Evaluating Campus Climate at Us Research Universities Opportunities For Diversity and Inclusion 1St Ed Edition Krista M Soria Full Chapter

Evaluating Campus Climate at US
Research Universities: Opportunities

for Diversity and Inclusion 1st ed.
Edition Krista M. Soria
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/evaluating-campus-climate-at-us-research-universitie
s-opportunities-for-diversity-and-inclusion-1st-ed-edition-krista-m-soria/
EDITED BY KRISTA M. SORIA
EVALUATING CAMPUS CLIMATE

AT US RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
Evaluating Campus Climate at US Research
Universities
Krista M. Soria
Editor
Evaluating Campus
Climate at US
Research Universities
Opportunities for Diversity and Inclusion
Editor
Krista M. Soria
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-94835-5 ISBN 978-3-319-94836-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94836-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018947187
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover image: © Masanobu Chen/EyeEm/gettyimages

Cover design by Tom Howey
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Michael Paradise, ever my rainbow in the dark.
Contents
1 Campus Climate at Research Universities: 2012–2017 1

Krista M. Soria
2 Effects of Campus Climates for Diversity on College

GPA Among Latinx Students at Selective Universities:
An Examination by Gender, First-Generation College
Status, and Immigrant Status 25
Marla A. Franco and Young K. Kim
3 A Meta-analysis of Queer-Spectrum and Trans-Spectrum

Student Experiences at US Research Universities 49
Maren Greathouse, Allison BrckaLorenz, Mary Hoban,
Ronald Huesman Jr., Susan Rankin and Ellen Bara
Stolzenberg
4 Perceptions of Campus Climate at the Intersections

of Disability and LGBTQIA+ Identities 77
Ryan A. Miller and Sandra L. Dika
5 Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate by Social

Class Background 103
Deborah M. Warnock, Allison L. Hurst, Will Barratt
and Jocelyn G. Salcedo
vii
viii Contents
6 Campus Climate for Students with Disabilities 125

Andrew L. Zehner
7 “Mi Familia”: Counterstories of First-Generation

Latina/x Students Navigating a Racially Hostile
Campus Climate 151
Stephen Santa-Ramirez
8 Reframing Campus Climate Data to Advocate for

Institutional Transformation, Praxis, and Activism
for LGBQQ+ College Students 169
Garrett D. Hoffman and Jonathan T. Pryor
9 The Effect of Student Perception of Campus Climate

for Diversity and Inclusion on Overall University
Experience: A Race/Ethnicity Comparison Study 185
Thapelo Ncube, Wayne Jacobson, Tilden Whitfield
and Conor McNamara
10 Perceptions of Campus Climate and Sense

of Belonging Among Non-immigrant,
First-Generation, and Second-Generation Students 209
Valera K. Hachey and Leigh S. McCallen
11 Racial Differences in the Effects of Campus Climate

on Sense of Belonging at Public Research Universities 233
Young K. Kim, Oscar Espinoza-Parra, Liz A. Rennick,
Marla A. Franco, Marie Christie Dam and Melody
Rensberger
12 International Students’ Experiences with Campus

Climate at Large, Public Research Universities 251
Krista M. Soria and G. Blue Brazelton
13 Vulnerable Populations at Public Research Universities:

Centering Sexual Violence Prevalence and Perceptions
of Campus Climate 277
Krystle Palma Cobian and Ellen Bara Stolzenberg
Contents ix
14 Campus Climate for Diversity as Dialogue: Using

an Equity Lens to Center Students 307
Daniel W. Newhart and Emma L. Larkins
15 Patterns and Impacts of Racial and International

Student Disparities in Experiences of Campus
Climate, Academic Support, and Financial Conditions 327
Sarah K. Bruch, Inga Popovaite, Elizabeth Felix and
Matthew Anson
16 “It’s Cold in Here”: First-Generation Students

at American Research Universities 353
Seth C. Snyder and Jennifer Trost
17 Necessary yet Insufficient: Contextualizing Trans*

Identities in Campus Climate Research 373
finn j. schneider, Qui D. Alexander and Tania D. Mitchell
18 Much Discussion, Not Much Change: Perceptions of

Campus Climate Continue to Differ Along
Racial Lines 395
Arien B. Telles and Tania D. Mitchell
19 High-Impact Practices for Student Engagement

in the Research University 409
Bryant L. Hutson and Lynn E. Williford
20 Learning About Difference in the Classroom and

Students’ Views of the Campus Climate for Diversity 433
Eugene T. Parker III and Teniell L. Trolian
21 Learning to Change Campus Climate: Insights from

an Action Research Study 451
Leonard Taylor, Sasānēhsaeh Pyawasay, LaTecia Yarbrough,
Ricky Urgo and Jenna Hensley
x Contents
22 Exploring the Relationship Between Service-Learning

and Perceptions of Campus Climate 471
Isabel Lopez, Wei Song, Anthony Schulzetenberg,
Andrew Furco and Geoffrey Maruyama
Index 487
Notes on Contributors
Qui D. Alexander is a doctoral student in Education, Curriculum, and

Instruction with a focus on Culture and Teaching at the University of
Minnesota. With a background in community education and organizing,
his scholarship focuses on the impacts of carceral logic in the criminaliza-
tion of queer and trans youth of color.
Matthew Anson serves as the Assistant Director for Academic Planning
and Analysis and Ph.D. student in the Higher Education and Student
Affairs program at the University of Iowa. His office supports cam-
pus-wide efforts to include institutional information in decision-making
processes. His office supports the administration, coordination, and anal-
ysis of the SERU survey at the University of Iowa.
Will Barratt is Professor of Educational Administration at Roi Et
Rajabhat University, Thailand, and Coffman Distinguished Professor
Emeritus, Department of Educational Leadership, Indiana State
University. He has been researching, writing, presenting, and blogging
about social class issues in higher education since 2006. His service activ-
ities have been to use campus data sets to inform recruiting and reten-
tion practices on campuses, with a focus on diversity. He is the author
of Social Class on Campus (2011) and a blog of the same name. He cur-
rently teaches Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral students about research
and leadership in education.
G. Blue Brazelton is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Educational Leadership at Northern Arizona University. Dr. Brazelton
xi
xii Notes on Contributors
has been researching and serving underrepresented student groups

through various lenses of social justice, including technology and soci-
oeconomic status in various roles since 2005. His continued research
agenda focuses on the intersection of technology, success, and college
students as higher education continues toward an increasingly digital
environment.
Allison BrckaLorenz is the Project Manager for the Faculty Survey
of Student Engagement and a research analyst for the National Survey
of Student Engagement. In her work at the Center for Postsecondary
Research, she helps people use data to make improvements on their cam-
puses, uses data to highlight the experiences of traditionally marginalized
subpopulations, and provides professional development opportunities
and mentoring to graduate students. Her research interests focus on the
teaching and learning of college students and the accompanying issues
faced by faculty, and the experiences of small and understudied popula-
tions with an emphasis on the engagement of queer and gender variant
students.
Sarah K. Bruch is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology
and Director of the Social and Education Policy Research Program at
the Public Policy Center at the University of Iowa. Her research focuses
broadly on social stratification and public policy. In particular, she focuses
on integrating theoretical insights from relational and social theorists into
the empirical study of inequalities. She is also the principal investigator
leading a research-practice partnership with the Iowa City Community
School District. Using a research-practice model, this partnership lever-
ages social science and education policy research and practitioner knowl-
edge to improve the equitability of school experiences and outcomes for
students by providing research expertise and capacity to conduct data col-
lection and analysis, and assisting in the design, implementation, and eval-
uation of research-based solutions to existing disparities.
Krystle Palma Cobian is a Research Analyst at the Higher Education
Research Institute and a Ph.D. student in the Higher Education and
Organizational Change program at the University of California, Los
Angeles. Prior to the doctoral study, Krystle worked in student affairs
for a number of years and served on the advisory board for the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Northwest
Notes on Contributors xiii
region. Krystle’s research interests include understanding the impact of

intersectional identities on STEM career aspirants, career and leadership
trajectories for women of color, public scholarship in higher education,
and college sexual violence for vulnerable populations.
Marie Christie Dam is a current student in the doctorate program
in higher education at Azusa Pacific University (APU). She works as
an Assistant Professor in the Business and Public Services Department
at Los Angeles Trade Technical Community College, and is an elected
member of the executive committee for the college’s Academic Senate.
She also serves in various capacities on her campus overseeing commu-
nity programs and partnerships for economic development, academic
engagement, and social mobility for the community she serves. Her
research agenda focuses on student success measures for nontraditional
students, underserved and underrepresented populations, and specifically
Southeast Asian American students.
Sandra L. Dika is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership
(Educational Research) at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Her scholarship contributes to the discussion about the utility of pre-
vailing theories of higher education access, engagement, and success to
represent the experiences of students from underrepresented and under-
served groups; including students of color, first-generation college stu-
dents, and transfer students; that increasingly make up the college
student body in the United States. Her research has appeared in out-
lets including Research in Higher Education, Journal of College Student
Development, Journal of College Student Retention, Equity & Excellence
in Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education.
Oscar Espinoza-Parra is a Ph.D. graduate from Azusa Pacific University
in the Higher Education program. He is employed at the College of the
Desert as Dean of Enrollment Services. His research agenda includes
the role of institutional research in student and educational outcomes,
student learning, campus climate, cognitive development, international
students, sense of belonging, and Latina/o students.
Elizabeth Felix is a current graduate student at the University of Iowa
in the Department of Sociology. Her research interests include medical
sociology, social networks, and social stratification.
xiv Notes on Contributors
Marla A. Franco serves as the Director of Assessment and Research

for the Division of Student Affairs, Enrollment Management, Academic
Initiatives, and Student Success at the University of Arizona. Dr.
Franco’s research focuses on examining the effects of perceived campus
climates for diversity on the outcomes of Latinx college students, with
attention given to exploring how outcomes differ based on students’
intersectional identities. Her work has been published in the Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education and by the National Resource Center for
First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Dr. Franco also serves
on the editorial board for the Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry.
Andrew Furco is an associate professor of higher education at the
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities where he also serves as associate
vice president for public engagement and director of the International
Center for Research on Community Engagement.
Maren Greathouse serves as Director of the Tyler Clementi Center at
Rutgers University (New Brunswick). The center conducts research on
the impact of bias, peer aggression, and campus climate on students
with marginalized and/or stigmatized identities. Prior to assuming this
role, Ms. Greathouse served as the inaugural Director of the LGBTQ
and Intercultural Resource Center at Rutgers University-Newark and
Director of LGBT Student Development at Towson University. She
is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Higher Education with the Rutgers
Graduate School of Education. Her research interests include equity and
diversity, student affairs praxis and class dynamics in higher education.
Valera K. Hachey received her Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership,
Policy, and Development with an emphasis in Higher Education from
the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Dr. Hachey is currently
employed at Walden University as an Academic Advisor. Her research
focuses on engagement in online learning.
Jenna Hensley earned her master’s degree in Higher Education
Leadership and Student Affairs Administration at Mississippi State
University. While studying, she served as a residence director in the
office of Housing and Residence Life. She also served as an intern to
the Collegiate Recovery Community, an office that supports students in
recovery from addiction as they earn their degrees.
Notes on Contributors xv
Mary T. Hoban is the Chief Research Officer with the American

College Health Association. Dr. Hoban oversees all research efforts
of the Association including the ACHA National College Health
Assessment, which is used to collect data about health status and behav-
iors from more than 100,000 college students annually. Dr. Hoban is
interested in understanding health disparities among college students
and has trained college health professionals in providing optimum care
for diverse populations, particularly for queer-spectrum and trans-spec-
trum students. Dr. Hoban has held adjunct faculty appointments at
the University of Maryland University College, University of Maryland
Baltimore County, and Howard Community College, teaching courses in
human sexuality and personal health.
Garrett D. Hoffman is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Higher
Education and Student Affairs at the University of Southern Mississippi.
Working from a poststructural perspective, Dr. Hoffman’s research
agenda and extant scholarship focus on the impact of neoliberalism on
diversity, equity, and minoritized student success in higher education.
His work has been published in outlets including The Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, The Journal of LGBT Youth, and Critical Questions
in Education.
Ronald L. Huesman, Jr. is the Managing Director of the Student
Experience in the Research University-Association of American
Universities Consortium (SERU-AAU). SERU-AAU is an academic and
policy research partnership between the Center for Studies in Higher
Education at the University of California—Berkeley and the University
of Minnesota. Ron is currently the Director of Institutional Assessment
at the University of Minnesota. In that capacity, he works collaboratively
with many diverse units (e.g. Student and Academic Affairs) to design
research studies, collect data, provide analysis, and report results to
inform assessment efforts, policy development, and decision-making. He
also works closely with other institutions to develop comparable data for
benchmarking purposes.
Allison L. Hurst is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Oregon State
University, where she teaches courses on theory, qualitative research
methods, and the sociology of education. She has written two books on
the experiences and identity reformations of working-class college stu-
dents, The Burden of Academic Success: Loyalists, Renegades, and Double
xvi Notes on Contributors
Agents (2010) and College and the Working Class (2012). She was one of
the founders of the Association of Working-Class Academics, for which
she also served as president from 2008 to 2014. She is currently serving
as Chair of the Subcommittee on Survey and Interview Construction for
the newly formed American Sociological Association (ASA) Taskforce on
First-Generation and Working-Class Persons in Sociology.
Bryant L. Hutson is Director of Assessment in the Office of Institutional
Research and Assessment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. He has conducted research and published extensively in the areas
of faculty development, academic advising, student retention, and the
use of assessment to support student success. He is recipient of the 2013
North Carolina College Personnel Association Distinguished Scholar
Award in recognition of his research contributions to the field of Student
Development and Student Affairs.
Wayne Jacobson serves as Assessment Director in the Office of the
Provost at the University of Iowa. His office supports campus efforts to
assess and improve student learning and success. He holds a Ph.D. in
Adult Education from the University of Wisconsin—Madison.
Young K. Kim is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at Azusa
Pacific University. She received her Ph.D. in Higher Education at the
University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests include col-
lege student development, conditional effects of the college experience,
and diversity and educational equity in higher education. In her scholarly
work, she has been extensively utilizing large national or statewide data-
sets including the CIRP, UCUES, and NLSF along with advanced quan-
titative methods. Her work has been published in Research in Higher
Education, Review of Higher Education, Journal of College Student
Development, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, and Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education.
Emma Larkins serves in the Student Affairs Research, Evaluation,
and Planning department at Oregon State University. She serves as the
Associate Editor for the Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry. Her research
interests are in qualitative methodologies, applied feminist theories, and
promoting equity in higher education.
Isabel Lopez is a current graduate student and research assistant at the
University of Minnesota in the Department of Educational Psychology.
Her research interests include community engagement within higher
Notes on Contributors xvii
education and social-psychological interventions in education. She is cur-

rently working on a federally funded project aimed at promoting student
educational success through community engagement.
Geoffrey Maruyama is Professor and Chair of the Department of
Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. His research
focuses on achievement processes in schools, research methods for
educational and other applied settings, and action research approaches
and engaged scholarship in challenged communities. He has written
Research Methods in Social Relations (8 th Edition, with Carey Ryan,
2014), Basics of Structural Equation Modeling (1998) and Research in
Educational Settings (with Stanley Deno, 1992), and numerous articles
and chapters. His engagement activities have included four years direct-
ing the Research, Evaluation, and Assessment office of the Saint Paul
Public Schools, and a year co-directing the University of Minnesota
Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center. He has held a
number of central administration positions at Minnesota, including Vice
Provost and Associate Vice President, and has been president and secre-
tary treasurer of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
(SPSSI).
Leigh S. McCallen is the Director of Research and Evaluation at
College Access: Research and Action (CARA), an organization based at
the City University of New York (CUNY) focused on equitable higher
education access and success in New York City. Her research uses the
mixed method and participatory approaches to understand the develop-
ment and success of low-income, first-generation in college, and students
of color in the context of broad-access public higher education institu-
tions. Dr. McCallen holds a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from The
CUNY Graduate Center and has worked in various capacities across the
CUNY system, including as an analyst at Institutional Research and as
a research associate at the Center for Teaching and Learning at Queens
College.
Conor McNamara provides education counsel, academic support, and
mentorship to TRiO students at the University of West Florida. Serving
as the program’s Lead Tutor, he works with students to reach their full
potential. In 2014, he earned an MFA in Creative Writing from the Otis
College of Art and Design in Los Angeles.
xviii Notes on Contributors
Ryan A. Miller is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

(Higher Education) at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
His research agenda focuses on student development and the conditions
for creating inclusive campus cultures in higher education. Dr. Miller’s
study on the intersectional identities of LGBTQ students with disabili-
ties received the 2016 Melvene D. Hardee Dissertation of the Year award
from NASPA. He has published research in outlets including The Review
of Higher Education, Journal of College Student Development, Journal
of Student Affairs Research and Practice, The Educational Forum, and
Community College Journal of Research and Practice.
Tania D. Mitchell is an Associate Professor of higher education in the
College of Education and Human Development at the University of
Minnesota. Her teaching and research focuses on service-learning and
other campus interventions to explore civic identity, social justice, stu-
dent learning and development, race and racism, the engagement of
minoritized students, and community practice. Her scholarship has been
published in numerous books and journals and she is the editor (with
Krista Soria) of Educating for Citizenship and Social Justice: Practices for
Community Engagement at Research Universities (Palgrave Macmillan,
2018) and Civic Engagement and Community Service at Research
Universities: Engaging Undergraduates for Social Justice, Social Change,
and Responsible Citizenship (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
Thapelo Ncube is a Ph.D. student and ACT fellow at the University
of Iowa in the Educational Measurement and Statistics Program. Her
research interests include assessment in higher education, prediction of
student success and retention, and measurement invariance of assess-
ments.
Daniel W. Newhart serves as Assistant Vice Provost for the Division
of Student Affairs at Oregon State University, as well as the Director
of Student Affairs Research, Evaluation, and Planning. He is also an
Assistant Professor of Practice in the College of Liberal Arts, where he
teaches in the College Student Services Administration program as well
as the Graduate Certificate in College and University Teaching pro-
gram. Dr. Newhart is the founder (with the Student Affairs Assessment
Leaders) and Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry.
His scholarship focuses on the politics and philosophy of methodology,
as well as critical approaches to assessment in higher education.
Notes on Contributors xix
Eugene T. Parker III is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

and Policy Studies at the University of Kansas. Dr. Parker’s research
centers on college impact and diversity experiences, diversity-minded
leadership and organizational behavior. Dr. Parker holds a doctoral
degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies from the University
of Iowa, and his work has been published in the Journal of College
Student Development, Research in Higher Education, Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, and Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice.
Inga Popovaite is a current graduate student at the University of Iowa
in the Department of Sociology. Her research interests include sociologi-
cal social psychology and quantitative methods.
Jonathan T. Pryor is an Assistant Professor in the Higher Education,
Administration, and Leadership Pathway in the Department of
Educational Leadership at California State University, Fresno. Prior
to Fresno State, Dr. Pryor managed the University of Missouri-Kansas
City LGBTQIA Programs and Services, where he advocated to enhance
LGBTQ+ equity in institutional policy and practice. As a practitioner,
he received recognition from Campus Pride and the ACPA Coalition
for Sexuality and Gender Identities for his work in the field of LGBTQ+
student affairs. Dr. Pryor’s research explores LGBTQ+ campus climate
and higher education leadership, critically exploring how higher edu-
cation and student affairs challenges and upholds inequities toward the
LGBTQ+ community. His work has been published in outlets includ-
ing The Journal of College Student Development, The Journal of Student
Affairs Research & Practice, The College Student Affairs Journal, The
Journal of LGBT Youth, and Critical Questions in Education.
Sasānēhsaeh Pyawasay an enrolled member of the Menominee Nation
of Wisconsin. She has worked in education for 10 years both with college
and high school students and currently serves as the Assistant Director
of Diversity & Inclusion for the College of Science & Engineering at the
University of Minnesota. As a Native scholar, Sasānēhsaeh uses Critical
Indigeneity to interrogate and address systemic social change in higher
education. Through an interdisciplinary approach, infusing Indigenous
studies, sociology, and education, her scholarship focuses on explor-
ing and interrogating institutional policies, practices, and structures to
xx Notes on Contributors
understand and bring about transformative change establishing a more

equitable and accessible higher education institution. She received a
Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development from the
University of Minnesota—Twin Cities.
Susan Rankin retired from the Pennsylvania State University in 2013
after a 36-year career. She most recently served as an Associate Professor
of Education and Associate in the Center for the Study of Higher
Education. Dr. Rankin has presented and published widely on the inter-
sections of identities and the impact of sexism, genderism, racism and
heterosexism in the academy and in intercollegiate athletics. Dr. Rankin’s
most recent publications include the 2010 State of Higher Education for
LGBT People, The Lives of Transgender People, the 2011 NCAA Student-
Athlete Climate Study, and the 2016 United States Transgender Survey.
Dr. Rankin has collaborated with over 170 institutions/organizations in
implementing climate assessments and developing strategic initiatives.
Liz A. Rennick serves as an Assessment & Research Analyst in the
Division of Student Affairs, Enrollment Management, Academic
Initiatives & Student Success at the University of Arizona. Her main
focus at the UA is on the collection and analysis of data concerning post-
graduate outcomes and campus climate. Prior to this roll, she coordi-
nated student government and leadership programs at three community
colleges in Southern California. Ms. Rennick’s research interests include
civic engagement and development, equity in higher education, and stu-
dent development among underrepresented and underserved college stu-
dents, including Latina/o, transfer, and community college students.
Melody Rensberger is a current student in the doctorate program in
higher education at Azusa Pacific University (APU). She is employed
at Fuller Theological Seminary as a Team Leader in the Department of
Vocation and Formation. Her research focuses on the intersections of
spiritual and ethnic minority identities.
Jocelyn G. Salcedo is an undergraduate student at Bennington College.
Her current research focuses on the cultural mismatch between first-gen-
eration, working-class, and low-income college students and American
institutions of higher education.
Stephen Santa-Ramirez is a Ph.D. student and Research Assistant at
Arizona State University, studying educational policy and evaluation.
Notes on Contributors xxi
Stephen has worked professionally in student affairs in various func-

tional areas and has taught courses on leadership and social justice issues
at higher education institutions across the country. Stephen’s research
agenda centers on racialized student experiences and campus racial cli-
mate, first-generation student support systems for persistence to gradu-
ation, and social justice issues in higher education. Stephen’s work and
scholarship are guided by his scholar-activist identity. His approach to
scholarship centers on ensuring liberation for marginalized populations.
finn j. schneider is a doctoral student in the higher education program
at the University of Minnesota. Their research interests include critical
whiteness studies, antiracist pedagogy and teaching practice, and com-
munity engagement among queer and trans* students.
Anthony J. Schulzetenberg is a Ph.D. student in Educational
Psychology at the University of Minnesota studying stereotype threat
interventions in higher education. Identifying as an applied social psy-
chologist, Anthony works to translate theory into real-world applications
that address performance and psychological belonging in both formal
education and the workplace. For the past three years, Anthony has
also been a researcher on a federally funded grant by the Department
of Education that is investigating the impact of community engagement
on the academic outcomes of underrepresented students in higher edu-
cation. He seeks to break down barriers for those from marginalized or
stigmatized groups to help create a more equitable society.
Seth C. Snyder serves as the Associate Director for Student Leadership in
the Center for Community and Civic Engagement at Carleton College. He
received his Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development
from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Snyder is interested in research and
practice in student leadership development, community and civic engage-
ment for students and campuses, student enrollment and persistence
decision-making, sense of belonging and community on campus, and the
experiences of college students from first-generation, low-income, work-
ing-class, and other minoritized identities. Seth’s work centers on increas-
ing equity in higher education and developing an ethic of active lifelong
civic and community membership and participation for undergraduates.
Wei Song is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Educational
Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on
exploring how adolescent social relations and capital facilitate or hinder
xxii Notes on Contributors
adolescent social and emotional learning, especially capacity of self-con-

trol and social competencies. Recently, she has been actively engaged in
community-based research and investigating the impact of different com-
munity-based programs on students success in higher education.
Krista M. Soria works as a Research Analyst with the Office of
Institutional Research at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Dr.
Soria is interested in researching high-impact practices that promote
undergraduates’ development and success, the experiences of first-gen-
eration and working-class students in higher education, and program-
matic efforts to enhance college students’ leadership development, civic
responsibility, and engagement in social change. Dr. Soria has worked
as an adjunct faculty at the University of Minnesota, St. Cloud State
University, Hamline University, and the University of Alaska Anchorage.
Ellen Bara Stolzenberg is the Assistant Director for Research at the
Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Dr. Stolzenberg’s
research interests include students in transition, faculty-student relation-
ships, disciplinary culture, and doctoral education. Her recent work has
focused on newly collected data on aspects of student identity, such as
sexual orientation, gender identity, atheist and agnostic beliefs, and fos-
ter care status. Prior to her current position, Dr. Stolzenberg spent 9
years working in institutional research, within both graduate education
and central administration. Dr. Stolzenberg serves on the Editorial Board
of the Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition
and she presents HERI data at research, practitioner, and accreditation
conferences nationwide. She holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education and
Organizational Change from UCLA.
Leonard D. Taylor, Jr. is an Assistant Professor of Educational
Leadership at Mississippi State University. Dr. Taylor’s award-winning
dissertation research focused on how institutional actors use research
knowledge, institutional data, and promising practices from the field
to enhance campus-level student success efforts. More recently he has
begun to explore the impact that economic logics such as academic cap-
italism, marketization, and neoliberalism have on the student success
efforts. He received a Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, Policy, and
Development from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities.
Arien Telles is a Ph.D. student of higher education in the College of
Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota.
Her research interests include community engagement and engaged
Notes on Contributors xxiii
scholarship, educational equity, and issues of race, racism, and racialized

space in the context of higher education institutions. Arien is currently
working on research projects related to place-based research centers at
anchor institutions, student perceptions of self in higher educational con-
texts, and is a part of a National Science Foundation grant looking at the
experiences of students of color in STEM fields.
Teniell L. Trolian is Assistant Professor of Educational Policy and
Leadership at the University at Albany, State University of New York.
Dr. Trolian’s research focuses on the educational experiences that influ-
ence college choice and college outcomes, with an emphasis on two pri-
mary areas: students’ higher education experiences and outcomes, and
the influence of K-12 experiences on students’ college choice decisions.
She holds a Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies from
the University of Iowa, and her work has been published in The Journal
of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, Journal of College
Student Development, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
and Teaching in Higher Education.
Jennifer Trost is Clinical Faculty in Sociology at Dougherty Family
College at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. Dr. Trost
researches the educational success of college students who have experi-
enced or are experiencing homelessness and the institutional supports
available. Dr. Trost also conducts research on dual enrollment courses
and how students, specifically students of color, access opportunities to
higher education within the K-12 system. Dr. Trost focuses on increas-
ing equity in higher education and increasing the access and success
of underrepresented students in postsecondary. She holds a Ph.D. in
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development from the University
of Minnesota-Twin Cities.
Ricky A. Urgo is a Residence Director and second year Masters student
in the Educational Leadership program at Mississippi State University.
Ricky is interested in researching access, assessment, retention, policy,
organizational behavior, positive psychology, and multicultural affairs.
Ricky worked to produce an action research project with a first-year tran-
sition program that was presented in poster style at ACPA 2018, as well
as a publication addressing masculinity and prosocial behaviors relating
to relational aggression. Ricky received his Bachelors in Psychology, con-
centration in Child Behavioral Services, from Rowan University in 2016.
xxiv Notes on Contributors
Deborah M. Warnock is Sociology Faculty at Bennington College

and holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Washington.
Dr. Warnock’s research focuses on access to, and experiences of, higher
education for working-class and first-generation college students. She is
particularly interested in students’ efforts to organize around social class
on campus, as well as how institutions can better support students from
low-SES backgrounds. Her work has appeared in Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, Journal of College Student Development, and
Innovative Higher Education. Prior to joining the faculty at Bennington,
she taught at SUNY Cortland, University of Louisville, Skidmore
College, and the University of Washington.
Tilden Whitfield is a Program Specialist for the University of West
Florida’s TRiO program. The main objective of Tilden’s program is to
provide intrusive and developmental academic advising, counseling and
other support services that increase the retention and graduation rates
of the students he serves. Tilden holds a B.A. in Interdisciplinary Social
Science with a Minor in Special Education.
Lynn E. Williford leads the Office of Institutional Research and
Assessment for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She
received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from UNC-Chapel Hill.
She also holds Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Master of Education
degrees from Carolina.
LaTecia Yarbrough is a Residence Director and second-year Master
student in the Educational Leadership program at Mississippi State
University. LaTecia is interested in research in multiracial and multicul-
tural identity development. Currently, LaTecia is working on an action
research project on data analysis. LaTecia received his Bachelors of Art
and Letter with a concentration in Public Relations, from California
State University, San Bernardino.
Andrew L. Zehner is a Research Analyst in the Office of Institutional
Research, Assessment and Effectiveness at Purdue University. His
research activities focus on retention and other student academic out-
comes, campus climate, and student engagement. Much of his work is
special project reporting for senior administrators at his university. He
holds a Master of Public Policy from Georgetown University.
List of Figures
Fig. 5.1 Perceptions of campus climate by social class: personal

dimension (distance from mean) 113
Fig. 5.2 Perceptions of campus climate by social class: institutional
dimension (distance from mean) 116
Fig. 5.3 Perceptions of classed interactions by social class
(distance from mean) 119
Fig. 13.1 Proportion of students who reported experiencing unwanted
sexual contact and sexual assault, by gender identity
(**p < .01 for trans-spectrum students) 286
Fig. 13.2 Proportion of students who reported challenging others on
issues of discrimination, by gender identity 287
Fig. 13.3 Proportion of students who reported discussing issues
related to sexism, gender differences, or gender equity, by
gender identity 288
Fig. 13.4 Proportion of students in low, average, and high groups for
critical consciousness and action, by gender identity 291
Fig. 13.5 Proportion of students who reported unwanted sexual
contact and sexual assault, by sexual orientation (**p < .01) 292
Fig. 13.6 Proportion of students who reported frequently challenging
others on issues of discrimination, by sexual orientation 294
Fig. 13.7 Satisfaction with campus atmosphere for differences in sexual
orientation, by sexual orientation 296
critical consciousness and action, by sexual orientation 297
xxv
xxvi List of Figures
social agency, by sexual orientation 298
Fig. 15.1 Perceptions of respect 339
Fig. 15.2 Perceptions of belonging, academic involvement,
and financial strain 339
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Students’ demographics by year of SERU survey

administration 5
Table 1.2 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my race/
ethnicity are respected on campus” 9
Table 1.3 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my
socioeconomic status are respected on campus” 11
gender are respected on campus” 12
religious beliefs are respected on campus” 13
political beliefs are respected on campus” 14
Table 1.7 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my sexual
orientation are respected on campus” 15
immigration status are respected on campus” 17
Table 1.9 Students’ agreement with the item “students with a
physical, psychological, or learning disability like mine are
respected on campus” 18
Table 2.1 Factor loadings and internal consistency on negative
climate for diversity factor scales 31
Table 2.2 Variable definitions and coding schemes 32
Table 2.3 Percentages of Latinx college students who experienced
negative campus climates by comparison group 35
xxvii
xxviii List of Tables
Table 2.4 Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses on

GPA by aggregate Latinx sample, gender, first-generation
status and immigrant background 38
Table 3.1 Queer-spectrum survey respondents 53
Table 3.2 Disaggregated queer-spectrum survey respondents 53
Table 3.3 Disaggregated trans-spectrum survey respondents 54
Table 3.4 Emotional well-being by sexual orientation 56
Table 3.5 Self-appraisal of emotional health 56
Table 3.6 Comparison of substance use of straight/heterosexual,
queer-spectrum students, cisgender, and trans-spectrum
students 58
Table 3.7 Comparison of mental/emotional health and self-
injurious behaviors of straight/Heterosexual, queer-
spectrum students, cisgender, and trans-spectrum students 59
Table 3.8 Comparison of academic impediments of straight/
heterosexual, queer-spectrum students, cisgender, and
trans-spectrum students 60
Table 3.9 Comparison of feelings of safety of straight/heterosexual,
queer-spectrum students, cisgender, and trans-spectrum
students 60
Table 3.10 Unstandardized regression coefficients for academic
engagement and campus environment measures by sexual
orientation 63
Table 3.11 Unstandardized regression coefficients for academic
engagement and campus environment measures by
gender identity 64
Table 3.12 Overall satisfaction with social and academic experiences 67
Table 4.1 Undergraduate participants 80
Table 4.2 Gender identification and sexual orientation for
LGBTQIA+ students at SRU with a psychological
disability (n = 405) 89
Table 4.3 Experiences related to gender identification for
LGBTQIA+ students at SRU with a psychological
disability 90
Table 4.4 Experiences related to sexual orientation for LGBTQIA+
students at SRU with a psychological disability 92
Table 4.5 Experiences related to nature of disability for LGBTQIA+
students at SRU with a psychological disability 93
Table 5.1 Demographic identification information of sample
(45,239) 108
Table 5.2 Differences between students’ perceptions of campus
climate by social class, personal dimension 112
List of Tables xxix
Table 5.3 Differences between students’ perceptions of campus

climate by social class, institutional dimension 115
Table 5.4 Differences between students’ perceptions of classed
interactions by social class 118
Table 6.1 Disability and accommodation 129
Table 6.2 Variation in campus climate measures, no disability versus
disability 136
Table 6.3 Campus climate measures, by type of disability 138
Table 6.4 Campus climate measures: physical disability:
accommodated v. not accommodated 141
Table 6.5 Campus climate measures: learning disability:
Table 6.6 Campus climate measures: psychological disability:
Table 6.7 Campus climate measures: disability and socio-economic
class 144
Table 7.1 Participant profiles 157
Table 9.1 Demographic data 191
Table 9.2 Mean (SD) response to survey questions by race/ethnicity 193
Table 9.3 Dunn test for pairwise differences between groups for
SERU item: “Students of my race/ethnicity are respected
on this campus” (study variable) 194
SERU item: “Overall, I feel comfortable with the climate
for diversity and inclusiveness at my University” 195
SERU item: “How satisfied are you with your social
experience [on campus]” 196
SERU item: “I feel that I belong at this [University
Name]” 197
SERU item: “How satisfied are you with your academic
experience [on campus]” 198
Table 9.8 Correlation between SERU items 200
Table 9.9 Regression models for the three outcome variables with
“Students of my race/ethnicity are respected on this
campus” 202
Table 9.10 Regression models for the three outcome variables with
“Overall, I feel comfortable with the climate for diversity
and inclusiveness at [University Name]” 203
xxx List of Tables
Table 10.1 Frequency of participant demographics by immigration

background 218
Table 10.2 Comparison of means for perceptions of campus climate
and sense of belonging among non-immigrant and
first-generation students 220
and sense of belonging among non-immigrant and
second-generation students 221
and sense of belonging among first-generation and
second-generation students 222
and sense of belonging among non-immigrant white
students and students of color 222
and sense of belonging among first-generation white
and sense of belonging among second-generation white
Table 10.8 Regression models predicting sense of belonging
(“I feel valued as an individual”) among non-immigrant,
first-generation, and second-generation students 224
Table 10.9 Regression models predicting sense of belonging
(“I feel that I belong”) among non-immigrant,
first-generation, and second-generation students 225
Table 11.1 Variable definitions and coding schemes 238
Table 11.2 Results of ANOVA on sense of belonging and perceptions
of campus climate for diversity by race/ethnicity 240
Table 11.3 Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses on
sense of belonging by aggregate sample and by race/
ethnicity 243
Table 12.1 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my race/
ethnicity are respected on campus” 256
Table 12.2 Students’ agreement with the item “overall, I feel
comfortable with the climate for diversity and
inclusiveness at this university” 258
Table 12.3 Students’ agreement with the item “this university is a
safe and secure campus” 259
Table 12.4 Students’ agreement with the item “this university is a
welcoming campus” 260
List of Tables xxxi
Table 12.5 Students’ agreement with the item “I feel valued as an

individual at this campus” 261
Table 12.6 Students’ agreement with the item “I feel that I belong at
this university” 262
Table 12.7 Linear regression results 264
Table 12.9 The frequency with which students heard classmates
express negative or stereotypical views about race/ethnicity 266
Table 12.10 The frequency with which students heard faculty or
instructors express negative or stereotypical views about
race/ethnicity 268
Table 12.11 The frequency with which students heard administrators
or staff express negative or stereotypical views about
race/ethnicity 269
Table 13.1 Goals, behaviors, and self-reflection factors 290
Table 15.1 Descriptive statistics 335
Table 15.2 Student academic outcomes and experiences by race,
international student status, and immigrant status 338
Table 15.3 Credit hour accumulation (Spring 2013–Spring 2015) 340
Table 15.4 Graduation/Degree completion (by Summer 2017) 343
Table 15.5 Credit hour accumulation (Spring 2013–Spring 2015)
interaction model results 345
Table 15.6 Graduation/degree completion (by summer 2017)
interaction model results 346
Table 16.1 Category mean scores regarding level of agreement of
perceived respect, welcoming, and belonging 361
Table 16.2 Comparisons of column means regarding level of
agreement of perceived respect, welcoming, and belonging 362
Table 16.3 Comparisons of column means regarding experiences of
negative views based on identity 365
Table 16.4 Category mean scores regarding experiences of negative
views based on identity 366
Table 17.1 Campus climate differences between cisgender and
transgender students 384
Table 17.2 Campus climate differences among cisgender and
Table 17.3 Campus climate differences among cisgender and
Table 18.1 Differences between students’ perception of campus
climate by race/ethnicity 401
Table 19.1 Demographic information 412
xxxii List of Tables
Table 19.2 Social class by ethnicity 413

Table 19.3 Student engagement in high-impact practices 417
Table 19.4 Student engagement by gender identity 418
Table 19.5 Student engagement by ethnicity 420
Table 19.6 Student engagement by social class 421
Table 19.7 Perception on campus climate 423
Table 19.8 Perception of campus climate by ethnicity 424
Table 19.9 Perception of campus climate by gender identity 426
Table 19.10 Perception of campus climate by social class 427
Table 19.11 Perception of campus climate by academic classification 427
Table 19.12 Perception on campus climate by engagement 428
Table 20.1 Items comprising the in-class learning about difference
and social issues scale 439
Table 20.2 Descriptive table of control variables 441
Table 20.3 Regression estimates for the association between learning
about difference in the classroom and students’
perceptions of the climate for diversity at research
universities 443
Table 21.1 Stakeholders attending the data workshop 458
Table 22.1 Regression models explaining the effect of service-
learning on campus climate and sense of belonging for
each ethnic group 481
CHAPTER 1
Campus Climate at Research Universities:

2012–2017
Krista M. Soria
Given the deleterious ubiquity of racially motivated incidents of discrim-

ination, bias, violence, and prejudice in higher education institutions,
most of the early campus climate researchers focused their scholarship
on investigating the campus climate for racial and ethnic diversity. For
instance, Hurtado (1992) described the prevalence of racial conflicts on
college campuses in the 1980s, along with the subsequent protests that
students at some institutions organized to express solidarity with their
peers who were encountering harassment and violence. Many of these
incidents occurred on predominantly White higher education campuses,
including several large, public research universities (Farrell & Jones,
1988). Decades later, racial and ethnic tensions remain unabated in our
nation and on college campuses and, bolstered by national campaigns
such as the Black Lives Matter movement, college students have yet again
organized protests to counter persistent racism (Milkman, 2017). Those
efforts have been buffeted by precipitous increases in hate incidents,
threats, intimidation, and vandalism since the presidential election in
2016 (Potok, 2017). In fact, the largest proportion of incidents ten days
after the 2016 presidential election occurred in educational contexts—in
K. M. Soria (*)
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
© The Author(s) 2018 1

K. M. Soria (ed.), Evaluating Campus Climate at US Research
Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94836-2_1
2 K. M. SORIA
either higher education institutions or K-12 institutions—and they were

dominated by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim incidents, followed by
anti-Black, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBT, anti-women, and pro-White nation-
alist messages (Miller & Werner-Winslow, 2016).
The postelection discriminatory messages were directed at students
from several backgrounds across gender, sexual orientation, religion,
and immigration status, suggesting there is a compelling need to expand
campus climate research beyond race/ethnicity to better understand
the experiences of students from a wider variety of underrepresented,
oppressed, disenfranchised, and marginalized backgrounds. Within
the last decade, scholars have made significant strides in researching
the campus climate experiences of students from different social class
backgrounds (Soria & Bultmann, 2014), religious identities (Riggers-
Piehl & Lehman, 2016; Soria, Lepkowski, & Weiner, 2013), immigrant
backgrounds (Stebleton, Soria, & Huesman, 2014), gender identi-
ties (Evans, Nagoshi, Nagoshi, Wheeler, & Henderson, 2017; Garvey
& Rankin, 2015) and sexual orientation (Evans & Herriott, 2004;
Rockenbach, Lo, & Mayhew, 2017; Tetreault, Fette, Meidlinger, &
Hope, 2013). Those scholars—and many more not listed here—have
overridingly discovered that college students from marginalized, under-
served, minoritized, and disenfranchised backgrounds continue to feel
less welcome than their peers from privileged or majority backgrounds.
The purpose of this present volume is to expand upon prior campus
climate research with a specific focus on undergraduates who are enrolled
at large, public research universities. Hurtado (1992) discovered that
college students enrolled at large universities are more likely than those
attending smaller colleges or private colleges to report racial tensions and
conflicts, perhaps because larger institutions are characterized as more
impersonal and less supportive of individual students. It is therefore
important to examine the campus climate for diversity in large, public
university settings, as those types of settings may cultivate institutional
conditions within which students perceive there is a more negative cam-
pus climate for diversity due to the environmental or organizational con-
ditions. Furthermore, against the backdrop of growing diversity among
college student populations and the relative paucity of campus climate
research that extends beyond the scope of campus climate for race/
ethnicity, the purpose of this volume is to explore campus climate at
research universities as it affects a wide variety of students from different
social identities: race/ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation,
1 CAMPUS CLIMATE AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: 2012–2017 3
parental education, immigrant status, international status, and disability.

Additionally, authors in this volume interrogate the campus climate
assessment process and provide insights into collegiate experiences that
might promote students’ positive perception of campus climate.
In this chapter, I provide evidence suggesting that the campus climate
for students with marginalized identities has diminished over a six-year
period (2012–2017) at large, public research universities. The data pre-
sented in this chapter serve as an impetus for this volume and its contrib-
utors, who also provide evidence suggesting that marginalized students
at research universities struggle with achieving a sense of belonging and
acceptance in those environments. Even as our campuses grow more
diverse, college students are more likely to perceive that the campus is
less welcoming to students with their social identity.
Methodology
To measure students’ perception of campus climate for diverse social
identities at large, public research universities, I utilized data from
the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey,
which institutions administered on their campuses from 2012 to 2017.
Differing numbers of institutions participated in each year of the survey’s
administration (2012 = 15, 2013 = 14, 2014 = 20, 2015 = 9, 2016 = 18,
2017 = 8). Institutions typically participate in the SERU administrations
every three out of four years, indicating that not every institution is rep-
resented in every administration. There is a larger group of institutions
that participated in 2012, 2014, and 2016 in a system-wide effort. The
response rates for each institution typically range from 10 to 40%.
The intention of this chapter is to present cross-sectional, descriptive
analyses of students’ responses to survey items; however, cross-sectional
analyses are not as potentially insightful as longitudinal analyses
(i.e., measuring the same students each year of their enrollment to gauge
changes in institutional campus climate for diversity). Additionally,
because the institutions that participated in the survey administra-
tions change each year, and are themselves diverse in terms of their
regional location and proportions of students enrolled by demographics
(e.g., racial/ethnic, socioeconomic), it is even more challenging to make
claims that campus climate diversity is similarly experienced by students
at each institution. Each institution is also unique with regard to the
energy and resources devoted to creating more inclusive campus climates
4 K. M. SORIA
and promoting interactions across students from diverse backgrounds.

The extent to which campuses are structurally diverse, offer curricular
diversity, and promote interactional diversity influence students’ percep-
tions of campus climate (Cabrera, Crissman, Bernal, Nora, & Pascarella,
2002; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Gurin & Nagda, 2006;
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998; Park, Densen, &
Bowman, 2013). The present study is thus limited because those factors
were not included in analyses; nevertheless, the descriptive analyses pre-
sented here still point toward trends in campus climate for diversity to
which large, public research campuses should readily attend.
Participants
The surveys are administered in the spring semester at each institution.
Between ~34,000 and ~78,000 students responded during each year of
the administration and there is a great deal of variability between the
demographics of respondents at each institution. In Table 1.1, I have
presented the overall demographics of students who participated in each
year of the survey administration. I analyzed campus climate items that
focus on students’ race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual
orientation, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and disability; therefore,
I included those demographics below, some of which were collected by
institutions (i.e., race/ethnicity) and others that were self-reported by
students in the survey (i.e., gender, social class, sexual orientation, reli-
gious beliefs, political beliefs, and disability). Many of the demographic
survey items changed across the survey administrations (i.e., religious
preference, gender, sexual orientation, disability) and there are several
institutions that did not report race/ethnicity in 2013.
Results
Below, I have presented students’ responses to a variety of campus
climate items offered in the SERU survey each year of its adminis

tration. In the survey, students respond to an item that asked whether
they agree that students of their own race/ethnicity are respected on
campus. As indicated in Table 1.2, students’ overall perception of the
extent to which they agree students of their own race or ethnicity were
respected on campus decreased between 2012 and 2017. Specifically, in
2012, 75.8% of students agreed or strongly agreed that students of their
Table 1.1 Students’ demographics by year of SERU survey administration
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
institutions) institutions) institutions) institutions) institutions) institutions)
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Race/Ethnicity
1
American Indian 1108 1.1 243 0.2 313 0.2 146 0.3 146 0.1 111 0.2
Black 3549 3.5 3832 3.5 3518 2.7 2461 4.3 2981 2.9 2511 4.6
Hispanic 11,272 11.0 7958 7.3 18,321 14.1 5889 10.3 19,258 19.0 6763 12.3
Asian 24,320 23.8 10,300 9.5 29,387 22.6 6455 11.3 25,789 25.5 7633 13.9
White 41,413 40.5 56,351 52.0 55,379 42.6 34,810 60.9 37,535 37.1 31,656 57.8
Native Hawaiian or Pacific 813 0.8 104 0.1 337 0.3 126 0.2 292 0.3 122 0.2
Islander
International 4383 4.3 5354 4.9 8130 6.2 2992 5.2 7602 7.5 2643 4.8
Multiracial *** *** 2199 2.0 4771 3.7 1954 3.4 4736 4.7 1848 3.4
Ethnicity not provided by 8103 7.9 22,003 20.3 9969 8.1 2366 4.2 2941 2.9 1491 2.8
institutions or students
declined to report
Social class
Low-income or poor 2266 2.7 4864 5.2 12,068 10.9 3051 6.1 11,652 13.2 3205 6.6
Working-class 16,114 19.5 16,804 18.0 24,491 22.1 8260 16.5 19,604 22.2 8555 17.7
Middle-class 33,467 40.5 41,228 44.2 44,805 40.4 20,267 40.5 33,403 37.9 19,427 40.2
Upper-middle or 22,794 27.6 28,087 30.1 27,169 24.5 16,801 33.6 21,530 24.4 15,515 32.1
professional-middle
Wealthy 8075 9.8 2364 2.5 2296 2.1 1669 3.3 1978 2.2 1575 3.3
Sexual orientation
Bisexual 2299 2.8 2286 2.5 3713 3.4 1674 3.4 4879 5.6 2406 5.0
CAMPUS CLIMATE AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: 2012–2017
Gay/Lesbian 1827 2.2 2074 2.2 2579 2.4 1223 2.5 2651 3.0 1289 2.7
Heterosexual 71,158 86.9 83,235 89.4 93,304 85.1 44,723 89.9 76,457 87.3 41,848 86.9
5
Questioning/Unsure 918 1.1 810 0.9 1406 1.3 638 1.3 4879 5.6 563 1.2
(continued)
Table 1.1 (continued)
6
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
K. M. SORIA
Queer 474 0.6 407 0.4 797 0.7 *** *** 326 0.4 629 1.3
Decline to state 4078 5.0 3189 3.4 6105 5.6 813 1.6 625 0.7 832 1.7
Other 1170 1.4 1134 1.2 1764 1.6 682 1.4 2223 2.5 615 1.3
Gender
Woman (Female) 48,069 58.3 55,163 59.1 65,342 59.2 29,944 60.0 53,480 60.7 29,985 62.1
Man (Male) 32,721 39.7 36,883 39.5 42,578 38.6 19,305 38.7 33,031 37.5 17,272 35.8
Decline to state 1396 1.7 1130 1.2 1825 1.7 275 0.6 223 0.3 299 0.6
Transgender 223 0.3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Trans female *** *** *** *** *** *** 55 0.1 106 .01 48 0.1
Trans male *** *** *** *** *** *** 28 0.1 135 0.2 63 0.1
Genderqueer or gender *** *** *** *** *** *** 265 0.5 744 0.8 322 0.7
non-conforming
Political orientation
Very liberal 6051 7.4 6299 6.8 7502 6.9 3654 7.4 8734 10.5 4774 10.3
Liberal 21,209 26.1 22,345 24.2 28,394 26.2 11,657 23.6 27,836 33.4 13,888 30.0
Slightly liberal 13,984 17.2 13,018 14.1 17,152 15.8 7133 14.5 12,952 15.5 6869 14.9
Moderate or middle of the 23,421 28.8 23,708 25.6 31,521 29.1 12,692 25.7 20,735 24.9 9378 20.3
road
Slightly conservative 8331 10.2 11,187 12.1 11,252 10.4 6121 12.4 6637 8.0 4790 10.4
Conservative 7011 8.6 12,985 14.0 10,561 9.7 6707 13.6 5349 6.4 5262 11.4
Very conservative 1309 1.6 2925 3.2 2102 1.9 1351 2.7 1123 1.3 1276 2.8
Religious or spiritual affiliation
Spiritual but not associated 8325 10.3 9686 10.4 10,517 9.9 4216 8.7 6256 11.3 1744 3.6
with a major religion
Not particularly spiritual 9348 11.5 8679 9.3 13,021 12.2 5207 10.8 7121 12.9
(continued)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
1
No preference 7425 9.2 5181 5.6 10,342 9.7 3301 6.8 6783 12.3 8691 18.0
Agnostic 6145 7.6 5502 5.9 7766 7.3 3487 7.2 4664 8.5 4839 10.0
Atheist 7229 8.9 6719 7.2 8540 8.0 3953 8.2 4987 9.0 4278 8.9
Baptist 2577 3.2 5074 5.5 3822 3.6 2991 6.2 1049 1.9
Buddhist 2833 3.5 1249 1.3 3283 3.1 711 1.5 2420 4.4 800 1.7
Christian Church (Disciples) 5232 6.5 4876 5.2 7608 7.1 3082 6.4 3150 5.7
Christian, Evangelical *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 4826 10.0
Protestant (e.g., Assemblies
of God, Southern Baptist
Convention, Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod,
Pentecostal)
Christian, Mainline Protestant *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 5301 11.0
(e.g., Episcopal church,
Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, United Methodist
Church, Presbyterian Church
(USA))
Eastern Orthodox 593 0.7 655 0.7 703 0.7 323 0.7 355 0.6 *** ***
Episcopalian 567 0.7 1219 1.3 685 0.6 571 1.2 138 0.3 *** ***
Hindu 1258 1.6 1466 1.6 1560 1.5 590 1.2 935 1.7 1030 2.1
Jewish 2193 2.7 3485 3.7 2453 2.3 1549 3.2 1125 2.0 1474 3.1
Lutheran 1846 2.3 3270 3.5 2529 2.4 1563 3.2 309 0.6 *** ***
Methodist 1256 1.6 3762 4.0 2160 2.0 1688 3.5 264 0.5 *** ***
Mormon 245 0.3 231 0.2 302 0.3 122 0.3 145 0.3 *** ***
7
(continued)
8
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
K. M. SORIA
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Muslim 1374 1.7 1346 1.4 1733 1.6 654 1.4 1065 1.9 1071 2.2
Presbyterian 2167 2.7 2757 3.0 2587 2.4 1449 3.0 954 1.7 *** ***
Quaker 65 0.1 92 0.1 71 0.1 37 0.1 35 0.1 *** ***
Roman Catholic 13,031 16.1 17,610 18.9 17,465 16.4 7939 16.4 8273 15.0 12,389 25.7
Seventh Day Adventist 171 0.2 160 0.2 211 0.2 99 0.2 162 0.3 *** ***
Sikh 379 0.5 120 0.1 410 0.4 66 0.1 330 0.6 *** ***
Taoist 102 0.1 90 0.1 144 0.1 45 0.1 92 0.2 *** ***
Unitarian/Universalist 167 0.2 256 0.3 205 0.2 127 0.3 62 0.1 *** ***
United Church of Christ/ 208 0.3 469 0.5 328 0.3 180 0.4 104 0.2 *** ***
Congregational
Other Christian 5330 6.6 8090 8.7 7175 6.7 3991 8.3 3425 6.2 *** ***
Other religion 922 1.1 949 1.0 1149 1.1 401 0.8 952 1.7 1836 3.8
Disability
Physical disabilities *** *** *** *** 1772 1.6 810 1.6 2169 2.5 954 2.0
Learning disabilities *** *** *** *** 6093 5.5 3545 7.1 5918 6.7 3348 6.9
Psychological disability *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 11,250 12.8 6685 13.9
Note ***denotes missing data for that year attributed to changes in survey items across survey administrations
1
Table 1.2 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my race/ethnicity are respected on campus”
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Strongly disagree 989 1.2 840 0.9 1730 1.5 763 1.5 2186 2.3 1039 2.0
Disagree 1712 2.0 1402 1.5 2976 2.5 1287 2.5 3722 4.0 1794 3.5
Somewhat disagree 4457 5.2 3850 4.0 7273 6.2 2906 5.6 8488 9.0 3741 7.3
Somewhat agree 13,632 15.9 12,252 12.7 21,799 18.6 7960 15.4 22,823 24.3 10,044 19.6
Agree 37,761 44.0 41,236 42.7 49,551 42.3 20,272 39.3 35,932 38.3 19,335 37.7
Strongly agree 27,275 31.8 36,925 38.3 33,864 28.9 18,373 35.6 20,682 22.0 15,299 29.9
9
10 K. M. SORIA
race/ethnicity were respected on campus compared to 67.6% of students

in 2017. There are some noteworthy fluctuations; for instance, in 2013,
the percent of students who agreed or strongly agree that students of
their race/ethnicity were respected on campus increased to 81.0% and
2016 saw the lowest agreement to that item, with only 60.3% agreeing
or strongly agreeing that students from their racial/ethnic backgrounds
were respected on their campuses. Such fluctuations could be attrib-
uted to societal conditions (e.g., the presidential election, the Black
Lives Matter movement) or the institutions that participated in the sur-
vey administrations (which range in terms of the proportions of students
from different racial/ethnic backgrounds, see Table 1.1).
Students also indicated whether they agreed that students from their
socioeconomic background were respected on campus. Students’ over-
all agreement with this item dropped from 2012 to 2017 from 73.9%
agree/strongly agree to 68.9% agree/strongly agree (Table 1.3). As in
the first results, there is fluctuation over the years of the administration,
with 78.5% of students agreeing/strongly agreeing that students of their
socioeconomic status were respected on their campuses in 2013 to only
61.9% of students agreeing and strongly agreeing with that item in 2016.
Students also indicated whether they agreed that students of their
gender were respected on campus. Students’ overall agreement with this
item dropped from 2012 to 2017 from 80.9% agree/strongly agree to
65.2% agree/strongly agree (Table 1.4). As in the first results, there is
fluctuation over the years of the administration, with 78.5% of students
agreeing/strongly agreeing that students of their gender were respected
on their campuses in 2013 to only 61.9% of students agreeing and
strongly agreeing with that item in 2016.
Additionally, students’ perception that students of their reli-
gious beliefs were respected on campus decreased from 2012 to 2017
(Table 1.5). In 2012, 71.8% of students agreed or strongly agreed that
students with their religious beliefs were respected on campus compared
to 66.1% of students in 2017. As in prior results, the year in which stu-
dents reported the lowest agreement to that item was in 2016 (61.5%).
Similarly, students’ perception that students of their political beliefs were
respected on campus decreased from 72.2% in 2012 to 59.4% in 2017
(Table 1.6). Students’ agreement that students of their sexual orientation
were respected on campus remained relatively flat between 2012 (86.6%)
and 2017 (83.3%) (Table 1.7) and students’ beliefs that students of their
immigration status were respected on campus increased from 34.3%
Table 1.3 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my socioeconomic status are respected on campus”
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Disagree 1811 2.1 1560 1.6 3164 2.7 1362 2.6 3716 4.0 1710 3.3
Somewhat agree 14,907 17.4 14,094 14.6 23,338 19.9 8987 17.4 21,746 23.2 9632 18.8
Agree 39,160 45.6 44,056 45.7 51,734 44.1 21,801 42.3 38,594 41.2 21,181 41.4
Strongly agree 24,233 28.2 31,643 32.8 29,583 25.2 15,476 30.0 19,446 20.7 14,096 27.5
1 CAMPUS CLIMATE AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: 2012–2017
11
12
K. M. SORIA
Table 1.4 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my gender are respected on campus”
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Disagree 880 1.0 1058 1.1 1741 1.5 915 1.8 2634 2.8 1361 2.7
Somewhat agree 12,205 14.2 13,383 13.9 20,545 17.5 9640 18.7 22,178 23.7 11,796 23.1
Agree 41,554 48.3 44,900 46.5 55,366 47.2 22,281 43.2 40,097 42.8 20,823 40.7
Strongly agree 28,023 32.6 33,237 34.4 33,467 28.5 15,393 29.9 20,072 21.4 12,533 24.5
Table 1.5 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my religious beliefs are respected on campus”
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Disagree 1883 2.2 2092 2.2 2769 2.4 1396 2.7 2811 3.0 1568 3.1
Somewhat agree 16,148 19.1 17,501 18.2 24,774 21.2 10,457 20.3 23,574 25.3 10,949 21.5
Agree 39,394 46.6 44,275 46.0 53,408 45.6 22,419 43.6 40,083 43.0 21,841 42.8
Strongly agree 21,310 25.2 26,133 27.1 27,160 23.2 12,991 25.3 17,237 18.5 11,910 23.3
1 CAMPUS CLIMATE AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: 2012–2017
13
14
K. M. SORIA
Table 1.6 Students’ agreement with the item “students of my political beliefs are respected on campus”
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(n = 15 (n = 14 (n = 20 (n = 9 (n = 18 (n = 8
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Disagree 2074 2.4 2694 2.8 3328 2.8 1822 3.5 3595 3.8 3091 6.0
Somewhat agree 15,520 18.3 17,065 17.7 24,198 20.7 10,103 19.6 21,417 22.9 10,033 19.6
Agree 39,670 46.9 43,315 44.9 52,893 45.2 21,987 42.7 38,520 41.2 18,374 35.9
Strongly agree 21,437 25.3 25,672 26.6 27,065 23.1 12,794 24.8 19,630 21.0 12,035 23.5
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
of other parts of the world than Europe and North America. One of
the more curious forms of the family is Oniscigaster wakefieldi; the
body of the imago is unusually rotund and furnished with lateral
processes. In Britain we have about forty species of may-fly. The
family is treated as a distinct Order by Brauer and Packard, and is
called Plectoptera by the latter.
Fig. 284.—Oniscigaster wakefieldi. New Zealand. (After M‘Lachlan.)
That Insects so fragile, so highly organised, with a host of powerful

enemies, but themselves destitute of means of attack or defence,
should contrive to exist at all is remarkable; and it appears still more
unlikely that such delicate Insects as Ephemeridae should leave
implanted in the rocks their traces in such a manner that they can be
recognised; nevertheless, such is the case,—indeed, the may-fly
palaeontological record is both rich and remarkable. Several forms
are preserved in amber. In the Tertiary bed of the old lake at
Florissant, Scudder has been able to distinguish the remains of no
less than six species; while in the Jurassic layers of the Secondary
epoch, in more than one locality, the remains of several other
species have been detected and described. Still more remarkable is
the fact that in the Devonian and Carboniferous layers of the
Palaeozoic period, remains are found that appear to be akin to our
existing Ephemeridae. Palingenia feistmantelii from the
Carboniferous of Bohemia is actually referred to a still existing
genus; it is said to have been of gigantic size for a may-fly.
The families Megasecopterides, Platypterides, and
Stenodictyopterides of the Carboniferous epoch (see p. 343) are all
more or less closely allied to the Ephemeridae, and in addition to
these Brongniart has established the family Protephemerides for
some Insects that he considers to have been the precursors in the
Carboniferous epoch of our existing may-flies. These ancient Insects
differed in having the wings of another form from those of existing
Ephemeridae, and in having the hind wings equal in size to the front
pair. Besides this, these Insects had, as shown in Fig. 285,
prothoracic dorsal appendages; some had also projections from the
abdominal segments, considered by Brongniart to be of the nature of
gills. Some doubt must exist as to this point, for we find in the imago
of one of our existing Ephemeridae, Oniscigaster wakefieldi, Fig.
284, abdominal processes that are not gills.
Fig. 285.—Homaloneura bonnieri; Carboniferous of Commentry. (After

Brongniart.)
It is remarkable that may-flies, which now form a comparatively

unimportant part of the Insect tribe, should in far distant times have
been represented by so great a variety of allied forms. Our fragile,
short-lived may-flies appear to be, as Scudder says, the lingering
fragments of an expiring group.
CHAPTER XX
NEUROPTERA PLANIPENNIA—SIALIDAE, ALDER-FLIES, SNAKE-FLIES—

PANORPIDAE, SCORPION-FLIES—HEMEROBIIDAE, ANT-LIONS,
LACEWINGS, ETC.
Fam. VIII. Sialidae—Alder-flies and Snake-flies.
Four wings of moderate size, meeting in repose over the back at

an angle; the hinder of the two pairs slightly the smaller; the anal
area small or nearly absent, not plicate. Nervures moderately
numerous, transverse veinlets moderately numerous, forming
irregularly disposed cells. The metamorphosis is great; there is a
quiescent pupa. The larva has the mandibles formed for biting,
armed with strong teeth.
The Sialidae, though but a small family of only some six or eight
genera, comprise a considerable variety of forms and two sub-
families—Sialides and Raphidiides. The former group has larvae
with aquatic habits possessed of branchiae but no spiracles.
Fig. 286.—The alder-fly, Sialis lutaria. Britain. A, With wings expanded;

B, in profile.
Sialis lutaria is one of the commoner British Insects frequenting the

vegetation about the banks of tranquil streams; it is well known to
anglers, being used by them for a bait. According to Ronalds it is
called the alder or orl-fly, and in Wales the humpback.
Fig. 287.—Portion of a row of eggs of Sialis lutaria. (After Evans.)
Fig. 288.—Sialis lutaria, larva.
It is very unattractive in appearance, being of a blackish colour, with

wings of a yellow-brown tinge, and makes but a poor show when
flying. The female deposits patches of elongate eggs, placed on end
and packed together in a very clever manner (Fig. 287). These
patches of eggs, of a stone-gray colour, are common objects on
rushes or stems of grass near water, and it is stated that there may
be no less than 2000 or 3000 eggs in one of them. Our figure gives
some idea of the mode in which the eggs are arranged, and the
curious narrow process that exists at the end of each. The eggs are
said to be sometimes placed at a considerable distance from water,
so that when the tiny larvae are hatched they must begin their lives
by finding the way to a suitable pool or stream. The larvae (Fig. 288)
are objects of very great interest owing to each of segments 1 to 7 of
the hind body being furnished on each side with a jointed filament,
while the last segment ends in a still longer, but unjointed process.
These filaments are branchiae by means of which the Insect obtains
air, being, as we have said, destitute of spiracles. It is an active
creature and waves its filaments in a very graceful manner; this
process no doubt aids the branchiae in their respiratory work. These
larvae are well able to exist out of water if they have a sufficiently
damp environment. They live on animal matter, but their life-history
has not been followed in much detail and it is not known how many
moults they make. The young larva has the head disproportionately
large and the branchial filaments longer. When the growth is
completed the larva returns to land, seeks a suitable situation in the
soil, and after an interval changes to a pupa, in which the characters
of the perfect Insect are plainly visible. Subsequently, without
becoming again active, it changes to the perfect Insect, and enjoys,
for a few days only, an aerial life.
The anatomy of the larva has been treated by Dufour.[370] The

supra-oesophageal ganglion is remarkably small; nothing is said as
to the existence of an infra-oesophageal ganglion; there are three
thoracic and eight abdominal ganglia; the first pair of these latter are
nearer together than the others, and this is also the case with the
last three. The alimentary canal in the adult is provided with a large
paunch attached to the crop by a narrow neck,[371] but Dufour could
find no trace of this in the larva. The structure of the branchiae has
also been described by the indefatigable French entomotomist. A
tracheal tube sends a branch into one of the appendages (Fig. 289);
the branch gives off numerous smaller tracheae, which at their
extremities break up into branchlets close to the integument. The
tracheal tube that receives each main branchial trachea, sends off
from near the point of entry of the latter another trachea, that
distributes its branchlets on the alimentary canal. The margins of
each appendage are set with swimming hairs, so that the branchiae
act as organs of locomotion as well as of respiration, and by their
activity in the former capacity increase the efficiency of their primary
function.
Fig. 289.—Structure of tracheal gill of Sialis lutaria. (After Dufour.) a,
Base of the gill; b, tracheal trunk with which it is connected; c,
trachea given off to alimentary canal.
The genus Sialis occurs in a few species only, throughout the whole
of the Palaearctic and Nearctic regions, and reappears in Chili,[372]
though absent in all the intervening area. Several other genera of
Insects exhibit the same peculiarity of distribution.
Fig. 290.—Corydalis crassicornis, male, with greater portions of the

wings removed. Texas. (After M‘Lachlan.)
Fig. 291.—Raphidia notata, female. Britain. (After Curtis.)

The genera Corydalis and Chauliodes form a group distinct from
Sialis, and are totally different in appearance, being gigantic Insects,
sometimes with the mandibles of the male enormously elongated
(Fig. 290). The species of Corydalis are called in North America
Hellgrammites; Riley has described and figured the metamorphosis
of C. cornutus,[373] the life-history being very similar to that of our
little Sialis. A mass consisting of two or three thousand eggs is
formed by the female, and the young larva has long filaments at the
sides of the body like Sialis. These in the later larval life are
comparatively shorter, but the Insect is then provided with another
set of gills in the form of spongy masses on the under-side of the
body. Riley, however, considers that these organs serve the purpose
of attachment rather than of respiration. The larvae are known to the
Mississippi fishermen as crawlers, and are greatly esteemed as bait.
The Raphidiides or snake-flies form the second tribe of Sialidae.

There are only two genera, Raphidia and Inocellia, peculiar to the
Palaearctic and Nearctic regions. The perfect Insects are chiefly
remarkable for the elongation of the prothorax and back of the head
to form a long neck, and for the existence in the female of an
elongate exserted ovipositor. The species are rather numerous, and
have been recently monographed by Albarda.[374] The three or four
British species of the genus are all rare Insects, and occur only in
wooded regions.
The Raphidiides, like the Sialides, have a carnivorous larva, which,

however, is terrestrial in habits, feeding, it would appear, chiefly on
Insects that harbour in old timber. The snake-fly larvae (Fig. 292) are
very ingenious in their manner of escaping, which is done by an
extremely rapid wriggling backwards. They are capable of
undergoing very prolonged fasts, and then alter in form a good deal,
becoming shorter and more shrivelled; Fig. 292 is taken from a
specimen that had been fasting for several weeks. They are
excessively voracious, and hunt after the fashion of beasts of prey;
their habits have been described by Stein,[375] who states that he
kept a larva from August to the end of May of the following year
without food; it then died in a shrivelled-up state. The larva of the
snake-fly changes to a pupa that is remarkably intermediate in form
between the perfect Insect and the larva; the eyes, legs, wing-pads,
and ovipositor being but little different from those of the imago, while
the general form is that of the larva, and the peculiar elongation of
the neck of the imago is absent. This pupa differs from that of Sialis
in the important particular that before undergoing its final ecdysis it
regains its activity and is able to run about.
Fig. 292.—Raphidia notata, larva. New Forest.
The internal anatomy of Raphidia has been treated by Loew,[376]

and is of a very remarkable character; we can here only mention that
the salivary glands consist of a pair of extremely elongate tubes, that
there is a very definite paunch attached as an appendage to one
side of the crop, and that the most peculiar character consists of the
fact that, according to Loew, four of the six Malpighian tubes have
not a free extremity, being attached at each end so as to form
elongate loops; the mesenteron is very complex in character.
A considerable number of fossil remains from both Tertiary and

Mesozoic strata are referred to Sialidae; and a larval form from the
red sandstone of Connecticut has been considered by Scudder to be
a Sialid, and named Mormolucoides articulatus, but the correctness
of this determination is very doubtful (Fig. 293). These fossils are,
however, of special interest as being the most ancient Insect larvae
yet brought to light. A still older fossil, from the Carboniferous strata
of Illinois called Miamia bronsoni, is considered by Scudder to have
several points of resemblance to Sialidae.
Fig. 293.—Mormolucoides articulatus, larva. Trias of Connecticut.
(After Scudder.)
Fam. IX. Panorpidae—Scorpion-flies.
Head prolonged to form a deflexed beak, provided with palpi near its
apex; wings elongate and narrow, shining and destitute of hair, with
numerous, slightly divergent veins and moderately numerous
transverse veinlets (in one genus the wings are absent). Larvae
provided with legs, and usually with numerous prolegs like the saw-
flies: habits carnivorous.
Fig. 294.—Panorpa communis, male. Cambridge.
The majority of the members of this family are very readily

distinguished by the beak-like front of the head, this being chiefly
due to enlargement of parts of the head itself, and in a less degree to
prolongation of the mouth-parts. The upper (or front) face of the beak
is formed entirely by the clypeus, the labrum being scarcely visible,
though it may be detected at the sides of the tip of the beak; the
sutures between the various parts of the head are nearly or quite
obliterated, but it is probable that the sides of the beak are formed by
the genae and by the stipites of the maxillae, and its under-surface
chiefly by the submentum: the mentum itself is but small, the ligula is
small, bifid at the extremity, and each branch bears a two-jointed
palpus, the basal article being of very peculiar structure in Panorpa.
The mandibles are but small, and are placed at the apex of the beak;
they have each the form of an oblong plate armed with two very
sharp teeth, and they cross freely. The maxillae are the only parts of
the mouth-pieces that are very elongated; each cardo is articulated
at the base of the head, and the stipes extends all the length of the
side of the beak; each maxilla bears a five-jointed palpus and two
small but very densely ciliated lobes. The antennae are long, very
slender, and flexible, and are many-jointed; they are inserted
between the eyes in large foramina; there are three ocelli, or none,
and the compound eyes are moderately large. The prothorax is
small, its notum is quite small or moderate in size, and the
prothoracic stigma is placed behind it; the side-pieces are small, and
there is no chitinous prosternum except a small longitudinal strip
placed in the membrane between the coxae; these latter are of only
moderate size, and are free and dependent. The meso- and meta-
thorax are large, their side-pieces are of considerable dimensions
and bear large, dependent coxae and supporting-pieces (Fig. 58);
there is a stigma placed between the meso- and meta-thorax at the
hind margin of the upper part of the meso-trochantin; both meso-
and meta-notum are transversely divided. The abdomen is elongate,
slender, conico-cylindrical, consisting of nine segments; the basal
segment is membranous and concealed; the terminal appendages
are of variable nature according to the species and sex. The legs are
elongate and slender, the tarsi five-jointed. The internal anatomy of
Panorpa communis has been examined by Dufour[377] and Loew.
[378] They agree in describing the alimentary canal as being of
peculiar structure: there is a short, slender oesophagus leading to an
organ in which there is seated a remarkable arrangement of
elongate hairs; this structure might be looked on as the
proventriculus, but Loew considers it to be rather a division of the
true stomach. The particulars given by these two anatomists as to
some other parts of the internal anatomy are very discrepant.
The Panorpidae form a small family of only nine or ten genera, two
or three of these being exotic and only imperfectly known; the three
genera found in Europe are composed of very curious Insects. The
scorpion-flies—Panorpa proper—are very common Insects, and
have received their vernacular name from the fact that the males
have the terminal segments elongate and slender and very mobile,
and carry them curved up somewhat after the fashion of the
scorpions (Fig. 294). It is said that Aristotle was acquainted with
these Insects, and considered them to be really winged scorpions.
A second European genus, Boreus, is still more peculiar; it is

destitute of wings, and has the appearance of a minute wingless
grasshopper; it is found from late autumn to early spring in moss and
under stones, and is said to be sometimes found disporting itself on
the surface of the snow: the female of this Insect has an exserted
ovipositor. The writer has found this little creature in Scotland among
moss in November, and under stones early in March (Fig. 295). The
third European genus, Bittacus, does not occur in our islands, but is
common on many parts of the Continent; the perfect Insect has a
great resemblance to a Tipula, or "daddy-long-legs" fly, and attaches
itself to the stems of grasses, and preys on flies; according to Brauer
it has the peculiar habit of using the hind pair of legs as hands (Fig.
296), instead of the front pair, as is usual in Insects. This remarkable
genus is widely distributed, and species of it are found even in the
Antipodes. A species inhabiting caves has been mentioned by
M‘Lachlan.[379]
Fig. 295.—Boreus hiemalis, female. Dumfriesshire.
The early stages of the Panorpidae were for long unknown, but have
recently been discovered by Brauer: he obtained eggs of Panorpa by
confining a number of the perfect flies in a vessel containing some
damp earth on which was placed a piece of meat; when the young
larvae were hatched they buried themselves in the earth and
nourished themselves with the meat or its juices.
Fig. 296.—Bittacus tipularius holding a fly in its hind legs. Austria.

(After Brauer.)
Fig. 297.—Young larva of Panorpa communis. (After Brauer.)
These larvae (Fig. 297) bear a great resemblance to those of the

Hymenopterous family Tenthredinidae; they have biting mandibles
and palp-bearing maxillae, and show no approach to the peculiar
mouth structure found in the Hemerobiidae; there are three pairs of
feet placed on the three thoracic segments, and there is also a pair
of less perfect feet on each of the first eight abdominal segments,
those behind being the larger. The upper surface of the body bears
spines, which, however, disappear after the first change of skin, with
the exception of the larger processes on the posterior segment,
which persist throughout the life of the larva. The larvae are active
for about one month; after this they become quiescent, but do not
change to the pupa state for several weeks; when this happens they
change in form and cannot creep, although their limbs are not
enclosed in any pupa case. Brauer also discovered larvae of
Panorpa communis at large in numbers in an old tree stump that was
quite covered with moss, and contained many ants in the mouldering
wood. The ants appeared to be on friendly terms with the Panorpa
larvae. The earlier stages of Boreus and Bittacus were also
observed by Brauer; they are essentially similar to those of Panorpa,
but the larva in Boreus is not provided with abdominal prolegs. The
Panorpidae have been separated from the other Neuroptera by
certain naturalists as a distinct Order, called Panorpatae by Brauer,
Mecaptera by Packard; but in their structure as well as in their
metamorphoses they are not so distinct from the Phryganeidae and
the Hemerobiidae as to justify this step.
Fossil forms of Bittacus and of Panorpa have been found in amber

and in the Tertiary strata, and Scudder has described some forms
from Florissant in which there are no cross-veinlets in the wings.
Some remains from the English Lias have been referred to
Panorpidae by Westwood under the name Orthophlebia, but it is by
no means certain that they really belong to the family.
Fam. X. Hemerobiidae—Ant-lions, Lacewing-flies, etc.
Head vertical; maxillae free, with five-jointed palpi; labial palpi

three-jointed. Wings subequal in size, with much reticulation,
without anal area. Tarsi five-jointed. Metamorphosis great; the
larvae with mandibles and maxillae coadapted to form spear-like
organs that are suctorial in function. Pupa, similar in general
form to the imago, enclosed in a cocoon.
Fig. 298.—Drepanepteryx phalaenoides. Scotland.

The Hemerobiidae are an extremely varied assemblage of
Neuroptera; the perfect Insects of the various sub-families are very
different in appearance, but the family as a whole is naturally defined
by the very peculiar structure of the mouth-organs of the larvae.
These Insects have, in fact, a suctorial mouth in their early life, and
one of the ordinary biting type in adult life.
This is a very unusual condition, being the reverse of what we find in

Lepidoptera and some other of the large Orders, where the mouth is
mandibulate in the young and suctorial in the adult. The suctorial
condition is in Hemerobiidae chiefly due to modification of the
mandibles; but this is never the case in the Insects that have a
suctorial mouth in the imaginal instar. Nearly all the Hemerobiidae
are terrestrial Insects in all their stages; a small number of them are,
to a certain extent, amphibious in the larval life, while one or two
genera possess truly aquatic larvae. The metamorphosis is, so far as
the changes of external form are concerned, quite complete. There
are no wingless forms in the adult stage.
The classification given by Hagen[380] and generally adopted

recognises seven sub-families. These we shall mention seriatim.
Sub-Fam. 1. Myrmeleonides or Ant-lions.—Antennae short,

clubbed, the apical space of the wing with regular, oblong
cellules.
Fig. 299.—Tomateres citrinus. S. E. Africa. (After Hagen.)
The ant-lions in their perfect state are usually unattractive Insects,

and many are nocturnal in their habits; the species of the genus
Palpares and allies (Fig. 299) are, however, of more handsome
appearance, and attain a large expanse of wing. No member of the
sub-family is an inhabitant of Britain, though species of the typical
genus Myrmeleon are common in Central and Northern Europe. The
remarkable habits of their larvae attracted the attention of naturalists
so long ago as two hundred years. We owe to Réaumur an accurate
and interesting account of M. formicarius, the species found in the
neighbourhood of Paris. The larvae are predaceous, and secure
their prey by means of pitfalls they excavate in the earth, and at the
bottom of which they bury themselves, leaving only their elongate
jaws projecting out of the sand at the bottom of the pit. They move
only backwards, and in forming their pit use their broad body as a
plough, and throw out the sand by placing it on the head and then
sending it to a distance with a sudden jerk. When about to construct
its trap the larva does not commence at the centre, but makes first a
circular groove of the full circumference of the future pit. Burying its
abdomen in the surface of the earth, the Insect collects on to its
head, by means of the front leg, the sand from the side which is
nearest to the centre, and then jerks the sand to a distance. By
making a second circuit within the first one, and then another, the
soil is gradually removed, and a conical pit is formed, at the bottom
of which the ant-lion lurks, burying its body but leaving its formidable
mandibles widely extended and projecting from the sand. In this
position the young ant-lion waits patiently till some wandering Insect
trespasses on its domains. An ant or fly coming over the edge of the
pitfall finds the sand of the sloping sides yielding beneath its body,
and in its effort to secure itself probably dislodges some more of the
sand, which, descending to the bottom of the pit, brings the lurking
lion into activity. Availing himself of his power of throwing sand with
his head, the ant-lion jerks some in the neighbourhood of the
trespasser, and continues to do so until the victim is brought to the
bottom of the pit and into the very jaws of its destroyer; then there is
no further hope of escape; the mandibles close, empale their prey,
and do not relax their hold till the body of the victim is exhausted of
its juices. The position chosen is in a place that will keep dry, as the
larva cannot carry on its operations when the sand is wet or damp,
hence the soil at the base of a high wall or a rock frequently
harbours these Insects.
Fig. 300.—Larva of Myrmeleon pallidipennis. (After Meinert.)
The parts of the mouth of the Myrmeleon are perfectly adapted for
enabling it to empty the victim without for a moment relaxing its hold.
There is no mouth-orifice of the usual character, and the contents of
the victim are brought into the buccal cavity by means of a groove
extending along the under side of each mandible; in this groove the
elongate and slender lobe that replaces the maxilla—there being no
maxillary palpi—plays backwards and forwards, probably raking or
dragging backwards to the buccal cavity at each movement a small
quantity of the contents of the empaled victim. The small lower lip is
peculiar, consisting in greater part of the two lobes that support the
labial palpi. The pharynx is provided with a complex set of muscles,
and, together with the buccal cavity, functions as an instrument of
suction. After the prey has been sucked dry the carcass is jerked
away to a distance. When the ant-lion larva is full grown it forms a
globular cocoon by fastening together grains of sand with fine silk
from a slender spinneret placed at the posterior extremity of the
body; in this cocoon it changes to an imago of very elongate form,
and does not emerge until its metamorphosis is quite completed, the
skin of the pupa being, when the Insect emerges, left behind in the
cocoon. The names by which the European ant-lion has been known
are very numerous. It was called Formicajo and Formicario by
Vallisneri about two hundred years ago; Réaumur called it Formica-
leo, and this was adopted by some modern authors as a generic
name for some other of the ant-lions. The French people call these
Insects Fourmilions, of which ant-lion is our English equivalent. The
Latinised form of the term ant-lion, Formicaleo, is not now applied to
the common ant-lion as a generic term, it having been proposed to
replace it by Myrmecoleon, Myrmeleo, or Myrmeleon; this latter
name at present seems likely to become generally adopted. There
are several species of the genus found in Europe, and their trivial
names have been confounded by various authors in such a way as
to make it quite uncertain, without reference to a synonymic list, what
species is intended by any particular writer. The species found in the
neighbourhood of Paris, and to which it may be presumed
Réaumur's history refers, is now called Myrmeleon formicarium by
Hagen and others; M‘Lachlan renamed it M. europaeus, but now
considers it to be the M. nostras of Fourcroy. The popular name
appears to be due to the fact that ants—Formica in Latin, Fourmi in
French—form a large part of the victims; while lion—the other part of
the name—is doubtless due to its prowess as a destroyer of animal
life, though, as Réaumur long ago remarked, it is a mistake to apply
the term lion to an Insect that captures its prey by strategy and by
snares rather than by rapidity and strength. The imago of Myrmeleon
is of shy disposition, and is rarely seen even in localities where the
larva is abundant. It is of nocturnal habits, and is considered by
Dufour to be carnivorous.
Considerable difference of opinion has existed as to the structure of

the mouth and of the alimentary canal in these larvae. Réaumur was
of opinion that there exists no posterior orifice to the alimentary
canal, but Dufour ridiculed this idea, and stated positively that such
an orifice undoubtedly exists. It is also usually said that the mouth is
closed by a membrane. Meinert has recently examined these points,
[381] and he states that the mouth is not closed by any membrane,
but is merely compressed. He finds that there is no posterior exit
from the stomach; that there is a compact mass without any cavity
between the stomach and the point where the Malpighian tubes
connect with the small intestine. The portions of aliment that are not
assimilated by the larva collect in the stomach and are expelled as a
mass, but only after the Insect has become an imago. This peculiar
excrementitious mass consists externally of uric acid, and from its
form and appearance has been mistaken for an egg by several
naturalists. The posterior portions of the alimentary canal are,
according to Meinert, of a remarkable nature. The small intestine is
elongate, slender, and is coiled. There are eight very long and
slender Malpighian tubes; a pair of these have free extremities, but
the other six in the posterior part of their course are surrounded by a
common membrane, and, following the course of the intestine, form
ultimately a dilated body seated on a coecum. These six Malpighian
tubes are considered to be partially, if not entirely, organs for the
secretion of silk for forming the cocoon, the coecum being a
reservoir. The canal terminates as a slender tube, which acts as a
spinneret and is surrounded by a sheath. A complex set of muscles
completes this remarkable spinning apparatus. The alimentary canal
of the imago has been described and figured by Dufour[382]; it is very
different from that of the larva.
The ant-lion is capable of sustaining prolonged fasts. Dufour kept

specimens for six months without any food. These Insects are said
to give off a peculiar ant-like odour, due, it is thought, to their ant-
eating habits. Although no species inhabits Great Britain, yet one is
found in Southern Sweden. Introduced specimens get on very well in
confinement in our country,[383] and would probably flourish at large
for some years if they were liberated.
Although the number of known species and genera of

Myrmeleonides is considerable—that of the species being now
upwards of 300—the members of the small genus Myrmeleon are
the only forms that are known to make pits of the kind we have
described. Other larvae[384] are known similar in general form to the
common ant-lion, but they walk forwards in the normal manner, and
apparently hunt their prey by lurking in a hidden place and, when a
chance occurs, rushing on the victim with rapidity. Brauer has
observed this habit in the case of Dendroleon pantherinus in the
Prater at Vienna.
Fig. 301.—Upper aspect of head and alimentary canal of Myrmeleon:
a, crop; b, stomach; c, free extremities of two Malpighian tubes; c′,
terminal common portion of other six tubes; d, coecum; e,
spinneret; f, f, muscles for protruding its sheath; g, g, maxillary
glands. (After Meinert.)
The most remarkable forms of Myrmeleonides are contained in the

genus Palpares. We figure Tomateres citrinus (Fig. 299), an allied
genus found in Eastern Africa as far south as Natal. These Insects
have conspicuous blotches and marks on their wings. The species of
Myrmeleon are similar in form, but are smaller, more feeble, and less
ornate in appearance.
Pitfalls, formed in all probability by ant-lions, have been noticed in

the Galapagos islands and in Patagonia, though none of the Insects
forming them have been found.
Sub-Fam. 2. Ascalaphides.—Antennae elongate, with a knob

at the tip; the apical area of the wing with irregular cellules.
Fig. 302.—Ascalaphus coccajus. East Pyrenees.
The sub-family Ascalaphides is not represented by any species in

Britain, though Ascalaphus longicornis occurs as far north as Paris.
In the mountainous regions of Central and Southern Europe some
species of the group form a conspicuous part of the Insect fauna,
owing to their bold and active flight; they are predaceous in their
habits, and fly about in a hawking fashion somewhat like that of
dragon-flies. Some of the larger of the numerous exotic species of
the group are very like dragon-flies, but can be distinguished by a
glance at the elongate antennae with a knob at the end. The sub-
family consists of two groups—Holophthalmi and Schizophthalmi.
M‘Lachlan says[385]: "The eyes in the Schizophthalmous division are
really double, the upper portion overlapping the under; if the upper
portion be separated the lower division looks like a small spherical
ordinary eye." There appears, however, to be considerable
differences in the genera in this respect.
Fig. 303.—A, Eggs of Ascalaphus macaronius. B, Sketch of position of

the young larvae of Helicomitus insimulans (?); C, outline of
natural size. (After Westwood.)

Evaluating Campus Climate at Us Research Universities Opportunities For Diversity and Inclusion 1St Ed Edition Krista M Soria Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Campus Climate at Us Research Universities Opportunities For Diversity and Inclusion 1St Ed Edition Krista M Soria Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Campus Climate at US

Research Universities: Opportunities

EVALUATING CAMPUS CLIMATE

ISBN 978-3-319-94835-5 ISBN 978-3-319-94836-2 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018947187

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover image: © Masanobu Chen/EyeEm/gettyimages

1 Campus Climate at Research Universities: 2012–2017 1

2 Effects of Campus Climates for Diversity on College

3 A Meta-analysis of Queer-Spectrum and Trans-Spectrum

4 Perceptions of Campus Climate at the Intersections

5 Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate by Social

6 Campus Climate for Students with Disabilities 125

7 “Mi Familia”: Counterstories of First-Generation

8 Reframing Campus Climate Data to Advocate for

9 The Effect of Student Perception of Campus Climate

10 Perceptions of Campus Climate and Sense

11 Racial Differences in the Effects of Campus Climate

12 International Students’ Experiences with Campus

13 Vulnerable Populations at Public Research Universities:

14 Campus Climate for Diversity as Dialogue: Using

15 Patterns and Impacts of Racial and International

16 “It’s Cold in Here”: First-Generation Students

17 Necessary yet Insufficient: Contextualizing Trans*

18 Much Discussion, Not Much Change: Perceptions of

19 High-Impact Practices for Student Engagement

20 Learning About Difference in the Classroom and

21 Learning to Change Campus Climate: Insights from

22 Exploring the Relationship Between Service-Learning

Qui D. Alexander is a doctoral student in Education, Curriculum, and

has been researching and serving underrepresented student groups

region. Krystle’s research interests include understanding the impact of

Marla A. Franco serves as the Director of Assessment and Research

Mary T. Hoban is the Chief Research Officer with the American

education and social-psychological interventions in education. She is cur-

Ryan A. Miller is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

Eugene T. Parker III is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

understand and bring about transformative change establishing a more

Stephen has worked professionally in student affairs in various func-

adolescent social and emotional learning, especially capacity of self-con-

scholarship, educational equity, and issues of race, racism, and racialized

Deborah M. Warnock is Sociology Faculty at Bennington College

Fig. 5.1 Perceptions of campus climate by social class: personal

Table 1.1 Students’ demographics by year of SERU survey

Table 2.4 Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses on

Table 5.3 Differences between students’ perceptions of campus

Table 10.1 Frequency of participant demographics by immigration

Table 12.5 Students’ agreement with the item “I feel valued as an

Table 19.2 Social class by ethnicity 413

Campus Climate at Research Universities:

Given the deleterious ubiquity of racially motivated incidents of discrim-

© The Author(s) 2018 1

either higher education institutions or K-12 institutions—and they were

parental education, immigrant status, international status, and ­disability.

and promoting interactions across students from diverse backgrounds.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

race/ethnicity were respected on campus compared to 67.6% of students

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

parental education, immigrant status, international status, and disability.