DEI Research in Higher Education: Results from a Study at an American Minority-Serving Institution

Abstract

Diversity, equity, and inclusion, most commonly known as DEI, serves as a framework for practices that promote the fair treatment and full participation of all members of a community. Culturally responsive teaching and critical pedagogy are commonly associated with DEI as part of the larger strategy to validate and inspire learners while improving their self-efficacy and ability to challenge oppressive systems. While DEI is becoming increasingly better known in higher education, Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs) are heralded in the literature as a model for this work. Nevertheless, there is relatively limited empirical research exploring facets of DEI and culturally responsive teaching on HBCU and other minority-serving institutions’ campuses. This paper examines the campus of an HBCU located in the Mid-Atlantic United States, with an institutional commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, via a comprehensive DEI climate study that included separate surveys of students and faculty/staff. More specifically, the study explored whether all community members consider the campus inclusive, whether all community members experience a culture of belonging, whether adequate resources and supports exist for all campus members to succeed, whether faculty exhibit culturally responsive teaching practices, and whether the perceptions of faculty and staff differ from those of students. The purpose of the study was to help address the gap in the DEI literature exploring the practices of minority-serving institutions. According to the results, participants found the University to be an inclusive place, expressing strong satisfaction with the campus climate and experience. Further, when the presence of culturally responsive teaching practices was explored, strong evidence was indicated. Possible areas for improvement include greater supports and resources for LGBTQIA+, Indigenous, and disabled community members.

1. Introduction

The point of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is to create fairer and more inclusive workplaces and communities by actively addressing historical and systemic disadvantages faced by marginalized groups. Diversity refers to the representation of people from many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, lifestyles, and beliefs, including those who may be historically excluded or underrepresented [1]. Equity refers to fairness in treatment and the availability of, and access to, supports and opportunities [2], and for clarity, equity is not the same as equality. Whereas equality provides all people with the same treatment, equity recognizes that people face different barriers, thus requiring different supports and opportunities to reach the same goal. Finally, inclusion refers to the degree to which all members of a community are recognized and able to use their talents [3].

DEI is currently the subject of heated debate and tremendous vitriol in the United States, which has created unprecedented stress across higher education. Subsequently, a number of campus DEI offices have been shuttered and programs canceled, resulting in employees leading DEI efforts and providing resources to students experiencing layoffs or job reassignments. In January 2025, an executive order signed by U.S. President Trump declared that DEI policies and programs adopted by colleges, universities, and others can violate federal civil rights laws [4]. To date, over 50 U.S. universities are under investigation as part of the anti-DEI crackdown, with several seeing cuts in funding, with McGowan et al. [5] explaining that the current challenge lies not only in defending DEI efforts but also in reimagining them so as to maintain efficacy and resilience during these politically volatile times.

Despite the current controversy, DEI scholars advocate that institutions with a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion should evaluate their praxes recognizing that campuses should strive to be inclusive communities that celebrate diversity, and which provide fair and equitable access to opportunities to all community members [6]. Further, campuses should explore whether their teaching and learning experiences provide mirrors, windows, and doors, have cultural validity, afford multiple mechanisms for student success, are centered around the assets of students, build knowledge, extend perspectives, and foster empathy [7].

This paper discusses research conducted at a Mid-Atlantic minority-serving university with a commitment to DEI envisioned as one of the institutional goals. The institution is a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) located in a state system that also has a strategic plan that prioritizes diversity, equity, and inclusion with goals that include the conduct of research on DEI, promoting best practices to enhance inclusion and endorse equity, and nurturing culturally responsive teaching and DEI education that encourages students to be informed and engaged citizens [6]. More specifically, the study presented here explored whether all community members consider the campus inclusive, whether all community members experience a culture of belonging, whether adequate resources and supports exist for all campus members to succeed, whether faculty exhibit culturally responsive teaching practices, and whether the perceptions of faculty and staff differ from those of students.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: a Literature Review, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions. The literature review discusses DEI in higher education, culturally responsive teaching, HBCUs and DEI, and influential theories. The goal of the authors is for this paper to contribute to the literature on DEI, especially on the role that minority-serving institutions can play, while also encouraging other institutions to engage in similar DEI climate studies.

2. Literature Review

2.1. DEI in Higher Education

The United States has a legacy of segregation in education, although they are not the only nation. For example, both South Africa’s apartheid system and the United States’ Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation, impacting education, housing, and other aspects of life, with apartheid creating a legal system of racial separation and Jim Crow laws institutionalizing segregation through state and local laws [8]. Buzzetto-Hollywood and Quinn [6] discussed the history and evolution of DEI in America starting with the passage of the Second Morrill Act in 1890 (established land grant Historically Black, Colleges, and Universities (HBCUs) in the United States) and including Brown versus the Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passage of Title IX, and formation of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. They further explained that in DEI, efforts grew exponentially after 2010, becoming a strategic imperative in 2020 when social and political movements such as #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter, and #StopAAPIHate raised the public consciousness about the need for a greater commitment to social justice [9].

DEI in higher education has been explained in the literature to help engender solidarity between staff and students with mutually responsible citizenship values [10]; expand perspectives [11] and raise consciousness [12]; aid students in the development of an awareness of their responsibility to support DEI initiatives that they can take with them when they graduate [13]; create spaces, materials, and programs that are welcoming and facilitate wellness [14]; increase access to opportunities by students from historically marginalized groups [11]; and facilitate transformative interventions [15]. Further, these efforts are found to be particularly effective for historically marginalized students [13,16].

The Student Experience Project [17] engaged 295 faculty to utilize DEI practices in their classrooms in order to cultivate belonging and inclusion. The project collected feedback from 10,000 students each semester about their experiences, finding a 10.5% overall increase in students reporting positive experiences. Further, efforts were most strongly associated with improved experiences for Black, Latina, and Native American women, who reported an overall positive experience that increased by approximately 25% over the course of the project. Finally, the rate of students earning Ds, Fs, or withdrawing decreased by 26%.

According to Insight Into Academia [18], DEI initiatives account for less than one percent of institutional spending and yet result in outsized benefits for institutions in terms of student recruitment and retention, faculty hiring and retention, fostering a positive climate for learning and working, and workforce preparation for graduates. This sentiment has been echoed by the Institute for Higher Education Policy [19], which highlights the role of student experience and belonging in college student success.

The National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates (NACCC) is a peer-reviewed quantitative survey that has been purchased and administered at over 160 colleges since 2019. The survey is described as collecting data about students’ appraisals of institutional commitment to racial equity and diversity, where and what they learn about race and their feelings of readiness for citizenship in a racially diverse democracy, encounters with racial stress, cross racial engagement, and other important topics. Overall, the results have concluded that DEI efforts on American college campuses need to increase with significantly more, not fewer, DEI professionals needed to help fix racial problems at United States colleges and universities [20].

Despite the wealth of research asserting the benefits of DEI, it is not without its critics who claim that it is about putting unqualified people in jobs or classrooms or giving advantages to people because of gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual preference, etc. It is about including individuals—because they are highly qualified—regardless of their gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual preference, etc., which includes people from both majority and minority populations [21]. Attacks on DEI often ignore the empirical evidence supporting the benefits of DEI initiatives, such as improved employee engagement, innovation, and overall organizational performance [6].

2.2. Culturally Responsive Teaching

Culturally responsive teaching is also known as culturally compatible, culturally appropriate, culturally congruent, culturally relevant, and/or culturally responsive pedagogy [7]. Culturally responsive teaching is commonly associated with DEI as it is a strategy recognized for helping educational institutions work towards removing dominant cultural influences, indigeneity, and multiculturalism [22,23,24]. Gay [25] describes culturally responsive teaching as multidimensional, empowering, and transformative. She refers to culturally relevant pedagogy as the use of “… cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frame of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant. It teaches to and through the strengths of the students. It is culturally validating and affirming” (p. 29). According to Lynch [26] culturally responsive instruction is a student-centered approach to instruction where the individual cultural assets of learners are identified and embraced in order to foster student achievement and self-efficacy.

Ladson-Billings [27] asserts that all learners, regardless of personal attributes or backgrounds, should be given opportunities to be academically successful, culturally competent, and critically conscious. They further identify the three central tenets of CRT as: 1. maintaining high expectations and learning standards while providing appropriate scaffolds and learner support; 2. building on students’ existing knowledge, experiences, and assets by implementing curriculum that incorporates their cultural knowledge and connections; and 3. supporting students’ ability to recognize and critique societal inequalities. These tenets are represented in Figure 1.

Gay [28] explains there are four actions to culturally responsive teaching. These include (1) replacing the deficit perspectives of students and communities with a positive outlook; (2) accepting that there is often resistance to culturally responsive teaching from critics; (3) developing an understanding of how and why culture and difference are essential ideologies for culturally responsive teaching; and (4) making pedagogical connections within the teaching context. These actions are represented in Figure 2.

Culturally responsive teaching seeks to validate and inspire learners, building their academic self-efficacy and initiative [25]. Self-efficacy is a concept that refers to the confidence that one has in their innate ability to achieve goals. Self-efficacy was introduced by Albert Bandura and lays at the center of his social cognitive theory, which posits that learning occurs in a social context that involves a dynamic and reciprocal interplay between the person, their environment, and their behaviors [7].

The literature on culturally responsive teaching spans thirty years and indicates a number of positive outcomes for learners and educational institutions. The benefits associated with culturally responsive teaching include: increased expectations [29,30,31]; the ability to better address the needs of learners [7]; increases in student motivation [32]; increased student engagement [27,33]; learner empowerment [34]; enhanced cultural competencies [33,34]; positive student performance [35,36,37,38,39]; improved learners’ self-efficacy or the positive perception students have in themselves as capable students [40,41]; remedying disparities and barriers in classrooms [6]; and learners encouraged to recognize, understand, and critique current and social inequalities [42,43].

2.3. HBCUs and DEI

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are American minority-serving institutions that were almost exclusively founded before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide educational opportunities that might otherwise be denied to historically marginalized populations [44,45]. HBCUs are living and breathing examples of DEI and have been at the forefront of DEI and culturally responsive teaching since before these terms existed [6,7]. A research study that examined culturally responsive practices in higher education found that despite decades of underfunding, being perceived by others with a deficit mindset, and a legacy of marginalization, HBCUs are unmatched when it comes to implementing culturally sustaining practices in a comprehensive manner [46]. The report explains “HBCUs channeled the effects of that exclusion in constructive directions by focusing on inclusivity and by specializing in programs, such as STEM, in which white institutions struggle to retain Black students” (p. 32).

Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) is becoming increasingly better known in higher education and HBCUs are considered a model for this work. Herr-Perrin [47] explains that this is because “HBCUs have been JEDI masters existing in plain sight all along.” At the same time, Herr-Perrin also points out that despite being designed as “sanctuaries of inclusivity in the midst of an otherwise hostile society,” HBCUs are not flawless DEI models and are also impacted by such issues as discrimination towards LGBTQIA+ students and other threats to inclusion and belonging. Nevertheless, she also explains that HBCU graduates exhibited an unparalleled sense of belonging, which most institutions can learn from.

2.4. Theoretical Influences

Social Cognitive Theory, introduced by Albert Bandura, emphasizes the dynamic interplay between personal factors (beliefs, expectations, self-efficacy), behavior, and environmental influences [48]. Intersectional theory asserts that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression, such as their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers, “creating a complex convergence of oppression” that influences experiences, perceptions, and beliefs [49]. The term intersectionality was first coined in the late 1980s by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw of Columbia University to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap [50]. Finally, psychological safety theory focuses on the importance of creating an environment where members of organizations feel safe expressing their opinions and taking risks without fear of punishment or humiliation in order to increase positive outcomes [51]. In the world of DEI, it is recognized that psychological safety is a foundation for open discussions about DEI issues.

Paulo Freire’s work, particularly his concept of “critical pedagogy” and “conscientização” or awareness, significantly informs research and practice in multicultural education, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, social justice, and empowering marginalized communities to critically examine and transform oppressive systems. According to Akkari and Mesquida [52], Freire’s legacy varies based on cultural context. In Europe, he is known for adult literacy education, whereas in the Americas, his concepts are used to address educational inequalities. Critical pedagogy posits that issues of social justice and democracy are not distinct from acts of teaching and learning and that education serves as a tool for social transformation, encouraging critical thinking and dialogue to challenge oppressive structures and empower individuals to become active agents of change [53].

3. Materials and Methods

A state university system, located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, has a strategic plan that prioritizes diversity, equity, and inclusion with goals that include the conduct of research on DEI, promoting best practices to enhance inclusion and endorse equity, and nurturing DEI education that encourages students to be informed and engaged citizens. Among these system institutions is a minority-serving HBCU that has also committed to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) with activities that include evaluating and assessing current programming and services; introducing a JEDI institutional learning goal and supporting general education requirement; using surveys to measure faculty, student, and staff perceptions; and exploring culturally responsive practices throughout teaching and learning. Accordingly, in 2024, a quality improvement project was proposed that involves the development, delivery, and reporting of a comprehensive JEDI needs assessment of the community using a mixed-methods approach.

A paper has been published [6] that discusses in detail the instrument design and validation process. In sum, a thirteen-step process was identified.

• Identification of goals
• Establishment of research questions
• Review of literature and existing tools
• Consultation with experts
• Identification of Methodology
• Preparation of draft instruments
• Check of readability and face validity
• Expert panel review
• Institutional Review Board review and approval
• Pilot study
• Distribution and data collection
• Analysis and reporting of findings
• Internal validity testing and use of results

A series of research questions were established around which the study was designed

• Do all community members consider the campus inclusive?
• Do all community members experience a culture of belonging?
• Are there adequate resources and supports for all campus members to succeed?
• Do faculty exhibit culturally responsive teaching practices?
• Do faculty and staff differ in their perceptions?

Two surveys were created in the Survey Monkey system, one for faculty and staff and the other for students. The faculty and staff surveys were purposed to explore the campus climate with respect to JEDI; participant demographics; engagement in JEDI activities; infusion of culturally responsive teaching strategies for teaching faculty; and recommendations and needs. The student survey was designed to explore the campus climate; participant demographics; engagement in campus JEDI activities, resources, and services; reflections on their courses; perspectives and experiences related to their work, study, and participation in the campus community; the identification of obstacles and barriers to inclusion; and recommendations and needs.

The surveys included a combination of dichotomous, Likert-scaled, multiple-response, ratio, short-answer, and contingency questions. A number of experts were consulted during the instrument design process and the draft instrument was reviewed by two separate carefully curated expert panels prior to IRB approval and conduction of the pilot. Question design was influenced by the literature and similar studies, the consideration of available instruments, recommendations by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, and consultation with experts. The culturally responsive teaching questions were informed by the literature including the checklist published by Buzzetto-Hollywood [7].

Expert panelists were required to agree to an informed consent statement and were provided with instructions. They were asked to review questions grouped topically and were provided with prompts following each question group where they could provide feedback as they analyzed and assessed the quality of the questions and survey design, response options, structure, and overall methodology to ensure the instrument effectively captured the intended data and avoided biases. Expert panelists were also prompted to provide additional feedback and identify improvements needed.

The pilot was conducted in September 2024 with 24 individuals who completed the survey and then participated in focus groups where they reflected upon and provided feedback on the instruments. More specifically, participants were asked to analyze the questions and question flow, assess how well the survey will meet expectations, reflect upon the length of the questionnaire, consider instances where there may be confusion, etc. Response time was also examined and compared to what had been previously estimated by the Survey Monkey system. As a result of the pilot, some clarifying information was provided in the surveys, the estimated time for completion was adjusted, and the wording of a question was altered.

Prior to distribution, a sample size calculator was utilized with the confidence interval set to 95% and the margin of error set to 5%. Based on the calculation, the desired sample size for students was 342 and the recommended sample size for faculty and staff was 227.

The student survey was launched first and occurred over three weeks in late October and early November 2024. A one-time mass email was sent to all students at the university; however, the email only resulted in about 50 responses. As planned, flyers were placed across campus to increase awareness of the project and the researchers who had acquired hundreds of free promotional t-shirts strategically visited courses selected to ensure that the population would be representative of the student body. In total, 455 students completed the survey, representing a response rate of 15% and exceeding the 342-participant sample size recommended.

For the faculty and staff survey, human resources provided a list of all faculty and staff emails which were loaded into the Survey Monkey system, and the Email Invitation Collector was utilized. The list included approximately 700 emails; however, a significant number of those emails were duplicates, several were linked to deceased individuals or people who had departed from the university, and a number resulted in bounce backs. In total, 104 individuals responded to the email invitation, representing a response rate of 14% out of the 700, although in actuality the response rate was much larger (adjusted to 19%) as approximately 150 of the emails were either duplicates, individuals no longer affiliated with the institution, or unreachable email addresses. Nevertheless, the recommended participant sample of 227 was not reached.

After data collection was concluded, the data was imported to SPSS, version 30 where descriptive statistical analyses including the mean, standard deviation, frequency distribution, and confidence interval were calculated. Reliability testing was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha application. Chi-square tests, which are a common inferential statistical test used to examine the differences between categorical variables, were conducted. Chi-square tests aim to determine if a difference between observed data and expected data is due to chance or if it is due to a relationship between the variables. Finally, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were prepared to determine whether there is a monotonic component of association between continuous or ordinal variables. Monotonic relationships occur when one thing goes up or down with the other.

4. Results

Established in 1886, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) is a Historically Black, 1890 land grant institution. It is a member of the University System of Maryland and primarily serves first-generation, low-income, and minority learners. The student population is approximately 3200 as of the fall of 2024, with an 88% minority student enrollment. The acceptance rate for applying students is approximately 61%, with the majority of students coming from the Mid-Atlantic region, more specifically, the Baltimore and Washington D.C. urban centers. UMES has a long history of providing academic programs and services for ethnically and culturally diverse students and, towards that end, offers programs and assistance that attract, serve, retain, and graduate many first-generation college students [6].

In total, 455 students completed the survey as well as 104 faculty and staff. The demographics are represented in Appendix A in

Table A1. Student demographics.

Age	%
18–24	88.7
25–34	5.2
35–44	1.3
45–54	2.6
55–64	0.9
Prefer not to say	0.4
Race/Ethnicity
African (not African American)	11.2
Asian/Pacific Islander	1.7
Black or African American	59
Caribbean/West Indies	2.6
Hispanic or LatinX	2.6
Middle Eastern	0.7
Multiple Ethnicities/Two or More Races	7.4
Prefer not to say	1.3
Indigenous	0.9
White/Caucasian	9.8
Were you born in the United States?
No	14.2
Prefer not to say	0.9
Yes	83.7
Military Service
No, I have not	96.9
Prefer not to say	0.9
Yes, I have	0.7
Religion
Prefer not to say	12.6
Protestantism	1.7
Catholicism	10.2
Christianity	54.7
Islam	5.7
Judaism	0.9
Buddhism	1.3
Hinduism	0.4
Inter/Nondenominational	0.9
Church of Jesus Christ and Later Day Saints	0.2
Spiritual but not religious	7.2
Agnostic	4.8
Atheist	4.4
Jehovah’s Witness	0.7
Sikh	0.4
Bahai	0.6
Other	12
Are you a person living with a disability?
No	78.9
Prefer not to say	6.3
Yes	13.3
Do you currently have a physical or mental impairment that SIGNIFICANTLY limits one or more major life activities such as seeing, hearing, learning, interacting with others, walking, etc.?
No	81
Prefer not to say	3.7
Yes	13.3
Sexual Orientation
Prefer not to say	4.1
Straight or Heterosexual	74.3
Asexual or Demisexual	2.2
Bisexual	9.4
Gay	2
Lesbian	2
Pansexual	5
Questioning	2.2
Queer	2.8
Gender Identify
Female	51.9
Male	41.8
Nonbinary/gender fluid	4
Prefer not to say	1
Other	0.2
Do you personally identify as a transgender or as a gender non-conforming person?
No	92
Prefer not to say	2.4
Yes	4.5
Are you a first-generation college student?
No	55.3
Yes	43.5
What describes your status?
First Time Undergraduate	79
Graduate Student	4.6
Undergraduate Adult Learner	15.3
How long have you been a student?
1 year	47.3
2 years	20
3 years	14.4
4 years	12
5 or more years	2.4
I prefer not to say	2.8
In which school are you enrolled?
Agriculture & Natural Sciences	25
Business & Technology	46.8
Education, Social Sciences, and the Arts	11.5
Graduate Studies	2.8
Pharmacy and Health Professions	8.7
Other	3.9

and

Table A2. Faculty and staff demographics.

Age	%
18–24	1.9
25–34	2.7
35–44	23.1
45–54	26.0
55–64	25.0
65–74	11.5
Prefer not to say	3.8
Race/Ethnicity	%
African (not African American)	4.8
Asian/Pacific Islander	5.8
Black or African American	31.7
Caribbean/West Indies	1.0
Hispanic or LatinX	2.9
Middle Eastern	1.9
Multiple Ethnicities/Two or More Races	5.8
Prefer not to say	11.5
White/Caucasian	32.7
Citizenship
No	19
Prefer not to say	6
Yes	77
Military Service	%
No, I have not	93.3
Prefer not to say	1.9
Yes, I have	3.8
Religion	%
Prefer not to say	10.6
Protestantism	5.8
Catholicism	11.5
Christianity	33.7
Islam	5.8
Buddhism	1.9
Hinduism	2.9
Inter/Nondenominational	2.9
Spiritual but not religious	11.5
Agnostic	5.8
Atheist	6.7
Jehovah’s Witness	1.0
Bahai	1.0
Seventh-Day Adventist	1.0
Universalist	1.0
Are you a person living with a disability
No	81.0
Prefer not to say	6.0
Yes	14%
Do you currently have a physical or mental impairment that SIGNIFICANTLY limits one or more major life activities such as seeing, hearing, learning, interacting with others, walking, etc.?	%
No	86.5
Prefer not to say	7.7
Yes	3.8
Sexual Orientation	%
Prefer not to say	6.7
Straight or Heterosexual	76.0
Asexual or Demisexual	1.9
Bisexual	8.7
Lesbian	2.9
Pansexual	1.9
Questioning	1.9
Queer	1.0
Gender Identify	%
Female	61.5
Male	32.7
Nonbinary/gender fluid	1.9
Prefer not to say	1.9
Do you personally identify as a transgender or as a gender non-conforming person	%
No	99
Prefer not to say	2
Yes	2
What most closely represents your primary role at UMES?	%
Adjunct	5.8
Administrator	13.5
Non-Tenured Faculty	20.2
Staff	43.3
Tenured Faculty	16.3
In which school or part of the university are you affiliated?	%
Agriculture & Natural Sciences	13.5
Business & Technology	14.4
Education, Social Sciences, and the Arts	15.4
Graduate Studies	1.9
Other	5.8
Pharmacy and Health Professions	22.1
Research & Outreach	6.7
Student Support	17.3

. According to the analysis of the demographic responses, 88% of the student respondents were between the ages of 18–24, about 89% were non-white, 83% were born in the United States, 74% identified as straight or heterosexual, 92% identified as cisgender, 51.9% were female, and 41% were male, with the rest either preferring not to say or identifying as nonbinary or gender fluid. About 43.5% of respondents identified as a first-generation college student, which is a student whose parent(s) or guardian(s) did not complete a four-year bachelor’s degree. Approximately 54.7% identified as Christian, and another 10.2% as Catholic. A total of 12.6% preferred not to say, 12% responded “other,” 9% were atheist or agnostic, and the remaining 10.5% of respondents were split among the World’s remaining major religions. Seventy-nine percent of student respondents were first-time undergraduates, around 5% were graduate students, and approximately 15% were undergraduate adult learners. The student demographics were accurately reflective of the student body of the institution, although the percentage of graduate students was disproportionately low.

With respect to the faculty and staff demographics, 32% of respondents reported that they were white, 77% were United States citizens, 76% reported being straight or heterosexual, 99% identified as cisgender, 61.5% were female, and 32.7% were male, with the rest either preferring not to say or identifying as nonbinary or gender fluid. Approximately 16.3% were tenured faculty, 20.2% were non-tenured faculty, 5.8% were adjuncts, 43.3% were staff, and 13.5% were administrators. When it came to religion, 39.5% identified as Christian or Protestant, 12.5% as agnostic or atheist, 11.5% as Catholic, 11.5% as spiritual but not religious, 10.6% preferred not to say, 5.8% as Islamic, and the remaining 8.6% were split among the World’s remaining major religions.

Cronbach’s alpha, also known as tau-equivalent reliability or coefficient alpha, is a reliability coefficient and a measure of the internal consistency of tests and measures. Cronbach’s alpha is the correlation between the answers in a questionnaire and can take values between 0 and 1. The higher the average correlation between items, the greater the internal consistency of a test, as follows:

• Excellent: A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.9 or higher.
• Good: A Cronbach’s alpha between 0.8 and 0.9.
• Acceptable: A Cronbach’s alpha between 0.7 and 0.8.
• Questionable: A Cronbach’s alpha between 0.6 and 0.7.
• Poor: A Cronbach’s alpha between 0.5 and 0.6.
• Unacceptable: A Cronbach’s alpha below 0.5.

The standard Cronbach’s alpha, which calculates reliability based on the average shared variance between items, and the Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items, which calculates reliability based on the average inter-item correlation, were conducted. The analyses found all question sets to be in either the acceptable, good, or excellent range, These results are depicted in

Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha for student questions.

Question Set	Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items	Number of Items
Satisfaction with Campus Climate	0.714	0.718	2
Reflections on the Campus Experience	0.842	0.845	6
Belonging	0.781	0.782	3
Supports	0.937	0.938	8
Representation	0.732	0.733	2
Culturally Responsive Teaching	0.946	0.946	8
Adequacy of Resources	0.928	0.928	5
Interactions	0.785	0.797	3

and

Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha for faculty and staff questions.

Question Set	Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items	Number of Items
Satisfaction with Campus Climate	0.787	0.787	2
Reflections on the Campus Experience	0.865	0.861	7
Belonging	0.802	0.802	2
Supports	0.937	0.938	8
Representation	0.745	0.746	2
Culturally Responsive Teaching	0.963	0.965	16
Opportunities and Encouragement	0.743	0.747	2

.

A series of Likert scaled agreement questions looked at student satisfaction with the campus experience via a series of statements where 1 equaled strongly disagree and 5 equaled strongly disagree. The overall mean for the student group was 3.72 with an SD= 1.01 and CI = 0.091. The overall mean for the faculty and staff group was 4.04 with an SD = 1.098 and CI = 0.196. Reflections on the campus experience are represented in

Table 3. Perception of the campus experience of students.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
I am satisfied with the campus experience and environment regarding diversity.	447	3.64	1.03	0.092
I am treated fairly on campus.	443	3.92	0.969	0.086
I regularly interact with people who are different than me at UMES.	446	3.90	0.981	0.090
If I experienced or observed an act of discrimination or harassment at UMES, I know who to contact to report the incident.	433	3.76	1.13	0.104
UMES senior leadership demonstrates a commitment to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.	435	3.62	0.999	0.091
All individuals at UMES are treated equitably.	440	3.51	0.981	0.090
Summary Row	440	3.72	1.01	0.091

and

Table 4. Perception of the campus experience of faculty and staff.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
I am satisfied with the campus experience and environment regarding diversity.	102	3.84	1.51	0.201
I am treated fairly on campus.	101	3.88	1.12	0.216
I regularly interact with people who are different than me at UMES.	99	4.44	0.848	0.162
If I experienced or observed an act of discrimination or harassment at UMES, I know who to contact to report the incident.	99	4.41	0.951	0.182
I feel safe in my workspace, department, or office	99	4.19	1.059	0.203
UMES senior leadership demonstrates a commitment to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.	100	3.51	1.10	0.212
All individuals at UMES are treated equitably.	98	3.11	1.15	0.222
Summary Row	100	4.045	1.098	0.196

.

Students were asked about the campus climate with respect to their overall satisfaction via a series of questions utilizing a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 equaled extremely dissatisfied and five equaled extremely satisfied, μ = 3.53, SD = 1.01, and CI = 0.09; and whether the campus is free from strain related to individual or group differences, μ= 3.59, SD = 0.875, and CI = 0.08. Faculty and staff were also asked about their overall satisfaction with the campus climate with the same scale, where μ = 3.75, SD = 1.09, and CI = 0.209; and whether the campus is free from strain related to individual or group differences where μ = 3.60, SD = 0.88, and CI = 0.209. Results are shown in

Table 5. Student satisfaction with the campus climate.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
Thinking about your experience at UMES as a whole, including the academic/professional climate, social climate, and racial climate, what is your level of satisfaction with the overall climate of the university?	448	3.53	1.01	0.092
Overall, the campus environment is free from strain related to individual or group differences.	437	3.59	0.875	0.080

and

Table 6. Faculty and staff satisfaction with the campus climate.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
Thinking about your experience at UMES as a whole, including the academic/professional climate, social climate, and racial climate, what is your level of satisfaction with the overall climate of the university?	101	3.75	1.09	0.209
Overall, the campus environment is free from strain related to individual or group differences.	97	3.38	1.065	0.204

.

Respondents were asked their perceptions of the representation of different cultural groups. Students responded that there was adequate representation of different cultures on campus, μ = 3.73, SD = 0.908, and CI = 0.083, including the Indigenous people that once lived on the land that is now the campus, μ = 3.28, SD = 0.960, and CI = 0.088. Faculty and staff reported similar perceptions of the representation of different cultural groups, μ = 3.53, SD = 1.08, and CI = 0.208, but were more negative when it came to the representation of the Indigenous people that once lived on the land that is now the campus, μ = 2.76, SD = 1.12, and CI = 0.216. Results are presented in

Table 7. Student perception of representation.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
There is adequate representation of different cultural groups at UMES.	417	3.73	0.908	0.083
There is an adequate representation of the Indigenous people who once made their home on the land that is now our campus.	367	3.28	0.960	0.088

and

Table 8. Faculty and staff perception of representation.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
There is adequate representation of different cultural groups at UMES.	94	3.53	1.08	0.208
There is an adequate representation of the Indigenous people who once made their home on the land that is now our campus.	84	2.76	1.12	0.216

.

With the results represented in

Table 9. Student experiences with discrimination and harassment.

Frequency
I have personally experienced discrimination at UMES
Unsure	8.5%
No	80%
Yes	11.5%
I have witnessed discrimination against someone else at UMES
Unsure	9.7%
No	68.9%
Yes	21.4%
I have personally experienced harassment at UMES
Unsure	7%
No	75.5%
Yes	17.5%
I have witnessed harassment against someone else at UMES.
Unsure	7%
No	68%
Yes	25%
If you have witnessed or heard someone, make an insensitive or disparaging remark about a person or people based on their age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or disability status from where did it come? Select all that apply.
Faculty	15%
Students	43.8%
Staff	12.6%
Administrator	8.3%
Local community Member	11.5%
Bias refers to prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. If you have experienced or witnessed bias against any person or group at UMES, who was it against. Select all that apply.
LGBTQIA+ People	23.8%
Disabled People	10%
Veterans or People in the Military	1.5%
People based on Religious Affiliation	6.3%
People who are not Religious	7%
People based on Race	12%
People based on Ethnicity	7.2%
Foreign-Born People	7.6%
People based on Gender	10.2%
People based on Gender Identity or Expression	15%

, students were asked to reflect on their experiences at UMES: whereas 11.5% have personally experienced discrimination at UMES, 21.4% have witnessed discrimination against someone else at UMES, 17.5% have personally experienced harassment at UMES, and 25% have witnessed harassment against someone else. When asked “If you have witnessed or heard someone, make an insensitive or disparaging remark about a person or people based on their age, race, ethnicity, gender identify, or disability status from where did it come?” the responses were faculty (15%), students (43.8%), staff (15.5%), administrator (8.3%), and local community member (11.5%). When it comes to the targets of bias, the most commonly cited were people based on LGBTQIA+ status (23.8%), gender identity or expression (15%), race (12%), gender (10.2%), foreign-born people (7.6%), ethnicity (7.2%), not being religious (7%), and religious affiliation (6.3%).

Faculty and staff participants were also asked to reflect on their experiences at UMES with the results presented in

Table 10. Faculty and staff experiences with discrimination and harassment.

Frequency
I have personally experienced discrimination at UMES
Unsure	10%
No	61%
Yes	29%
I have witnessed discrimination against someone else at UMES
Unsure	8%
No	51%
Yes	41%
I have personally experienced harassment at UMES
Unsure	7%
No	69%
Yes	24%
I have witnessed harassment against someone else at UMES.
Unsure	5%
No	65%
Yes	30%
If you have witnessed or heard someone, make an insensitive or disparaging remark about a person or people based on their age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or disability status from where did it come? Select all that apply.
Faculty	29.8%
Students	36.2%
Staff	23.1%
Administrator	12.5%
Local community Member	13.0%
Bias refers to prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. If you have experienced or witnessed bias against any person or group at UMES, who was it against. Select all that apply.
LGBTQIA+ People	17.3%
Disabled People	9.6%
Veterans or People in the Military	1.9%
People based on Religious Affiliation	9.6%
People who are not Religious	14.4%
Foreign Born People	17.3%
People based on Race	25%
People based on Ethnicity	12.5%
People based on Gender	21.2%
Gender identity or Expression	11.5%

: whereas 29% have personally experienced discrimination at UMES, 41% have witnessed discrimination against someone else at UMES, 24% have personally experienced harassment at UMES, and 30% have witnessed harassment against someone else. When asked “If you have witnessed or heard someone, make an insensitive or disparaging remark about a person or people based on their age, race, ethnicity, gender identify, or disability status from where did it come?” the responses were faculty (29.8%), students (36.2%), staff (23.1%), administrator (12.5%), and local community member (13%). When it comes to the targets of bias, the most commonly cited were people based on race (25%), gender (21.2%), LGBTQIA+ status (17.3%), being foreign-born (17.3%), not being religious (14.4%), ethnicity (12.5%), and gender identity or expression (11.5%).

R1

Do all community members consider the campus inclusive?

Student participants were asked to rank the UMES campus community for inclusivity on a sliding scale where 0 equaled extremely hostile and not inclusive and 100 equaled extremely inclusive. According to the analyses and with the results represented in

Table 11. Inclusivity.

Question	N	M.	SD	CI @95%
Students
How inclusive would you rank the campus community	450	65.1	21.74	1.97
Faculty and Staff
How inclusive would you rank the campus community	102	71.85	21.51	4.05

, a mean of 65.1 was achieved with an SD of 21.74 and a CI of 1.97. Faculty and staff respondents were also asked to rank the UMES campus community for inclusivity on the same sliding scale. According to the analyses, and with 102 people responding, a mean of 71.85 was achieved with an SD of 21.51 and a CI of 4.05.

R2

Do all community members experience a culture of belonging?

Presented in

Table 12. Student perceptions of belonging.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
All members of the UMES community experience a sense of belonging.	443	3.45	0.990	0.091
UMES frequently has events designed to promote a sense of belonging for underrepresented members of the campus community.	444	3.61	1.05	0.096
Availability of multicultural events at UMES	404	3.49	0.869	0.079
Summary Row	430	3.51	0.969	0.088

and

Table 13. Faculty and staff perceptions of belonging.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
All members of the UMES community experience a sense of belonging.	98	3.11	1.13	0.217
UMES frequently has events designed to promote a sense of belonging for underrepresented members of the campus community.	99	3.29	1.15	0.221
Summary Row	98.5	3.2	1.14	0.219

, perceptions of belonging were measured. Student perceptions of belonging were explored through three agreement questions where 1 equaled strongly disagree and 5 equaled strongly disagree, μ = 3.51, SD = 0.969, and CI = 0.088. Meanwhile, faculty and staff perceptions of belonging were explored through two agreement questions where people were asked if all members of the UMES community experience a sense of belonging (μ = 3.11, SD = 1.13, and CI = 0.217) and if the campus frequently has events designed to promote belonging (μ = 3.29, SD = 1.15, and CI = 0.221).

R3

Are there adequate resources and supports for all members of the campus to succeed?

Student perceptions of supports are presented in

Table 14. Student perceptions of supports.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
There are adequate supports specifically for disabled people at UMES.	398	3.60	0.932	0.085
The UMES campus is easy to navigate for people with physical disabilities.	406	3.47	1.04	0.096
Buildings at UMES are adapted so that they easily accommodate people with disabilities.	416	3.52	1.01	0.093
There are adequate supports specifically for underrepresented ethnic minorities at UMES.	408	3.58	0.868	0.079
There are adequate supports specifically for non-Christians at UMES.	385	3.38	0.931	0.085
There are adequate supports specifically for LGBTQIA+ people at UMES.	405	3.51	0.976	0.089
There are adequate supports specifically for transgender people at UMES.	382	3.31	1.00	0.091
There are adequate supports specifically for Indigenous people	362	3.39	0.917	0.084
Students with disabilities at UMES receive adequate supports	382	3.67	0.908	0.08
Summary Row	394	3.49	0.95	0.087

and were explored through a nine agreement question series where μ = 3.49, SD = 0.954, and CI = 0.087. Faculty and staff perceptions of supports are presented in

Table 15. Faculty and staff perceptions of supports.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
There are adequate supports specifically for disabled people at UMES.	93	3.32	1.09	0.210
The UMES campus is easy to navigate for people with physical disabilities.	94	2.93	1.12	0.215
Buildings at UMES are adapted so that they easily accommodate people with disabilities.	97	3.08	1.14	0.219
There are adequate supports specifically for underrepresented ethnic minorities at UMES.	92	3.42	1.16	0.222
There are adequate supports specifically for non-Christians at UMES.	88	3.09	1.15	0.221
There are adequate supports specifically for LGBTQIA+ people	87	3.18	1.10	0.212
There are adequate supports specifically for transgender people	83	2.93	1.10	0.211
There are adequate supports specifically for Indigenous people	80	3.16	1.12	0.187
Summary Row	89	3.13	1.12	0.212

and were explored through an eight agreement question series where μ = 3.13, SD = 1.12, and CI = 0.212.

Students reflected upon the adequacy of a number of resources for supporting minoritized populations where μ = 3.51, SD = 0.868, and CI = 0.0794. These results are presented in

Table 16. Student perceptions of resources.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
Resources for LGBTQIA+ individuals at UMES	359	3.38	0.898	0.082
Resources for religious minorities at UMES	373	3.48	0.881	0.080
Resources for disabled people at UMES	361	3.49	0.839	0.077
Resources for cultural minorities at UMES	380	3.59	0.861	0.079
Resources for foreign born people at UMES	369	3.64	0.861	0.079
Summary Row	368	3.51	0.868	0.0794

.

R4

Do faculty exhibit culturally responsive teaching practices?

Culturally responsive teaching practices are strategies in which the students’ unique cultural strengths are identified and nurtured to promote student achievement and a sense of well-being [7]. Eight Likert-scale agreement questions were used to measure the culturally responsive teaching experiences of students where μ = 4.00, SD = 1.08, and CI = 0.206. Results are presented in

Table 17. Culturally responsive teaching experiences of students.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
I am treated fairly and equitably in classrooms and classroom settings (e.g., labs, lectures, clinical environments, etc.).	439	3.97	0.911	0.08
UMES faculty seem committed to promoting justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion	436	3.83	0.885	0.08
Overall, I feel respected by UMES faculty	436	3.86	0.945	0.09
UMES faculty respect students from diverse backgrounds	434	3.84	0.877	0.08
Curriculum at UMES recognizes the cultural wealth and lived experiences that students from diverse backgrounds bring to the classroom	421	3.73	0.904	0.08
Teaching and learning at UMES makes available adequate support services to ensure all students can succeed	434	3.73	0.922	0.08
Curriculum at UMES includes teaching practices that include multicultural content and references	426	3.70	0.939	0.08
Courses at UMES provide opportunities to explore social justice issues	419	3.75	0.912	0.08
Summary Row	431	3.80	0.912	0.081

.

Culturally responsive teaching is also known as culturally compatible, culturally appropriate, culturally congruent, and/or culturally relevant teaching [7]. Fifteen Likert-scale agreement questions were used to measure culturally responsive teaching of faculty respondents where μ = 4.00, SD = 1.08, and CI = 0.206. Only faculty were given these questions with the responses displayed in

Table 18. Culturally responsive teaching practices of faculty.

	N	M	SD	CI @95%
My classes incorporate the use of the Starfish early alert systems	56	3.63	1.37	0.263
My courses include varied forms of assessment	56	4.52	0.741	0.142
The courses I teach provide opportunities to explore social justice issues	56	3.86	1.17	0.225
My classes include multicultural content and references	56	4.07	1.05	0.202
I am familiar with culturally responsive teaching practices which are strategies in which the students’ unique cultural strengths are identified and nurtured to promote student achievement and a sense of well-being	56	4.01	1.05	0.202
My curriculum is designed to recognize the cultural wealth and lived experiences that students from diverse backgrounds bring to the classroom	56	3.95	1.12	0.217
My classes include opportunities for students to share their stories and mine meaning from lived or learned experiences	56	4.25	0.850	0.217
My courses have been examined to ensure that they do not promote dominant culture values (dominant culture is a cultural practice that is dominant within a particular political, social, or economic entity, in which multiple cultures co-exist. It may refer to language, religion or ritual practices, social value and/or social custom)	56	3.67	1.29	0.163
My courses have been examined to ensure that they do not promote heteronormative values (heteronormative refers to denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation)	56	3.62	1.33	0.257
My courses have been examined to ensure that they do not promote cisgender values (cisgender refers to people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth)	56	3.63	1.32	0.255
My courses have been reviewed for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance	56	3.74	1.30	0.250
I have a diversity statement in my course syllabus	56	4.33	1.01	0.194
I teach Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) concepts in at least one of my classes	56	3.88	1.19	0.228
I am committed to promoting justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in my classrooms	56	4.60	0.623	0.119
Overall, I believe that my curriculum integrates inclusive practices	56	4.31	0.813	0.156
Summary Row	56	4.00	1.08	0.206

.

R5

Do faculty and staff differ in their perceptions?

Analyses were run to consider differences among faculty and staff and student responses with respect to respondent perceptions of inclusiveness and campus climate satisfaction. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients also known as Spearman’s Rho were prepared to determine whether there is a monotonic component of association. Monotonic relationships occur when one thing goes up or down with the other. Chi-squares were also conducted. A chi-square is a common inferential statistical test used to examine the differences between categorical variables. This test aims to determine if a difference between observed data and expected data is due to chance or if it is due to a relationship between the variables. The Spearman’s rank-order correlations did not find a strong, positive correlation, rs = 0.128 and p = 0.003, and rs = 0.107 and p = 0.012. With respect to the chi-square, significance was also not found when it came to perceived inclusivity, p = 0.106, but significance was found when satisfaction with the campus climate was considered, p = 0.002. These findings are presented in

Table 19. Correlations.

Spearman’s Rho	rs	p
Inclusivity	0.128	0.003
Overall Satisfaction with Climate	0.107	0.012
Chi Square	x2	p
Inclusivity	101.624	0.106
Overall Satisfaction with Climate	17.387	0.002

.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore DEI and culturally responsive teaching on the campus of a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) located in the Mid-Atlantic United States, via a comprehensive DEI climate study. The goal of the study was to help address the gap in the DEI literature with respect to the practices of minority-serving institutions. Two surveys were created, one for students and another for faculty and staff. Survey creation involved a comprehensive review of the literature and existing studies and instrumentation, and consultation with experts. Survey drafts went through two separate carefully curated expert panels prior to IRB approval and the conduction of pilot testing.

Prior to distribution, a sample size calculator was utilized with the confidence interval set to 95% and the margin of error set to 5%. Based on the calculation, the desired sample size for students was 342 and the recommended sample size for faculty and staff was 227. In total, 455 students completed the survey along with 104 faculty and staff. After data collection was concluded, descriptive statistical analyses including the mean, standard deviation, frequency distribution, and confidence interval were conducted. Reliability testing was also conducted using Cronbach’s alpha application, and chi-square tests and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were prepared.

Based on consideration of the means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals, student participants indicated that the University is inclusive with most students expressing that all community members experience a sense of belonging. Faculty and staff respondents were more strongly positive in their opinion that the university is inclusive and were also in agreement that all members of the community experience a sense of belonging. These findings are in agreement with what has been reported in the literature: that HBCUs are unparalleled as exemplars of DEI [7,54,55] that should serve as a model for institutions across the globe with a commitment to inclusivity [47]. These results are also explained with social cognitive theory and psychological safety theory where learning involves an interplay between our beliefs, expectations, environmental influences, self-efficacy, and relationships; and individuals thrive in environments where they feel safe to express themselves without fear [6,48,51].

Most students expressed that they have experienced adequate support and resources; however, faculty and staff were more tempered regarding the adequacy of supports and resources. More specifically, a negative perception was indicated when it came to support for disabled and transgender members of the campus community. Faculty also expressed dissatisfaction regarding the representation of Indigenous people on the UMES campus. These finds are consistent with what has been reported by Herr-Perrin [47] who points out that despite being designed as “sanctuaries of inclusivity in the midst of an otherwise hostile society, HBCUs are not flawless DEI models and are also impacted by such issues as discrimination towards LGBTQIA+ students and other threats to inclusion and belonging.” From a theoretical perspective, the negative perceptions expressed can be related to multiple minority stress and, more specifically, intersectional theory, which explains that people belonging to multiple minority groups often face compounding and intersecting stressors [50].

When culturally responsive teaching practices were explored, both students and faculty responded in strong agreement. In terms of culturally responsive teaching practices, these findings provide valuable confirmation of what is already expressed in the literature, which has reported that HBCUs have an unparalleled longstanding history of culturally responsive teaching practices that were in place decades before the term was formally introduced [6,7,47]. As Brock and Slater [46] explained, this is because HBCUs have cultivated “humanistic” environments for student learning where students recognize that they are valued, resulting in a strong sense of belonging being felt by students, meaningful relationships between faculty and students, and an overall commitment to equity. Further, these findings support the theory of critical pedagogy which posits that issues of social justice are not distinct from teaching and learning and that education can influence social transformation by encouraging learners to challenge oppressive structures and become agents of change [53].

When an effort was made to explore whether perceptions of faculty and staff differ significantly from those of students, Spearman’s rank-order correlations and chi-square significance tests were performed. The Spearman’s rank was not significant, and chi-square did not find significance when it comes to perceived inclusivity, but significance was found when satisfaction with the campus climate was considered. Overall, and due to the self-selection bias and the non-statistically significant population size of the faculty and staff respondents, this line of exploration is considered both inconclusive and unreliable.

To inform the institution and elicit recommendations, a short-answer qualitative question was added to each survey asking how the institution could better support DEI and cultivate a culture of belonging and inclusion. Semantic analysis was conducted using two methods. First, the semantic analysis AI tools in Survey Monkey were utilized, which include a thematic analysis tool that uses machine learning to automatically categorize text responses and generate themes. Second, the researchers engaged in a human controlled manual semantic recoding and categorization process. The results of both methods were compared for similarity and to finalize themes. When thematic analysis and semantic recoding were performed on students’ responses, the most common themes included hosting more community events or activities, more LGBTQIA+ supports, more awareness and commitment, conducting listening sessions or town halls, and offering more training or workshops. The themes generated from the student short-answer responses are represented in

Table 20. Sentiment analysis of student responses.

Theme	Number
Nothing/NA/I Don’t Know	88
Community or Social Events or Activities	61
Positive Response Nothing Is Needed	42
LGBTQIA+ Supports, Student Services, GSA, or Gender Inclusive Housing	33
Awareness, More Inclusiveness, Change Culture, Campus DEI Initiatives, Be More Welcoming	27
Get Feedback, Listen to Students, Host Town Halls, Hold Listening Sessions, and Conduct Surveys/Assessments	22
More Trainings, Education, Courses, or Workshops	20
Improvements to Safety or Security	15
More Student Clubs	14
Accessibility and Disability Supports	9
Mental Health and Support	8

.

When thematic analysis and semantic recoding were performed on faculty and staff responses, the most common themes included more celebrations of diversity, workshops or professional development, more commitment to DEI, greater support for culturally responsive teaching and JEDI course content, less religion or emphasis on Christian values, and incentives for faculty. The themes generated from the faculty and staff short-answer responses are represented in

Table 21. Sentiment analysis of faculty and staff responses.

Themes	Number
More Awareness and Celebration of Diversity	12
Workshops or Professional Development	9
Support Culturally Responsive Teaching and JEDI Course Content	7
Less Religion or Emphasis on Christian Values	6
Incentives for Faculty	5
More Events	5
Conduct Studies	5
LGBTQIA+ Inclusion	4
More Supports and Spaces	4
ADA and Accessibility	4

.

6. Limitations

The most notable limitation of this study is that it occurred at a singular minority-serving institution located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States even though the DEI climate studies in the literature were almost always conducted at single institutions. The limitation can easily be addressed by future research that expands the scope of this examination so as to include majority-serving institutions as well as additional institutions from more parts of the world. The second limitation of this study lies with the faculty and staff participants who self-selected their participation by responding to an email, which generally leads to self-selection bias.

7. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to help address the gap in the DEI literature exploring the practices of HBCUs and other types of minority-serving institutions. According to the results, participants found the University to be an inclusive place, expressing strong satisfaction with the campus climate and experience. Further, when the presence of culturally responsive teaching practices was explored, strong evidence was indicated. Possible areas for improvement include greater supports and resources for LGBTQIA+, Indigenous, and disabled community members.

Thyden et al. [56] postulate that while Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were founded on antiracism, many predominantly White institutions (PWIs) were founded on exclusionary tactics that uphold white supremacy. They explain that, as a result, Black students at HBCUs experience less structural racism than Black students at PWIs with increased social supports [56,57] and more positive student mental health outcomes [58]. At the same time, some scholars point out that HBCUs may exist within a larger “white supremacist society” [56] as indicated by underfunding when it comes to state, federal, and private money, which impacts all aspects of the teaching, learning, and overall student experience [59,60]. Additionally, the success of HBCUs occurs despite Black students at HBCUs arriving on these venerated campuses with lower high-school grades, lower standardized test scores, and parents with less education and lower incomes compared with Black students at majority-serving institutions [61].

In order to dive deeper into a number of important topics and themes that emerged from this investigation, a series of focus groups and a town hall are currently being planned on the UMES campus. It is hoped that these listening and investigative sessions will engender meaningful critical discourse that results in tangible action items that can be implemented by the institution.

It is the goal of the authors for this paper to contribute to the body of literature on DEI in higher education. It is also hoped that this paper will inspire more institutions to engage in similar DEI climate studies. Instruments that have performed well when reliability testing was conducted have been introduced and are being made available by the authors for free usage provided proper attribution is given. More campuses need to engage in comprehensive climate studies in order to evaluate whether their campuses are inclusive communities where all members experience a sense of belonging, supports and resources promote equity, diversity is celebrated, and culturally responsive teaching is embraced.