Diversity Climate Survey 2025

Across several dimensions of diversity, students report higher rates of self-identification in comparison to academic and administrative staff (see Table 1)—a finding that is also reflected in national and international studies (e.g., Joint Science Conference (GWK) 2022/2023, Davis and Fry, 2019). Among the participating students, 23.4% identify as LGBTQ+, and 4.3% state that their gender identity differs from that of their university surrounding (e.g., transgender, intersex, or nonbinary). This distribution corresponds to the findings of a large-scale Ipsos study, which reports that 22 % of Generation Z identifies as LGBTQ+, including 4 % who identify as transgender or nonbinary (Ipsos, 2021). 

Table 1: Diversity Characteristics and Care Work in the Samples (in percent)

Legend: Percentages rounded to the first decimal place

The diversity climate was assessed across the three status groups using a three-item scale developed by the University of Konstanz (see Tillmann, Woelki & Unger, 2021). The items were slightly adapted in wording to reflect the respective status groups and were rated by respondents on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 

The first item measures “Intention” and reflects a positive attitude toward diversity within the university environment. The second item (Process) assesses the active support of students and staff, taking their individual characteristics into account, and the third item (Practice) refers to the absence of discrimination in academic and work environments. 

Tables 2 and 3 present the ratings of the diversity climate among students—both overall and by subgroup. Overall, students rate the diversity climate as positive, with an average total score of 3.7 (see Fig. 1). In this context, “Intention” (the attitude of the environment) and “Practice” (absence of discrimination) are rated higher—each with an average score of 3.9—in comparison to “Process” (the active promotion of individuals based on their individual characteristics). 

At the same time, differences in the ratings can be observed between various groups (see Table 3). It appears that students who identify as LGBTQ+, report impairments, or describe their ethnicity, culture, religion, or values and attitudes as differing from those of their university environment rate the diversity climate more negatively. In addition, doctoral students rate the diversity climate significantly lower than other students. Male students rate the diversity climate higher than female and non-binary students. These differences remain when controlling for other relevant factors in multivariate analyses. 

Legend: Scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Only mean values that differ significantly in the multivariate model (p ≤ 0.05) are shown. Mean values (M) are rounded to the first decimal place.

Tables 4 and 5 show the rating of the diversity climate among academic staff. Overall, academic staff rate the diversity climate more favorably than students. Professors and male employees with children rate the diversity climate significantly more positively. In contrast, women with children, individuals who identify as LGBTQ+, and academic staff below the professorial level rate the climate comparatively less positively. Individuals with reported impairments also tend to rate the climate less positively, although this difference is not statistically significant (M = 3.7; SD = 1.1; N = 28).

Legend: Scale 1 = strongly disagree, up to 5 = strongly agree. Only mean values that differ significantly in the multivariate model (p ≤ 0.05) are shown. Mean values (M) are rounded to the first decimal place. 

Table 6 shows the rating of the diversity climate among administrative staff. The diversity climate is rated very positively among administrative staff and scores higher than among students and academic staff. Furthermore, no differences based on diversity characteristics are evident here.

Table 7 shows the five most common forms of reported discrimination across the three status groups. In all three groups, participants most frequently report having experienced stereotypical or derogatory statements about groups they identify with. By contrast, direct, personal verbal disparagement, such as insults or jokes, is reported less frequently.

Legend: Reported discrimination across the three status groups. Percentages are rounded to the first decimal place. Percentages represent “Yes” responses as opposed to “No” and “No response.”

For students and academic staff, a lack of consideration for their personal circumstances also plays a role: 14.1% of participating students and 13.8% of participating academic staff reports having experienced this form of discrimination. In administration, fewer participants (7.8%) report such experiences. At 14.2% and 8.5%, respectively, the underestimation of or lack of trust in the participant’s abilities is the second most commonly reported form of discrimination among employees in academia and administration. Among students, it ranks fourth at 8.9%. Experiences of exclusion are reported by 8.6% of students (rank 5) and 6.2% of administrative staff (rank 4). No incidents were reported by academic staff. The denial of rights granted to others ranks among the five most frequently reported forms of discrimination in both academia and administration; however, at 6.7% and 5.2%, respectively, it affects only a comparatively small proportion of respondents.

Among students, female students, LGBTQ+ students, student with impairments, those with a cultural or religious background that differs from their university environment, and those with differing values or attitudes report discrimination more frequently.  

Among academic staff, these same groups report discrimination more frequently; in addition, care work and career status also play a role here: women who care for children report discrimination more frequently, both compared to childless female colleagues and compared to male colleagues with children. Academic staff report discrimination more frequently than professors. 

In administration, the sample shows no correlation between diversity characteristics and reported discrimination. 

Across all status groups, people who experience discrimination most commonly report turning to friends, fellow students, or colleagues for support. At the same time, incidents are often left unaddressed or responded to with social withdrawal. Direct confrontation or discussions with supervisors are reported less frequently. Seeking professional or institutional counseling is even less common. Reasons given for not taking action include, in particular, the perception that doing so “wouldn’t accomplish anything,” concerns about negative consequences, and uncertainty about where to seek help.

Self-assessed competencies in coping with discrimination experienced personally are presented in Table 8, while competencies in coping with discrimination against others are shown in Table 9 (scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Consistent with the findings on reactions to discrimination, the results suggest that there is room for improvement in all three status groups. This applies both to coping with discrimination experienced personally and to coping with discrimination against others.

With regard to coping with discrimination against others, it is notable that participants are more likely to agree with the statement that they would take action if they witnessed discrimination than with the statement that they know how to respond appropriately. This may suggest that participants are willing to intervene even when they are uncertain about whether their response would be appropriate. Alternatively, the higher level of agreement with this item may reflect social desirability.

In addition to experiences of discrimination, the open-ended comments addressed the following topics as they relate to the diversity climate: 

1. Diversity of the University Members

   Comments on this topic particularly reflect perceptions of comparatively low representation of certain groups in key areas of the university. The representation of women in leadership positions and among teaching staff was frequently mentioned, both by students and employees.

2. Inclusive Language in Teaching

   Students’ comments also addressed the topic of inclusive language in teaching. In particular, they discussed gender-neutral language as well as perceived expectations regarding students’ social backgrounds. Such experiences can influence students’ sense of belonging

3. Inclusive Infrastructure

   Another topic raised in the comments was “inclusive infrastructure.” This included both concrete barriers, such as broken elevators, and requests for additional facilities, such as gender-neutral restrooms or quiet spaces for neurodivergent individuals. It was also pointed out that mandatory in-person attendance requirements can pose particular challenges for students with impairments or caregiving responsibilities.

1. Communication of Existing Support Services

   The survey results show that the advisory services are generally well known and easy to find. Clearer guidance on individual responsibilities and on available services in the areas of health, prevention, and disability could make it easier to access these services. A more consolidated presentation, complemented by examples, could help users better understand which services are available and in which situations it may be useful to get in touch.

2. Accessibility and Inclusive Infrastructure 
   The results suggest specific opportunities for further development, particularly with regard to physical, digital, and organizational accessibility. In the area of services for people with sensory impairments, there are also isolated indications of a need for reliable and, as far as possible, standardized solutions. Further development in this area could help support the equal participation of employees and students. 

   Regarding reasonable accommodations it is recommended that existing procedures continue to be reviewed in terms of accessibility and individual needs and, where necessary, further developed to make access as straightforward as possible.

   In addition, there are opportunities to provide further support for balancing academic studies, health-related challenges, and caregiving responsibilities. 

   The expansion of accessible restrooms to include accessible and all-gender restrooms has already been implemented. Further information is available here: www.uni-mannheim.de/gleichstellung/uniwc/

3. Raising Awareness in the Community, Allyship

   The results indicate further potential for development in the areas of awareness-raising and allyship. Ongoing efforts to raise awareness can help prevent discrimination and further strengthen an inclusive environment. Likewise, fostering solidarity can help ensure that those affected receive even better support in their everyday lives.

Other universities have also conducted surveys on the topics of diversity and discrimination. We have compiled a few examples, along with links, here.

Tillmann, S., Woelki, M., Unger, M.U. (2021). Diversity Climate at the University of Konstanz: 2021. 

Tillmann, S., Woelki, M. (2023). Survey on the Diversity Climate and Experiences of Discrimination in the Student Survey “Tell Us 2023.” 

Tillmann, S., Woelki, M. (2025). Office for Gender Equality, Family Support, and Diversity: Survey on the diversity climate and experiences of discrimination in the 2024 survey of academic staff and doctoral candidates.   

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (2024).“Your Perspective Counts – Your Voice Matters!” Comprehensive Survey on Diversity and Discrimination [website].  

Marx, D. (2022). Survey on Diversity and Experiences of Discrimination Among Teacher Education Students at the University of Göttingen. Office for Equal Opportunity and Diversity, University of Göttingen. (PDF) 

Zimmermann, L., Haag, M. (2024). Presentation of the Results of the HHN Diversity Survey. (PDF)

Alves, H., Woitzel, J., Fereidooni, K., Sabisch, K., & Karle, I. (2023).Study on Experiences of Discrimination Among Students at Ruhr University Bochum. Bochum: Ruhr University Bochum. (PDF) 

Berghan, W., Preuß, M., & Dubbert, U. (2016). Experiences of Discrimination at the University: Perceptions of and Experiences with Discrimination at Bielefeld University. Bielefeld. (PDF)

Davis, L., Fry, R. (2019). College faculty have become more racially and ethnically diverse, but remain far less so than students. 

Ipsos (2021). LGBT+ PRIDE 2021 GLOBAL SURVEY. (PDF)

Joint Science Conference (GWK), Issue 91: Gender Equality Monitor for Science and Research, 28th Data Update (2022/2023) on Women in Higher Education Institutions and Non-University Research Institutions, Bonn 2024, ISBN 978-3-947282-27-2