus climate.
In 2010, the University of Georgia (UGA) College Of Veterinary Medicine hosted the second Southeast Regional DiVersity Matters Symposium, focused on the 10 schools and colleges of veterinary medicine in that region of the country. The title of the symposium was “Diversity and Veterinary Medical Education: Building on Our Individual and Collective Strengths,” and the symposium focused on the importance of a supportive college climate for veterinary students, faculty, and staff. The intended outcome of the symposium was to compile best practices on how each institution might conduct an individual climate assessment; the concluding recommendation was that a collective climate assessment of all 10 original conference institutions be conducted.
A working group was formed, and in the summer and fall of 2010, the working group developed a research instrument to be used at institutions and administered through the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC). In the fall, the group recommended that the climate assessment be opened to all schools and colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States. Two members of the working group, the authors of this article, emerged as the principal investigators on the project. The research instrument focused on five areas: demographic data collection, students' perception of institutional attitudes towards diversity, students' perceived levels of comfort, students' experiences with incidents of harassment at the schools and colleges of veterinary medicine, and faculty–student interactions.
A quantitative questionnaire was developed by the planning committee of the Southeastern Regional DiVersity Matters Symposium following the February 2010 Symposium meeting. Discussions held at the May 2010 Iverson Bell Regional Diversity Summit at Purdue University led to the national expansion of the survey to all 28 US colleges and schools of veterinary medicine. The survey instrument was reviewed and vetted by senior staff and leadership from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). The resulting survey highlighted questions designed to gauge student perceptions about comfort level, tolerance, and acceptance and harassing behavior within the veterinary school or college.
In the survey (Appendix 1), 12 questions addressed demographics, 7 explored comfort levels, 6 explored intolerant language heard in schools and colleges of veterinary medicine, 7 examined institutional/community support around areas of difference, 7 investigated harassment, 6 explored co-curricular offerings around difference, 4 delved into faculty–student relationships, and 2 inquired about specific institutional perceptions.
The survey was pre-tested on a cross section of students and refined accordingly based on their feedback. In an effort to raise awareness about the upcoming survey, a climate-survey workshop was held in early March 2011 during the 18th Iverson Bell Symposium. Attendees received a copy of the survey instrument, and a half day was devoted to giving students, faculty, and administrators in attendance opportunities to provide comments to the investigators with the goal of refining the instrument. The survey was approved by the UGA Institutional Review Board, and individual institution instruments were created using SurveyMonkey,a an online survey tool. The individual instruments allowed investigators to provide specific summary and raw data back to each institution, as well as allow for specific national, regional, and institutional analysis by investigators.
This article will discuss the results of selected aspects of this survey involving college climate at veterinary schools and colleges and compare the results to a previous 1993 survey.21 We suggest ways to use the results to develop best practices at veterinary medical institutions and conclude with efforts aimed at additional studies in the field of college climate in veterinary medical education.
This survey establishes a national benchmark regarding campus climate in the 28 US schools and colleges of veterinary medicine. The study also provides a localized assessment of climate for each participating institution. The researchers sought to answer the following four questions:
-
What is the student comfort level across institutions with respect to differences in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion?
-
What is the perceived level of institutional community support for underrepresented students within the college?
-
What is the persistence level of offensive language within veterinary medical colleges?
-
Do students experience harassment in veterinary medical colleges?
The research instrument was submitted to the UGA Institutional Review Board for approval, which was granted in spring 2011. The survey was also submitted to the AAVMC Survey Committee, which also approved the instrument. The final instrument, including standard informed-consent language, was launched at each of the 28 schools or colleges of veterinary medicine in mid-April 2011.
Several challenges emerged in advancing this project; most demanding was ensuring the participation of all US colleges and securing local-level response rates that would provide individual institutions with useful data. The survey was promoted at regular intervals through the deans' and associate deans' offices, through the student organization Veterinary Students as One in Culture and Ethnicity (VOICE) and through the Student AVMA (SAVMA). Investigators incentivized the survey nationally; the three institutions with the highest response rates were awarded $500 to their local student chapter of the AVMA (SCAVMA). The SAVMA Committee on Intercultural Communication matched the $500 incentive for the institution with the highest response rate, bringing the total incentive award for the most participatory institution to $1,000 for the local SCAVMA. The survey remained open for 3 weeks, and daily updates on institutional response rates were posted on the AAVMC's Web site.
Each survey instrument's setting allowed for multiple responses from any computer, which allowed students to use computer terminals in common areas at their local institutions. These settings created the opportunity for each student to answer the survey more than once. Communications about the survey stressed the importance of a singular response and fairness in competing for the project incentives. Researchers believed that the length of the survey, at 50 questions, discouraged multiple responses from individual students. At the close of the survey, all 28 institutions had participants in the survey, and the national response rate was calculated to be 48.1%, based on AAVMC national enrollment figures.
Survey data from each institutional survey were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel 2007. The Excel files were used to create one national database using Microsoft Access 2007. Descriptive analyses of the data were conducted in both Excel and SPSS.b
Nearly half of all veterinary medical students studying in the US participated in the survey, leading to a national response rate of 48.1% (5,268/10,949). Individual institutional response rates ranged from 14.4% to 93.1%. The median institutional response rate was 42.4%. Nationally, the participation pool was sufficient for investigators to make conclusions from the resulting data at a 99% CI with an error rate of less than 2% using Fowler's sample-size formula.22
Demographically, participants represented a slightly more diverse group than the total population of veterinary medical students in the US (Table 1). For example, 15.6% of participants self-identified as being a member of a racial or ethnic group recognized as URVM, which includes African American or Black; Asian American; Hispanic; Multiethnic or Multiracial; Native American or Alaska Native; and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Only 12.9% of current US veterinary medical students were identified as members of these groups at the time of the study.23
|
| Racial and ethnic identities | % |
|---|---|
| African American/Black | 2.8 |
| Asian American | 5.1 |
| Caucasian/White | 87.3 |
| Hispanic | 5.6 |
| Native American/Alaska Native | 1.1 |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 0.4 |
| Other | 0.6 |
*Total percentages exceed 100% due to multiple category responses from survey participants
Women made up 79.2% of all respondents, while men represented 19.3% of participants. Respondents were overwhelmingly single (71.9%); however, 24.6% were married or had a domestic partner (Table 2). Students identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQQ) represented 6.5% of the respondent population. A notable group of participants reported having an impairment or disability (12.2%), of which the largest subgroups indicated having visual impairments (5.8%) and learning disabilities (4.3%).
|
| Marital status | % |
|---|---|
| Divorced | 1.8 |
| Legally separated | 0.2 |
| Married/domestic partners | 24.6 |
| Single | 71.9 |
| Other | 1.5 |
The average age of respondents was 25.9 years old; however, reported ages ranged from 2 to 83 years old. The largest group of respondents were students in their first year at the time of the survey administration (28.2%). Senior students had the lowest participation rate in this survey (19.2%). Survey participants were overwhelmingly veterinary medical students, although 5.5% of respondents were in dual-degree veterinary medical programs.
The majority of respondents had parents who held a baccalaureate degree or higher (Figure 1). Nearly 60% of the mothers of survey participants held a bachelor's or graduate degree (59.4%), and 62.9% of fathers were similarly educated. More than 80% of mothers or fathers of student respondents had at least a high school diploma.
Figure 1 The level of education of respondents' parents by percentage
A large number of the climate-survey participants spent most of their formative years in suburban communities (54.8%), while 29% of students indicated that they were raised in rural environments. A zip code analysis of veterinary medical-school applicants applying for entrance in 2012 indicates that only 2.7% of applicants through the centralized applicant system provided zip codes located in rural areas; 80.4% of applicant zip codes were traceable to urban communities using a Web-based program.c
Regionalization of the 28 institutions was based on the Census Bureau regions and sorted by population24 (Table 3). Respondents matriculating at institutions in the Southern region of the US had the highest response rate in this study (35%) followed by participants at schools and colleges in the Midwest (29.3%). Western regional responses made up 19.3%, while the smallest group of regional respondents was found in the Northeast (16.4%).
|
| South | Midwest | West | Northeast |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auburn University | University of Illinois-Urbana | University of California-Davis | Cornell University |
| University of Florida | Iowa State University | Colorado State University | University of Pennsylvania |
| University of Georgia | Kansas State University | Oregon State University | Tufts University |
| Louisiana State University | Michigan State University | Washington State University | |
| Mississippi State University | University of Minnesota | Western University of Health Sciences | |
| North Carolina State University | University of Missouri | ||
| Oklahoma State University | The Ohio State University | ||
| University of Tennessee | Purdue University | ||
| Tuskegee University | University of Wisconsin-Madison | ||
| Texas A&M University | |||
| Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine |
AAVMC=Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges
Students were asked to respond to a series of questions, indicating their comfort level regarding individuals of a different race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion than themselves (Table 4). Out of those four categories, students expressed the greatest comfort with individuals of different races and ethnicities (95.5% and 95.2%, respectively). Students also indicated high comfort levels with individuals of a different sexual orientation and with a different religious belief (87.8% and 87%, respectively). Although students were generally comfortable with all groups, students reported greater ambivalence towards individuals of a different sexual orientation, as expressed by the response neither comfortable nor uncomfortable.
|
| Comfortable/verycomfortable (%) | Neither comfortablenor uncomfortable (%) | Uncomfortable/very uncomfortable (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race | 95.5 | 4.1 | 0.4 |
| Ethnicity | 95.2 | 4.4 | 0.4 |
| Sexual orientation | 87.8 | 10.0 | 2.2 |
| Religion | 87.2 | 11.8 | 1.0 |
When comfort data were disaggregated into three categories of respondents based on racial and ethnic categorizations, the data revealed differences in relative comfort levels. White students were more likely to be comfortable/very comfortable with students of a different race than were their ethnic/racial minority student counterparts (96.2%, 91.5%, p<.001). Students who did not disclose their race or ethnicity were found to be the least likely to be comfortable/very comfortable with students of a different sexual orientation (70.6%, p=.001) and with students practicing different religions (81%, p=.001).
Respondents indicated high levels of support for student difference; faculty members were perceived to be 77.2% and 74.2% supportive or very supportive of students with impairments or disabilities and URVM students, respectively. Faculty were perceived to be 66.8% and 64.2% supportive or very supportive of LGBTQQ students and students of various religious faiths, respectively. The majority of staff members were viewed by respondents to be supportive of students with disabilities (77.1%) and URVM students (73.8%). In addition, respondents indicated that perceived levels of support for LGBTQQ students (66.1%) and students of various religious faiths (68.5%) were lower than the support found for other student groups. The URVM students and their White counterparts differed in how they perceived the relative institutional support levels for URVM students (p<.001), students practicing different religions (p=.001), and LGBTQQ students (p=.002).
Of the respondents, 64.1% indicated that they have had a faculty or staff member in whom to confide. Students who identified as racially or ethnically underrepresented or as having a disability or impairment reported similar rates of having faculty or staff confidants, 64.9% and 64.0%, respectively. Respondents who were heterosexual (64.5%) were statistically more likely to have a faculty or staff mentor than students who identified as LGBTQQ (57.6%) (p=.017). Those participants with a faculty or staff mentor indicated that these individuals had a strong influence in mentoring students (43.3%), encouraging academic development (37.8%), and enhancing community involvement and professional relationships (19.1%).
More than half of all respondents reported that their institution was not oversensitive or overly accommodating of underrepresented students (57.6%). Nearly 22% of respondents thought that the institutions were oversensitive to key student populations, while 20.5% indicated that they did not know. A statistically significant difference was found between LGBTQQ and heterosexual students on perceptions of institutional sensitivity (p=.005), with LGBTQQ students being more likely to report that the institution was not overly sensitive on issues related to underrepresentation. Male students were more likely than female students (20.3%) to report that the institution was oversensitive towards URVM students (p<.001). A statistically significant correlation (p=.010) was found between students reporting having a faculty or staff confidant and feeling that the institution was oversensitive to underrepresented student populations.
Overall, very few respondents indicated that language they considered racist, sexist, or homophobic was heard on campus. Across all areas, at least 75% of participants indicated rarely, very rarely, or never hearing negative comments. The URVM students were more likely to hear racist comments from both students (p<.001) and faculty (p<.001); students self-identifying as transgender in the study were more likely than their non-transgender peers to hear racist, sexist, and homophobic language from both faculty and students (p=.010). Statistically significant differences were also found between male and female students regarding racist, sexist, and homophobic comments specifically made by students (p<.001); male students were more likely to hear these comments than their female counterparts.
Across all areas, respondents indicated hearing comments more frequently from their student colleagues than from any other group; however, there was a greater distribution of responses regarding the frequency of hearing sexist comments made by faculty and community members on campus. Survey responses indicated that students heard faculty and community members making sexist remarks occasionally to frequently 12.3% and 12.2% of the time, respectively.
Surveys indicated that 5.1% of respondents experienced verbal harassment on the basis of race, gender, gender expression, or religion; only 1.8% of participants experienced electronic harassment via E-mail, text messages, or social media. Very low levels of physical harassment were reported (0.7%). Across all harassment areas, 14.8% of participants indicated experiencing some type of harassment. Students of color were more likely to report experiencing verbal harassment based on race during their last academic year (p≤.001); LGBTQQ students were more likely to report experiencing verbal harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity (p≤.001); and students with reported disabilities were more likely than their counterparts without disabilities to experience verbal harassment based on disability or impairment (p=.002)
Of respondents who reported being harassed, 44.6% and 24.6% indicated experiencing harassment in a college common area or in a classroom, respectively. Nearly 10% of respondents reported witnessing harassment within the college environment. However, only 5.9% of respondents experiencing harassment reported the experience to faculty, administrators, or staff.
This study has several limitations that require explanation and consideration. While the data presented here are derived from a national database created from survey responses from each of the 28 US schools, individual school response rates varied from 14.2% to 93.1%. There were also some spurious data points such as a low number of participants listing their age incorrectly (e.g., 2 years old and 83 years old). Such limitations may impact the interpretation of regional-level data; however, the national data set includes a sufficient number of responses to render national trends in the data valid and reliable.
There may have been a few constraints in the survey from the participants' point of view in that most of the questions had only a finite number of possible answers from which to choose. In addition, there were relatively few open-ended questions in the survey, therefore fewer opportunities for students to give responses not represented as choices on the survey. In addition, even with a survey sample as large as that presented in this study, every effort must be made to protect student anonymity, which is more challenging with an increased number of open-ended questions.
The survey questions were not inclusive of various aspects of diversity. Investigators chose to prioritize questions related to student race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender expression, religion, and disability. With 50 questions, we hypothesized that students may have experienced survey fatigue due to both the length of the survey and the frequency of student surveys administered during the academic year,25 so the researchers sought to limit the scope of the study. Dimensions of diversity such as socioeconomic status were not included, and the absence of such questions may have substantive impact on the final interpretation of climate at both the institutional and national levels. We plan to add these dimensions along with additional questions pertaining to religion in future surveys.
The climate-survey findings provide a national snapshot of climate related to diversity issues within all 28 of the US schools and colleges of veterinary medicine. While this is not the first climate survey conducted at veterinary schools and colleges,21 this is the first survey that has focused exclusively on the 28 US veterinary schools and colleges. The previous study, conducted in 1993, surveyed 28 of the 31 schools and colleges of veterinary medicine in both the US and Canada. The previous study had just over a 53% response rate,21 while in this study, nearly half of all veterinary medical students studying in the US participated in the survey, leading to a national response rate of 48.1% (5,268/10,949). Survey findings in this study suggest that students were not exposed to high levels of verbal racist or sexist comments or discriminatory behaviors. Veterinary students reported low levels of discomfort and harassment and a high level of institutional support. Overall, the climates among the nation's schools and colleges of veterinary medicine provide adequate opportunities for diverse interactions, and negative episodes are limited.
In general, study respondents were predominantly young, White, single, female adults. The mean age of all respondents was 25.9 years old, which is similar to the mean age of the first-year class reported by the AAVMC (26 years old).23 In the previous study, over 94.8% of the participants were White.21 One reason given for this finding was that one of the non-participatory schools was the one in which the highest numbers of URVM students attended, but the authors considered their URVM numbers representative once they corrected for all non-participatory schools.21 A higher percentage of racial/ethnic minorities participated in this study (15.6%) than the total number of racially and ethnically URVM students enrolled in US schools (12.9%), suggesting that fewer majority students and subsequently a higher percentage of URVMs completed the survey. Both VOICE and SAVMA promoted the survey equally, so there is no evidence that promotion may have skewed the responding pool. Interestingly, 6.5% of respondents identified as LGBTQQ, significantly higher than the 3.5% identified in the previous climate survey.21 Societal changes and a more anonymous Web-based survey are believed to have contributed to this population's increased presence in this study.26 The figure is also higher than the population estimated by the Williams Institute, a national think-tank on LGBTQQ scholarship, research, policy analysis, and education.27 Various survey elements including terminology and survey methodology may result in underrepresented reporting.27 Students identifying in this study as LGBTQQ raised awareness of this growing population, and plans are underway to conduct a separate, more in-depth survey of the LGBTQQ student body.
In the previous study in 1993, 46.9% of students indicated an urban background, and 53.1% indicated a rural background.21 By 2011, over half of respondents were raised in suburban/urban communities, while fewer than 30% indicated that they had grown up in rural communities, suggesting a shift in the areas from which students who answered the two surveys came in a span of 18 years. The almost 30% of students who indicated they were from rural areas is in stark comparison with the 2.7% of veterinary school applicants (through the Veterinary Medical College Application Service) who indicated that they were from rural areas, suggesting that schools and colleges, or the survey instrument itself, selected for students from rural areas. In addition, many veterinary school applicants were not from first-generation families; over 60% of respondents indicated that at least one parent had an advanced degree.
While the Northeastern schools had the lowest percentage of respondents, it should also be noted that this region has the smallest number of veterinary schools and colleges and that Cornell University, a Northeastern school, had the highest number of respondents from their student body (93.1%).
The survey called attention to the fact that while overall there is a high degree of student comfort at American veterinary schools, certain sub-populations within the colleges may have slightly different perceptions of their experience; these groups include the URVM and LGBTQQ populations. Nearly one third of racial/ethnic URVM students reported hearing racist comments from their student colleagues occasionally to very frequently. Over 20% of LGBTQQ students reported hearing homophobic comments from students occasionally to very frequently. Students were more likely than college faculty and staff to make comments about race and sexuality. Regrettably, the survey reveals that students are more likely to experience negative diversity-related experiences at the hands of their student peers than from any other group on campus. The second highest incidence of sexist comments came from faculty. Just over 21% of female students and 23% of transgender students said that they heard faculty making sexist comments occasionally to very frequently. Similarly, in the 1993 study, there was a marked difference between harassment, discrimination, and rudeness when heterosexual students' responses were compared to those of LGBTQQ students, and 17% of Native Americans/Alaska Natives responded that they frequently experienced harassment, discrimination, and rudeness. In both cases, the harassment, discrimination, and rudeness was mostly from their student peers.21
While the majority of respondents reported that faculty and staff were supportive or very supportive of students with impairments and disabilities and/or racially/ethnically URVM students, 25%–30% of survey participants felt that faculty and staff were either not supportive or ambivalent, suggesting the need for greater professional development opportunities for educators and staff with significant interactions with students. Similarly, students noted faculty and staff support for LGBTQQ students and students whose religious faiths were different from theirs; however, we were surprised that while in the minority, over 30% of students felt that veterinary school faculty and staff demonstrate some discomfort with both of these groups. The differing perceived level of institutional support for URVM students between students of color and their White counterparts was found to be statistically significant, indicating that while White students felt that there was adequate support for URVM students, students of color did not feel that the same amount of adequacy was present. This finding is consistent with previous studies on perceptions of climate and institutional support in which White students routinely rate institutions as more welcoming and accepting than their underrepresented student counterparts.28–30 The concept of White privilege is frequently referenced as a reason for the differing perceptions, wherein White students are able to overlook or avoid negative situations and events affecting students of color due to having the privilege of remaining oblivious to the advantages and disadvantages related to race.28 The resulting inability to see or feel a chilly campus climate due to privilege will result in a perception that the level of institutional support for everyone is adequate.
A significant correlation was found between students who reported having a faculty confidant and those who felt that the institution was overly sensitive to URVM students. The reason for this correlation could be the influence of a faculty or staff member who feels similarly that the institution is overly sensitive, or it could indicate that those students may themselves already feel marginalized, hence their need to seek a faculty or staff confidant. These data also point to the possible presence of a hidden curriculum in which faculty mentors model personal and professional values that may not be consistent with the overall inclusive value paradigm present in both the formal curriculum and official school or college statements.5,17,31
Perceptions about adequacy of institutional support and access to faculty or staff confidants reveal a basis for greater college-level exploration about how students are learning to be professionals. While all needs may not be met by the college, nor will every student have a faculty or staff mentor, there is evidence that students who feel supported and who have access to mentors have a different kind of experience in veterinary school. Opportunities to coach both potential mentors and veterinary students on inclusive behavior and professionalism that reflect the institutions' values should be pursued to improve student experience and long-term professional performance. In addition, integrating diversity and cultural competency-related programming in the formal curriculum would increase opportunities for discussion and engagement. Programs need to emphasize more than mere cultural understanding. To affect meaningful change resulting in improved intergroup relations and overall competency, curricular programs must embrace intersectional frameworks that promote the fact that minority groups are diverse in their own right.32
Overall, racist and/or homophobic language was rarely heard on campus by the majority of the student body, but when it was heard it was mostly by those students who identified as a racial/ethnic minority or LGBTQQ. This is similar to the findings in the previous study,21 although fewer LGBTQQ students self-identified in that study. These comments, when heard, mostly came from other students rather than from members of the community and other faculty. The difference was statistically significant, and the effect size, known as eta or the magnitude of influence of the independent variable (a student's URVM identification) on the dependent variable (frequency hearing racist or homophobic language), for comments heard by URVM students (eta=.11) suggests that race and ethnicity have a fairly large impact on how frequently students believe they hear comments about stereotypes from their student colleagues. Race and ethnicity seem to play a more modest role (eta=.04) in explaining the difference in frequency of hearing similar comments from faculty.
Low levels of harassment were reported by students. Encouragingly, only 5.1% of respondents indicated that there was harassment based on race, gender, gender expression, or religion. Other areas of harassment were also seen in low numbers, indicating that over 85% of students do not experience any type of harassment. Of those who did, however, most felt that this was due to religion. This finding is troublesome, and further follow-up is warranted. Also, of those who experienced harassment, most experiences were in classrooms and common areas, although the survey did not provide the opportunity to state by whom. Interestingly, although nearly 10% of respondents indicated that they witnessed harassment within their college, only a little more than half of these were reported to faculty administrators or staff. This finding suggests that either students do not take the harassment seriously, students are reluctant to get their colleagues in trouble, or, more likely, there is not a clearly stated (or understood) policy on the reporting of such incidents at the college or an absence of routine encouragement to report harassment.
This study is one of the first in a series that will address the climate of acceptance and perceptions of inclusivity for students in US veterinary schools and colleges. These finding are similar in many ways to the previous study in 1993 in that results indicate that overall, while the majority of the student population feels comfortable on campus, some underrepresented populations may not feel as accepted and/or included. Comparison of the two studies also shows that there are increasing numbers of URVM students, students with disabilities, and students who self-identify as LGBTQQ. Further study of the data may help explain the unacceptably lower retention rates of some of these students. While further study is needed to support these preliminary findings, we feel that recommendations for methods to help foster a community of acceptance and inclusivity include (a) encouraging formal student–faculty mentoring pairs for all students, (b) integrating programming aimed at cultural competency into pre-existing courses, and (c) communicating a clear path to reporting harassment to the administration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. Allen Cannedy of North Carolina State University (NCSU), Dr. Donna Angarano of Auburn University, Dr. Richard Meiring of Mississippi State University, Dr. Ed Monroe of Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Ruby Perry of Tuskegee University, Dr. William Hill of University of Tennessee, Dr. Joseph Taboada of Louisiana State University, Ms. Lakecia Pettway of University of Georgia (UGA), Dr. Peter Cowan of NCSU, and Dr. Joy Harden of the UGA College Climate Survey Planning Committee.
a SurveyMonkey online survey software. Palo Alto, CA: SurveyMonkey; c1999–2014. Available from: https://www.surveymonkey.com.
b PASW Statistics. Version 17.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
c Applicant zip codes were traced using www.zip-code.com.
| 1. | Cross, T (2003).Veterinary medicine: the most racially segregated field in graduate education today.J Blacks High Educ.42,Winter,18-19 Google Scholar |
| 2. | Thompson, DThe 33 whitest jobs in America., 2013, Nov, 6, The Atlantic[Internet]. Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-33-whitest-jobs-in-america/281180/ Google Scholar |
| 3. | Johnson, DR (2012).Campus racial climate perceptions and overall sense of belonging among racially diverse women in STEM majors.J Coll Student Dev.53,2,336-, 46http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0028 Google Scholar |
| 4. | Griffin, K, Muniz, M, Espinosa, L (2012).The influence of campus racial climate on diversity in graduate education.Rev High Educ.35,4,535-, 66http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0031 Google Scholar |
| 5. | Rankin, S (2005).Campus climates for sexual minorities.New Dir Stud Serv.2005,111,17-, 23http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.170 Google Scholar |
| 6. | Bryant, AN, Wickliffe, K, Mayhew, M, et al. (2009).Developing an assessment of college students' spiritual experiences: the Collegiate Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey.J Coll Character.10,6,1-10 Google Scholar |
| 7. | North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, DiVersity Matters Symposium, 2006 Mar 25–26Raleigh, NC Google Scholar |
| 8. | Hurtado, S, Clayton-Pederson, AR, Allen, WR, et al. (1998).Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: educational policy and practice.Rev High Educ.21,3,279-, 302http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0003 Google Scholar |
| 9. | Green, MF (1989).Minorities on campus: a handbook for enhancing diversity.Washington, DC:American Council on Education Google Scholar |
| 10. | Malinowski, A, Stamler, LL (2002).Comfort: exploration of the concept in nursing.J Adv Nurs.39,6,599-606 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 11. | Tutton, E, Seers, K (2003).An exploration of the concept of comfort.J Clin Nurs.12,5,689-, 96http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00775.x. Medline:12919215 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 12. | McClelland, KE, Auster, CJ (1990).Public platitudes and hidden tensions: racial climates at predominantly white liberal arts colleges.J High Educ.61,6,607-, 42http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1981988 Google Scholar |
| 13. | Pascarella, ET, Edison, M, Nora, A, et al. (1996).Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college.J High Educ.67,2,174-, 95http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2943979 Google Scholar |
| 14. | Mayhew, MJ, Grunwald, HE, Dey, EL (2005).Curriculum matters: creating a positive climate for diversity from the student perspective.Res High Educ.46,4,389-412 Google Scholar |
| 15. | , Peterson, MW, Spencer, MGTierney, WG (1990).Understanding academic culture and climate.Assessing academic climates and cultures.San Francisco:, Jossey-Bass3-, 18New directions for institutional research; no. 68 Google Scholar |
| 16. | Gurin, P, Dey, EL, Hurtado, S, et al. (2002).Diversity in higher education: theory and impact on educational outcomes.Harv Educ Rev.72,3,330-66 Google Scholar |
| 17. | Phillips, SP (2013).Blinded by belonging: revealing the hidden curriculum.Med Educ.47,2,124-, 5http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12103. Medline:23323650 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 18. | Michalec, B. (2012).The pursuit of medical knowledge and the potential consequences of the hidden curriculum.Health.16,3,267-281 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 19. | Ozolins, I, Hall, H, Peterson, R. (2008).The student voice: recognising the hidden and informal curriculum in medicine.Med Teach.30,6,606-611 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 20. | Phillips, SP, Clarke, M (2012).More than an education: the hidden curriculum, professional attitudes and career choice.Med Educ.46,9,887-893 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 21. | Turnwald, GHStudent survey of the environment for diversity at the colleges of veterinary medicine in the USA and Canada., Proceedings of Celebrate Diversity: Enhancing the Learning Environment in Veterinary Medical Education, 1993 Jun 13–15Madison, WI Google Scholar |
| 22. | Fowler, FJS (1988).Survey research methods., 2nd edNewbury Park, CA:Sage Google Scholar |
| 23. | AAVMC (2010).Internal data report 2010–2011.Washington, DC:Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges Google Scholar |
| 24. | US Census Bureau (2012).Census Regions and Divisions of the United States., cited 2012 Oct 3Washington, DC:, US Census Bureau[Internet]. Available from: http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/pdfs/reference/us_regdiv.pdf Google Scholar |
| 25. | Porter, SR, Whitcomb, ME, Weitzer, WH (2004).Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue.New Dir Institutional Res.2004,121,63-, 73http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir.101 Google Scholar |
| 26. | Trau, RNC, Härtel, CEJ, Härtel, GF (2012).Reaching and hearing the invisible: organizational research on invisible stigmatized groups via Web surveys.Brit J Manag.24,4,532-41 Google Scholar |
| 27. | Gates, GJ (2011).How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender?.Los Angeles:Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law Google Scholar |
| 28. | , McIntosh, P.Rothenberg, PS (1988).White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack.Race, class, and gender in the United States: an integrated study., 1st edNew York:, St Martin's Press165-169 Google Scholar |
| 29. | Johnson, AG (2001).Privilege, power, and difference.New York:McGraw-Hill Google Scholar |
| 30. | Rankin, SR, Reason, RD (2005).Differing perceptions: how students of color and white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups.J Coll Student Dev.46,1,43-, 61http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0008 Google Scholar |
| 31. | Lempp, H, Seale, C (2004).The hidden curriculum in undergraduate medical education: qualitative study of medical students' perceptions of teaching.BMJ.329,7469,770-773 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 32. | Powell Sears, K. (2012).Improving cultural competence education: the utility of an intersectional framework.Med Educ.46,6,545-551 Medline, Google Scholar |
| Demographic questions | |
| Demo1 | Are you Hispanic/Latino/Latina? |
| Demo2 | What is your race? |
| Demo3 | How do you express your gender? |
| Demo4 | Please use the terms below to describe your sexuality. |
| Demo5 | What is your age? |
| Demo6 | Please indicate your parents'/guardians' highest level of education. |
| Demo7 | How would you categorize the place you spent the majority of your life? |
| Demo8 | In what region do you currently hold residency? |
| Demo9 | When is your expected graduation date? |
| Demo10 | Which of the following best describes your marital/partner status? |
| Demo11 | Have you been medically diagnosed with any of the following disabilities? |
| Demo12 | Please classify your program of study. |
| Comfort questions | |
| Comfort1 | Do you look forward to going to class? |
| Comfort2 | To what extent do students at your college treat one another with respect? |
| Comfort3 | Do you feel that you have a supportive group of friends and/or acquaintances at the college? |
| Comfort4 | Overall, do you believe that there is adequate gender representation in the faculty at your CVM? |
| Comfort5 | How comfortable do you feel with students/faculty/staff whose race is different from your own in the CVM environment? |
| Comfort6 | How comfortable do you feel with students/faculty/staff whose ethnicity is different from your own in the CVM environment? |
| Comfort7 | How comfortable do you feel with students/faculty/staff whose sexual orientation is different from your own in the CVM environment? |
| Comfort8 | How comfortable do you feel with students/faculty/staff whose religion is different from your own in the CVM environment? |
| Language questions | |
| Lang1 | How often do you hear racist remarks used in school? |
| Lang2 | How often do you hear sexist remarks used in school? |
| Lang3 | How often do you hear homophobic remarks used in school? |
| Lang4 | How often do you hear negative remarks about gender expression in school? |
| Lang5 | How often do you believe that you hear comments from other races about stereotypes of your race? |
| Lang6 | How often are you in a situation where you are expected to explain why you do something because of your race, ethnicity, religious belief, or sexual orientation? |
| Harassment questions | |
| Harass1 | How often do you feel that you are verbally harassed at school? |
| Harass2 | How often do you feel that you are harassed and/or threatened by E-mails, text messages, and/or social media from CVM faculty, staff, or students? |
| Harass3 | How often do you feel that you are physically harassed at the CVM? |
| Harass4 | Where did the harassment take place? |
| Harass5 | How often have you witnessed verbal, physical, or electronic harassment at the school? |
| Harass6 | In the past year, how often have you felt sexually harassed, lied about, or left out? |
| Harass7 | How often have you reported when you were bullied, harassed, or assaulted to CVM officials? |
| Curriculum questions | |
| Curr1 | During the 2010–2011 academic year, how many hours per week did you spend participating in extracurricular activities? |
| Curr2 | In the past year, were any events related to race or ethnic culture and/or history hosted by the CVM or a campus-based organization? |
| Curr3 | In the past year, were any events related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender culture and/or history hosted by the CVM or a campus-based organization? |
| Curr4 | In the past year, were any events related to religious diversity hosted by the CVM or a campus-based organization? |
| Curr5 | Please describe any events attended. |
| Curr6 | How often have you heard controversial and/or offensive guest speakers at an event hosted by the CVM or campus-based organization? |
| Institutional support questions | |
| Inst1 | Does your CVM provide equal access for students with physical disabilities? |
| Inst2 | How supportive and understanding do you feel the CVM is of students with limited abilities or disabilities? |
| Inst3 | How supportive and understanding do you feel the CVM is of underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities? |
| Inst4 | How supportive and understanding do you feel the CVM is of different religious backgrounds? |
| Inst5 | How supportive and understanding do you feel the CVM is of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender students? |
| Inst6 | Do you know of any faculty, staff, or students at the college who are open about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender? |
| Inst7 | Have you ever felt that the CVM has been overly sensitive to and/or accommodating of underrepresented groups? |
| Faculty/student relationship questions | |
| Relat1 | Do you have a faculty/staff member within the CVM in whom you can confide? |
| Relat2 | How has this faculty/staff member had a positive impact on your intellectual and/or personal development? |
| Relat3 | Is this faculty/staff member Hispanic/Latino/Latina? |
| Relat4 | What was the race of this faculty/staff member? |
AAVMC=Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges; AVMA=American Veterinary Medical Association; CVM=college of veterinary medicine
