Overall Rating Gold - expired
Overall Score 69.69
Liaison Deborah Steinberg
Submission Date Feb. 7, 2019
Executive Letter Download

STARS v2.1

Carnegie Mellon University
PA-5: Assessing Diversity and Equity

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 0.75 / 1.00 Aaron George
Housefellow/Coordinator, Center for Student Affairs
Dean of Student Affairs
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Has the institution engaged in a structured assessment process during the previous three years to improve diversity, equity and inclusion on campus?:

A brief description of the assessment process and the framework, scorecard(s) and/or tool(s) used:

The Discriminatory and Sexual Harassment (DaSH) Study: All Pittsburgh-based Carnegie Mellon students were invited to complete this confidential survey in the spring 2016 semester as a means to self report their experiences with identity based bias and/or harassment. The DaSH study was co-sponsored by the Vice Provost for Education and the Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students and was authored and administered by the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis.

Faculty Experience Survey: This study, conducted by the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis for the Vice Provost for Faculty, focused on satisfaction, atmosphere, mentoring, climate for diversity, and work/life balance of faculty.

Faculty Salary Equity Study: The Office of the Provost commissioned the law firm of Reed Smith LLP to conduct a rigorous examination of faculty salaries at Carnegie Mellon University. It is our hope that these efforts underscore Carnegie Mellon’s commitment to ensuring our faculty salaries are equitable with respect to gender and race or ethnicity.

Does the assessment process address campus climate by engaging stakeholders to assess the attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of faculty, staff, administrators and students, including the experiences of underrepresented groups?:

Does the assessment process address student outcomes related to diversity, equity and success (e.g. graduation/success and retention rates for underrepresented groups)?:

Does the assessment process address employee outcomes related to diversity and equity (e.g. pay and retention rates for underrepresented groups)?:

A brief description of the most recent assessment findings and how the results are used in shaping policy, programs and initiatives:

The Discriminatory and Sexual Harassment study focused on the experiences of faculty and students, both undergraduates and graduate students, on the Pittsburgh campus. Findings of the report were still being reviewed to determine if and how it will shape policy, programs and initiatives. The full report is publicly available at https://www.cmu.edu/student-diversity/learning-and-development/dash-study.html

Are the results of the most recent structured diversity and equity assessment shared with the campus community?:

A brief description of how the assessment results are shared with the campus community:

For Faculty, Provost Lunches: the provost hosted lunches with senior women to kick start conversations about improving diversity on campus. Additional lunch conversations are in process for AY 16-17, included a discussion with LGBTQ faculty. This opportunity allows diverse groups of faculty to voice their concerns to the administration and strengthen bonds in their community.

For the Discriminatory and Sexual Harassment Study, an event was designed to talk about these findings and inform future directions for studying the student experience related to diversity and inclusion was held on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 from 4-5pm at the Center for Student Diversity and Inclusion (lower level of CUC across from bookstore).

Are the results (or a summary of the results) of the most recent structured diversity and equity assessment publicly posted?:

The diversity and equity assessment report or summary:
The website URL where the report or summary is publicly posted:
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:

The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.