Kamis, 01 April 2010

Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education

The Center for the Education of Women University of Michigan
This publication is part of The Dual Ladder in Higher Education —
Research, Resources, and the Academic Workforce Dual Ladder
Clearinghouse project funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Project team members
Carol Hollenshead, CEW Director
Jean Waltman, Project Manager
Louise August
Jessica Bailey
Jeanne Miller
Gilia Smith
Beth Sullivan
Published by
The Center for the Education of Women
University of Michigan
330 E. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2289
734-998-7080
www.cew.umich.edu
© 2005 Regents of the University of Michigan
W
1
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
here Do We Stand? is an overview of family-friendly policies
now in effect at different types of colleges and universities
across the nation.
The demographics of higher education
have changed rapidly over the past
decades, particularly with greater proportions
of women among tenure-track faculty.
Since family-friendly policies and benefits
are increasingly important criteria by
which academics — women and men —
evaluate their career options, higher education
is joining other employment sectors
in offering greater numbers of such policies
and benefits to its employees.
As institutions of higher education seek to
hire and retain high quality faculty, they
compete not only with other colleges and
universities but also with employers outside
the academy. In fact, research suggests
that institutions that do not accommodate
family caregiving suffer in the
competitive academic workplace.1
The information in Where Do We Stand?
comes from research funded by the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation and conducted at the
University of Michigan’s Center for the
Education of Women (CEW).2 The CEW
Faculty Work-Family Policy Study surveyed
255 higher education institutions stratified
by Carnegie classifications; it focused on
prevalent work-life policies for tenured
and tenure-track faculty. This publication
is the first in a series designed to highlight
academic workforce concerns. The goal of
Where Do We Stand? is to help higher
education administrators:
• Understand the types of familyfriendly
policies now in place at
institutions across the country;
• Identify which policies they might
implement at their own institutions;
• Determine where their institutions
stand in relation to their peers.
2
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
WHAT A R E FAMILY - F R I E N D LY
P O L I C I E S ?
The terms “family-friendly,” “work-life,” and
“work-family” generally apply to policies and
practices that make it easier for employees to
balance and integrate the demands of the
workplace with the demands of home or family
life. A review of the literature in recent
years indicates that the policies most often discussed
are those allowing faculty to stop or
extend the tenure clock,3 work part-time,4
negotiate with department chairs to modify
job duties,5 take leave for child- or elder-care,
and negotiate academic appointments for
spouses or partners at hiring.
In the CEW Policy Study, the family-friendly
policies most often offered by academic institutions
fall into the following categories:
• Tenure-clock extension: Allowing tenuretrack
faculty a period of time, typically
one year, that will not be counted as part
of their tenure-probationary period.
• Modified duties: Allowing faculty members
a reduction in their job responsibilities,
usually for one semester or term, without
any reduction in pay.
• Leave in excess of the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA): Allowing faculty members
extended unpaid leaves, beyond the 12
weeks mandated by FMLA, in order to
care for children or other family members
or to receive personal health care.
METHODOLOGY
The Center for the Education of Women’s
Faculty Work-Family Policy Study provides a
contemporary analysis from a large, representative
sample of U.S. institutions (39%
response rate) to determine what types of
policies and programs are in existence, which
ones are under development, who is eligible
to use them, and to what extent institutional
climates support them.
Results are based on 255 respondents, as follows:
Research 73
Doctoral 16
Masters 66
Baccalaureate 70
Associate 30
The study included both open- and closedended
questions in an initial web survey and
a follow-up telephone survey of 51 institutions.
Descriptive and statistical methods
were employed to analyze the data from the
web survey. This publication relies primarily
on analysis of that survey data, although preliminary
results of the telephone follow-up
survey also informed the thinking. All quotes
in this publication are from the telephone follow-
up survey.
3
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
In addition, Where Do We Stand? refers to
these policies:
• Reduced appointment: Arrangements by
which faculty members work less than
100% for the institution. The survey
differentiated between reduced appointments
for extraordinary reasons (e.g.,
to care for an injured child, spouse or
partner) and reduced appointments for
ordinary reasons (e.g., to spend more
time at home with young children or as
a short-term transition from maternity
leave). These policies include part-time
and job share appointments.
• Employment assistance for
spouses/partners: Institutionally provided
employment assistance (e.g.,
help in job searches, job placement)
for partners or spouses of faculty.
• Paid dependent care leave: Infant care
leaves, including parental leave, maternity
or paternity leave, and adoptive
parent leave. Many colleges that have
such paid dependent care leaves also
include care for ailing parents, spouses
or partners.
• Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993:
Federal law providing unpaid time off
up to 12 weeks, without risk to
employment status, for those 1) giving
birth, or caring for newborn, newly
adopted, or foster children 2) caring
for seriously ill family members or 3)
taking medical leave for their own
serious health conditions.
Within this broad range of policies and
programs, individual institutions vary
greatly in the terminology, eligibility criteria,
and specifics of what each policy covers.
For example, circumstances that qualify
faculty members for unpaid leave at one
institution may qualify them for paid leave
at another. Something that is an entitlement
in one setting may be available on an
“exception basis” or be disallowed entirely
in a different setting. Furthermore, the
likelihood of a policy being offered varies
by type of institution.
WHY OFFER FAMILY - F R I E N D LY
P O L I C I E S ?
Higher education is not alone in asking
this question. The American workforce as a
whole struggles to balance work and family
responsibilities. The challenges have become
ever more complex, given that women make
up nearly one-half the total labor force6 and
that both parents are employed in over 60%
of two-parent families.7 Family-friendly
work-life policies and benefits are gaining
importance as criteria by which academics
evaluate their career options.
In the academy, faculty and researchers increasingly
contend that the traditional career
path and the demands of the tenure system
conflict with faculty members’ responsibilities
to partners, children, and parents.
Women, who continue to perform the
majority of caregiving tasks in most U.S.
––––––––––s––––––––––
“As more women move into
faculty ranks, family issues
come to the fore and we
respond to them. Male
expectations about co-parenting
are also incredibly different
from twenty years ago.”
DIRECTOR OF FACULTY MENTORING
AND DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH
INSTITUTION.
–––––––––s––––––––––
4
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
WHAT I S T H E S TAT U S O F
FAMILY - F R I E N D LY P O L I C I E S I N
HIGHER EDUCATION TODAY?
Policies addressing work-family balance
are not universally available in academia.
The CEW Policy Study shows that tenureclock
extension, modified duties, and
unpaid leave-in-excess-of-FMLA are the
most common. Relatively few institutions
have developed and implemented policies
to accommodate reduced appointments,
spousal employment assistance, or paid
dependent care leaves.
Differences Among Institutional Types
Analyses from this study indicate that
research institutions have the most institution-
wide, formal policies. In fact, research
institutions offer almost twice as many formal
family-friendly policies than do other
types of institutions (see Figure 1).10
The irony is that research institutions, while
offering the greatest number of familyfriendly
policies, also employ the fewest
tenure-track and tenured women faculty
(see Figure 2). In other words, women are
least likely to be employed at institutions
that offer them the most family-friendly
policies. Conversely, they are most likely to
be employed at institutions that offer them
the fewest formal family-friendly policies.
Interestingly, when baccalaureate institutions
in the sample are divided into “elites”
(as defined by their ranking in U.S. News
and World Report)11 and “non-elites,” the
families, are often disproportionately
affected by conflicts between the ideal academic
career trajectory and their personal
lives.8 The lack of policies addressing faculty
work-family balance may therefore be
contributing to the slow progress toward
gender equity within the academy. In fact,
many theoretical and descriptive studies
link the limited availability of familyfriendly
policies to women’s lower status
within the professoriate.9
Of course, people in many situations benefit
from family-friendly policies. The policies
are important for men who are caregivers,
for single parents, for faculty in
same-sex relationships, and for others
whose lives do not reflect the traditional
nuclear family often implied by the term
“family-friendly.”
Overall, whether having a baby, raising
children, tending to an elderly parent, or
providing care for an ill spouse or domestic
partner, all faculty members are likely
to have family needs to manage at some
point in their careers. By acknowledging
these competing demands and demonstrating
flexibility and support, a college or
university can position itself as a premier
workplace as it seeks to recruit and retain
the next generation of talented faculty.
––––––––––s––––––––––
“Women used to not ask to use
the policy for fear of being
judged negatively, for fear that
using the policy would be used
against them. But in the last
5-6 years, the attitude has
changed.”
ASSOCIATE PROVOST FOR ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATION, RESEARCH INSTITUTION
––––––––––s––––––––––
5
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
elite baccalaureate institutions more closely
resemble research institutions in terms of
their numbers of formal family-friendly
policies. This finding suggests a relationship
between perceived institutional prestige
and the number of institution-wide, formal
policies (see Figure 3).
The three most common family-friendly
policies — tenure-clock extension, modified
duties, and leave-in-excess-of-FMLA
— are present at different rates at different
types of post-secondary institutions.
For example, tenure-clock
extension policies are predominantly
found at research universities.
In the CEW Policy
Study sample, research universities
offer tenure-clock extension
policies at nearly twice
the rate of doctoral institutions
and at even greater rates than
all other institution types (see
Figure 4).
The data also indicate that
tenure-clock extension and
leave-in-excess-of-FMLA policies
are offered more frequently
than other family-friendly policies
by institutions across the
Carnegie spectrum. At the same
time, though these are the least
expensive policies to implement,
they are still offered by
fewer than half of all institutions
that are not research universities.
Associate institutions do offer
leave-in-excess-of-FMLA policies at
a greater rate than baccalaureate and
masters institutions and at a rate nearly
equal to doctoral institutions (see Figure 4).
The data also suggest that the policies
likely to be more expensive for institutions,
such as modified duties and paid
dependent care, are less common among
all types of institutions, although research
institutions offer them most frequently
(see Figure 4).
Assoc Bacc Mas Doc Res
Figure 1.
Average Number of Family-Friendly Policies
by Institution Type
0
1
2
3
The average number of institution-wide, formal policies
at associate, baccalaureate, masters and doctoral
institutions were all significantly less than those at
research institutions.
% of women # of policies
Assoc Bacc Mas Doc & Res
0 0
5
4
3
2
1
20
40
60
80
Figure 2.
Percentage of Women Faculty (AAUP, 2004)
and Average Number of Family-Friendly Policies
by Institution Type
Percentage of Women
Number of Policies
Women are less likely than men to be employed at the
institutions that offer the greatest number of familyfriendly
policies.
6
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
Assoc Bacc Elite Bacc Mas Doc Res
Figure 3.
Average Number of Formal Policies by Institution Type,
with Baccalaureate Institutions Disaggregated by
Institutional Rankings
0
1
2
3
Elite baccalaureate institutions offer formal family-friendly policies
at nearly the same rate as research institutions.
Doc Res
Assoc Bacc Master
Tenure-clock extension
Leave-in-excess-of-FMLA
Reduced appointment
Modified duties
Paid dependent care
Employment assistance
Figure 4.
Percentage of Institutions by Type
That Offer Each Formal Policy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tenure-clock extension and unpaid leave-in-excess-of-
FMLA policies are offered more frequently than other
family-friendly policies.
7
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
INFORMAL POLICIES
The CEW Policy Study survey asked
whether policies were institution-wide and,
if so, whether they were formal or informal.
12 As Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate, colleges
and universities of all types are much
more likely to have formal, institution-wide
policies than informal ones — especially
those policies regulating tenure-clock
extension and leave-in-excess-of-FMLA.
For modified duties policies, however, the
pattern alters. Among baccalaureate and
associate institutions, the proportion of
informal modified duties policies is somewhat
higher than that of formal policies
(see Figure 6). Informal policies, by their
very nature, are likely to lead to differences
in application across the institution.
Such idiosyncratic application of policies
may occur at the department level or on a
case-by-case basis.
In the future, market forces may pressure a
higher percentage of institutions to offer
more formal work-family policies. Conversely,
budget constraints may continue to
limit the formal policies available to faculty.
FACTORS AFFECTING POLICY
E L I G I B I L I T Y
The vast majority of institutions use their
family-friendly policies to address a variety
of family matters, not simply childbirth.
Eligibility for specific policies often falls
under two categories. The first is
Doc Res
Assoc Bacc Master
Tenure-clock extension
Leave-in-excess-of-FMLA
Reduced appointment
Modified duties
Paid dependent care
Employment assistance
Figure 5.
Percentage of Institutions by Type That Offer
Each Institution-wide, Informal Policy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Informal modified duties policies are most likely to be
found at baccalaureate institutions.
––––––––––s––––––––––
“It’s part of the cost of
doing business [to cover the
teaching load of faculty
on leave].”
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
MASTERS INSTITUTION
––––––––––s––––––––––
gender, and the second is condition or
circumstance. In other words, are policies
available to both men and women? And
exactly what events or dependents constitute
eligibility? (A childbearing leave, for example,
is restricted to women giving birth.)
In terms of dependent care leaves, most
are not restricted specifically to women
but include men as well. In fact, dependent
care policies at only about 3% of the
study’s institutions restrict eligibility to
women giving birth. Generally the policies
also apply to men and women who are
adoptive or foster parents or who face
eldercare responsibilities. To a lesser
extent, dependent care policies also cover
same-sex couples or anyone with other
kinds of family care needs. An emerging
trend is to require faculty members, both
8
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
male or female, to declare or certify that
they will be “primary,” “major,” or “substantial”
caregivers during the time of
their leaves.
Tenure achievement appears to make little
difference in eligibility for these policies.
That is, both tenure-track and tenured
faculty are eligible for the family-friendly
policies (with the exception, of course, of
tenure-clock extensions). Interestingly,
non-instructional research faculty from the
institutional sample are eligible for these
policies only about half as often as tenuretrack
and tenured faculty.
Among research and masters institutions,
the presence of faculty unions is associated
with an increased chance of having certain
formal policies. Unionized masters institutions,
for example, are more likely than
their non-unionized peers to have tenureclock
extension, modified duties, and
leave-in-excess-of-FMLA policies.
Unionized research institutions are more
likely than non-unionized research institutions
to have the above-mentioned formal
policies, as well as policies for reduced
appointments, including part-time and jobsharing
arrangements.
THE PARTICULARITY OF
PREGNANCY
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
requires that women affected by pregnancy,
childbirth and related conditions receive
Figure 6.
Family-friendly Policies by Institution Type
Res Doc Mas Bacc Assoc Total
Formal 86% 44% 32% 23% 7% 43%
Informal 4% 13% 6% 9% 0% 6%
Formal 53% 44% 39% 24% 43% 40%
Informal 12% 6% 15% 9% 10% 11%
Formal 32% 13% 12% 17% 3% 18%
Informal 6% 0% 3% 19% 7% 8%
Tenure-Clock Extension
Unpaid Leave in Excess of FMLA
Modified Duties
9
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
benefits at least equivalent to employees
who are otherwise disabled or unable to
work. Data indicate that nearly 70% of the
institutions in this survey designate sick
leave policies for pregnancy and childbirth,
as seen in Figure 7. The next most common
methods are disability leave (43%),
temporary relief/modified duties (40%),
and vacation leave (36%). (Note that institutions
may use more than one policy to
cover childbirth.) Given the dramatically
smaller percentage of institutions with formal,
long-term modified duties policies
(see Figure 6) compared to those offering
“temporary relief of teaching/modified
duties” specific to childbirth (see Figure
7), it is clear that many universities arrange
for less than a full term’s worth of teaching
coverage for childbearing faculty.
Women may also find that the time off
provided for normal childbirth under most
sick leave policies is difficult to use. For
example, if departmental coverage of termlong
teaching responsibilities is not adequately
addressed, traditional sick leave
policies may require or pressure women to
return to the classroom sooner than the six
to eight weeks following childbirth that is
considered to be good medical practice. In
other cases, an institution’s sick leave policies
may apply to faculty on 12-month
appointments but not those on 6- or 9-
month appointments.
In addition, an institution’s use of disability
leave for childbirth may present problems.
Since some colleges’ disability benefits do
not begin until faculty members have been
disabled for six or more weeks, in most
cases women would not be eligible for paid
leave immediately before or after the birth
of their children — the times when they
would most likely want time off.
Given the requirements of the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act, as well as good medical
practice, it is important for institutions
to determine whether they are handling
sick leave for pregnancy and childbirth in a
manner which actually enables women to
take adequate time off. Moreover, when
relying on sick time or disability, institutions
need to ensure that pregnancy and
childbirth are being handled in the same
manner as other temporary disabilities,
such as elective surgery.13
Sick Leave
Disability Leave
Vacation Leave
Maternity Leave**
Temp. relief from
teaching,
modified duties
Other
* Respondents could choose more than one method. Therefore, percentages total more
than 100%.
** Distinct from Sick, Vacation, or Disability Leave
Res
77%
51%
51%
34%
55%
36%
Doc
56%
50%
31%
6%
44%
13%
Mas
79%
44%
36%
17%
26%
21%
Bacc
47%
37%
17%
34%
49%
11%
Assoc
90%
33%
43%
10%
17%
13%
Total
69%
43%
36%
25%
40%
21%
Figure 7.
Methods of Providing Paid Childbirth-related Time Off
by Institution Type*
––––––––––s––––––––––
“I think a lot of chairs see it
[tenure-clock extension] as
a plus; see it as a way to
increase the odds that their
faculty members are going
to get tenure.”
DIRECTOR OF FACULTY MENTORING AND
DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH INSTITUTION
––––––––––s––––––––––
10
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
• What is the level of policy use in
relationship to tenure and promotion
outcomes?
• If our faculty are unionized, how does
that fact influence the existence and
implementation of family-friendly
policies?
• How does our institution compare
with others?
CONCLUSION
As documented by the CEW Policy Study,
institutions of higher education mirror the
trend of other U.S. employers in developing
family-friendly policies for their
employees. At the same time, the existence
of such policies is uneven across institutions
as well as among types of institutions.
Availability of these policies
depends on whether they are formal or
informal, how faculty are deemed eligible,
whether campuses are unionized, and
other factors.
While family-friendly policies are being
implemented in many individual educational
institutions, it is clear that academic
employers need to continue developing
and offering such policies in order to support
their faculty, to enhance their institutions,
and to remain competitive.
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
Clearly every institution has a unique
character and culture that will be reflected
in its family-friendly policies as much as
in other aspects of campus life. This publication
outlines the landscape of familyfriendly
policies at American institutions
of higher education. Administrators examining
the policies at their own institutions,
perhaps in order to make them competitive
with similar institutions, will find that
asking the following questions is a useful
starting point:
• Which family-friendly policies are
offered at our institution?
• Are our policies formal or informal?
• Are our policies flexible? Do they
cover a single circumstance, or are
they available for use by faculty of
both sexes and with different life circumstances?
• How is childbirth covered? Are we in
compliance with the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act?
• How does eligibility for family-friendly
policies compare among various faculty
groups (e.g., non tenure-track,
tenure-track, tenured, research faculty)?
• Are policies being used as designed?
• Can utilization data improve the way
our policies are implemented or
revised?
––––––––––s––––––––––
It’s interesting to see the
degree to which the
attitudes you project during
your recruitment are met
by [faculty] interests which
then reinforce the attitudes.”
DIRECTOR OF ACADEMIC PERSONNEL,
MASTERS INSTITUTION
––––––––––s––––––––––
11
Family-Friendly Policies in Higher Education W H E R E D O W E S TA N D ?
NOTES
1Friedman. D. E., Rimsky, C. & Johnson, A. A. (1996). College and university reference
guide to work-family programs. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
2 Sullivan, B, Hollenshead, C. & Smith, G. (2004). Developing and implementing
work-family policies for faculty. Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of
University Professors. 90(6), 24-27.
3 American Association of University Professors (2001). Statement of principles on
family responsibilities and academic work. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2003 from
www.aaup.org/statements/reports/re01 fam.htm;Wilson, R. (2001). A Push to help
new parents prepare for tenure reviews. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 9.
2001.
4 Drago, R. & Williams, J. (2000). A Half-time tenure track proposal. Change, 32(6),
46-51; Leslie, D. W. & Walke, J. (2001). Out of the Ordinary: The Anomalous academic.
Retrieved January 4, 2004 from
www.wm.edu/education/Faculty/Leslie/anomacad.html.
5 Cramer, E. & Boyd, J. (1995). The tenure track and the parent track: A road guide.
Wilson Library Bulletin, 65, 41-42.
6U.S. Department of Labor. Women’s Bureau (2005). Women in the labor force in
2003. Retrieved March 8. 2005 from www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce.htm.
7U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Table 4: Families with own children:
Employment status of parents by age of youngest child and family type, 2002-03
annual averages. Current Population Survey. Retrieved March 8, 2005 from
www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t04.htm.
8 Hochschild, A. R. & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: working parents and the
revolution at home. NewYork: Viking; Drago & Williams.
9AAUP, 2001; Drago & Williams, 2000; Mason, M. A. & Goulden, M., 2002. Do
babies matter? Academe, 6, 21-27. Retrieved Dec. 13, 2002 from www.aaup.org/publications/
Academe/2002/02nd/02ndmas.htm.
10 Respondents were asked whether a given policy was held institution-wide, only in
some schools or departments, or by neither the institution nor any subunits. Of those
who said the policy was institution-wide, respondents were asked whether the policy
was “formal and written, or informal and based on individual arrangements.”
11 We identified “elite baccalaureate” institutions as those that were ranked among the
top 100 liberal arts colleges on the U.S. News and World Report website. Retrieved
January 11, 2005 from www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/
rankindex_brief.php. All 15 elite baccalaureate institutions in our sample were privately
operated.
12 See Note 10, Above.
13 Williams, Joan C. (2005). Are your parental-leave policies legal? The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51:23, p. C1 February 11, 2005.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
The CEW Policy Study provides useful data
regarding family-friendly policies at post-secondary
educational institutions. It also suggests
additional questions for research at an institutional
and on a national level. Some of these
research questions follow.
• What effect do family-friendly policies
have on faculty recruitment, retention,
and satisfaction?
• What effect does the use of familyfriendly
policies have on tenure achievement?
• What factors contribute to the implementation
of formal versus informal policies
in an institution?
• What factors contribute to successful use
of policies?
• To what extent are family-friendly policies
available to nontraditional families?
• How do family-friendly policies and
domestic partner benefits intersect?
• Is there a relationship between the number
of family-friendly policies and the
labor market environment within which
an institution operates?
• Does an institution’s size affect the number
and types of family-friendly policies?
• Does an institution’s public/private status
affect the number and types of policies?
The Regents of the University of Michigan
David A. Brandon, Ann Arbor; Laurence B. Deitch, Bingham Farms; Olivia P. Maynard, Goodrich; Rebecca
McGowan, Ann Arbor; Andrea Fischer Newman, Ann Arbor; Andrew C. Richner, Grosse Pointe Park; S. Martin
Taylor, Grosse Pointe Farms; Katherine E. White, Ann Arbor; Mary Sue Coleman, ex officio
The University of Michigan, as an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, complies with all applicable
federal and state laws regarding nondiscrimination and affirmative action, including Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The University of Michigan is committed
to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, color,
religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or Vietnam-era
veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, and admissions. Inquiries or complaints
may be addressed to the Senior Director for Institutional Equity and Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator, Office
of Institutional Equity, 2072 Administrative Services Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1432,
734-763-0235, TTY 734-647-1388. For other University of Michigan information call 734-764-1817.

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar