Cultural Audit of St. Cloud State University:

Cultural Audit of St. Cloud State University: HR Analysis and Critique

To address the deficits highlighted the cultural audit, St. Cloud University has resolved to address issues of demographic isolation, namely the sense of students that they do not have a 'connection' to the university, and the persistent problems regarding minority tensions and institutional discrimination. Perhaps the most telling survey comment came from a student, criticizing the survey structure: "I think that this survey was bogus. I can't believe you wasted $50,000 on this thing. We already know that SCSU is a hub of institutional racism" as noted in the Qualitative Analysis Section of the report. Another telling detail was that some faculty, administration and staff felt there was a notable lack of African-American and Jewish faculty members on campus, and that some felt the presence of a 'glass ceiling" regarding promotions of women. Also, disability services were perceived as inadequate.

These perceptions are asterisked with the note "Received less than the majority of responses," but given that 81% of the faculty, administration, and staff respondents are Caucasian, and the likelihood that discrimination would be more likely spotted by member of a historically discriminated-against race, such a finding seems fairly unremarkable. Interestingly the cultural audit's respondents were not segmented according to race or position in the university; the only categories of responses of the audit were demarcated as student vs. employee. For example, it is impossible to tell from the survey results if a majority of African-American students were dissatisfied with certain policies regarding inclusiveness and discrimination, or if this was endemic to all racial and ethnic groups. This is also true of the employees of the university; moreover, it is impossible to know if faculty or administrative staff is more dissatisfied with certain practices and attitudes. The fact that there is a significant difference between subgroups perceptions and the perceptions of the majority is exemplified in one note in the "Final Audit" that: "Survey results indicated that there is a significant perception of favoritism (i.e., preferential treatment) toward female employees. This perception may impact morale among university faculty and staff. However, our interviews with female employees indicated the opposite perception. Most of the female interviewees indicated that favoritism is usually reserved for majority males."

The supplementation with anecdotal evidence through interviews of the quantitative data is a significant strength of the audit, and encourages more meaningful responsiveness than simply rating agreement with statements on scale in which one can strongly agree to strongly disagree with prefabricated statements. This area of strength, however, would be greatly enhanced if specific examples of prejudice had been anonymously included within the study, to provide examples of how and why institutionalized racism takes place. However, there was an effort made to extrapolate some subtext from the data, rather than merely recording the findings, as is evidenced by such notes as: "Our interviews revealed that current students described themselves in terms of their differences, not their commonalities. Increasingly, they indicated, directly and indirectly, that they associated with people who are most like themselves rather than different. This fact coupled with the finding that over one-half of respondents believed the campus is not free of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia lends SCSU to a climate that has a high potential for tension and conflict."