The perception of campus environment influences learning and developmental outcomes, and discriminatory environments have a negative effect on student learning. Research supports the pedagogical value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning and creativity/quality of final products. LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex) people have a more negative perception of campus climate than other populations. For example, one-third of LGBTQI students consider leaving due to a negative campus climate, 31% perceive a homophobic climate, and 11% experience harassment. Despite these compelling statistics, only 7% of universities offer support services specifically geared to the needs of LGBTQI students.

Safe Zone Ally Training is a two-part interactive workshop for students, faculty, and the professional community during which participants will build knowledge and skills to create a more inclusive and affirming environment for LGBTQI individuals in engineering. In Level 1 participants will focus on understanding LGBTQI concepts and developing awareness of biases. In level 2, participants will learn to reduce discrimination and heterosexual privilege and explore aspects of engineering culture that act as barriers to LGBTQI equality.

M199·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 1 (Level 1) Monday, June 15, 2015 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM Facilitated by Stephanie Farrell, Rowan University; Benny Chan, The College of New Jersey; Angela Minichiello, Utah State University

T199·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 2 (Level 1)
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM
Facilitated by Stephanie Farrell, Rowan University; Mariano Savelski, Rowan University

T599A· Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 3 (Level 1)
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:15 PM - 3:45 PM
Facilitated by Christopher Carr, American Society for Engineering Education; Mariana Tafur Arciniegas, Purdue University, West Lafayette

T699A·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 4 (Level 2)
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
Facilitated by Michelle Bothwell, Oregon State University; Jennifer Almquist, Oregon State University

T699B·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 5 (Level 1)
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:45 AM - 7:15 PM
Facilitated by Benny Chan, The College of New Jersey; Renata Revelo, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

W199·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 6 (Level 1)
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM
Facilitated by Christopher Carr, American Society for Engineering Education; Trevor Harding, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

W499A·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 7 (Level 2)
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:30 PM - 2:00 PM
Facilitated by Michelle Bothwell, Oregon State University; Jennifer Almquist, Oregon State University

W699·Safe Zone/Positive Space Ally Training 8 (Level 1)
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
Facilitated by Benny Chan, The College of New Jersey; Martina Svyantek, Virginia Technological University.

Moderated by Dr. Adrienne Minerick

This session will include presentations from the papers identified by reviewers and program chairs as the Best Diversity Papers of all ASEE 2015 conferences including annual, section, and zone conferences. ASEE believes that diversity and inclusiveness enrich and are essential to educational experiences and innovations that drive the development of creative solutions in addressing the world's challenges. The true power of diverse engineering disciplines is that we learn from experiences, perspectives, and approaches that are different from our own. Diversity, both intellectually and socially, can only fuel innovation and the development of imaginative and enduring solutions to global problems. The Diversity Committee's broad statement on Diversity is available here. The ASEE Best Diversity Paper rubric (http://diversity.asee.org/DiversityPaperRubric) was utilized by an ASEE Diversity Selection Committee to assess scholarship attributes of the manuscript. Please note: The Best Diversity Paper is a completely separate process from the Best Paper selection process run by the PIC chairs at the Annual Conference. Please join us for the best of the best papers on all aspects of diversity!

Speaker: Dr. Russell Korte, Colorado State University

An expected benefit of diversity in teams is the increased quality of decision-making and problem-solving derived from a variety of perspectives related to a task. However, research on diversity has largely focused on demographics (race or gender) while generally ignoring the effects of cognitive diversity. Cognitive diversity is believed to have a greater bearing on knowledge tasks, like decision-making, and to be more closely linked to team performance.

Cognitive diversity is the range of differences in cognitive styles, beliefs, ideas, viewpoints, opinions, assumptions, preferences, and perspectives found in a group. Cognitive style is one’s preferred way of processing information (e.g., approaching, solving, and resolving situations). Different cognitive styles (e.g., verbal or visual) evaluate and process information in different ways, which determines how they act, reason, make decisions, inquire, communicate, infer, or create new knowledge. Thus, cognitive diversity includes, not only the knowledge content held my members of a group, but also the processes they use to process information. Different styles contribute and emphasize different perspectives and information—even with the same data.

Two objectives typically underpin the professed values of diversity: 1) diversity is believed to lead to better performance in teams and 2) diversity is a means of achieving equity or social justice in a situation. This Special Session focuses on the objective of improving performance. Having the capability to apply a greater variety of views to a decision should lead teams to better-informed decisions and greater capacity for problem solving. This Special Session will help participants explore two important questions: 1) What comprises cognitive diversity? and 2) How does cognitive diversity affect performance of decision-making and problem solving?

Moderated by Dr. Rebecca Bates, Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Join us in celebrating the year of diversity by bringing your voice to the table. We will have multiple topics for small groups to discuss. Come ready to listen, learn and contribute. We will provide an opportunity to plan for next steps that all can take to support diversity and inclusivity in engineering.

Moderated by Dr. Alice Squires, Washington State University

Speakers: Carissa Marie Brownotter, Tufts University; Joel Alejandro Mejia, West Virginia University; Mel Chua, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Dr. Leroy L. Long III, Ohio State University

There are two types of challenges we face in our lives, the type we choose, and the type that choose us. When we have the choice, we may seek to advance our experience, knowledge, or contribution in a significant way by, for example, choosing a new career, pursuing an advanced degree, or creating an innovative product or service. These challenges we pursue are self-designed to take us beyond our current reaches in a positive direction with the goal, after the hard work and time are put in, to improve our lives or the lives of others. However, when we do not have the choice, we are typically faced with a challenge that is emotionally, mentally, or physically beyond what we are prepared for; the overcoming of which we may not believe we can achieve. Yet facing an undesired challenge can also result in a life changing experience. The purpose of this panel is to have an open discussion of a diversity-related challenge that each panel member has faced that became a turning point in his or her life. Panel members will take turns describing their specific situation, what they and others did to address the challenge, what happened as a result of the actions taken, the final outcome, the takeaway from the experience, and how the diversity-related challenge ultimately changed his or her life. The panel member discussions will be followed by an open discussion focusing on lessons learned and positive steps for moving forward.

Moderated by Dr. Odesma Onika Dalrymple, University of San Diego

Speakers: Sheryl Burgstahler, DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center; Brian J. Novoselich, Virgina Tech; Yvette Weatherton, Ph.D., P.E., University of Texas at Arlington

Justifiably, the literature primarily focuses on women, ethnic, and racial minority groups when discussing the experiences of the marginalized in engineering. There are other groups of people within our engineering community, however, that experience some form of social exclusion, and by extension microagressions, because they also deviate in some way, from the perceived norm. Examples include: veterans, socio-economically disadvantaged, persons with disabilities, rural dwellers, non-traditional students, LBGT people, etc. The case for the diversification of the engineering discipline has been made countless times, and while there are a number of initiatives focused on this mission, most are geared towards women, ethnic and racial minority groups. Many individuals from non-traditional marginalized groups continue to perceive the climate as hostile and un-welcoming, which negatively affects their retention or persistence in the field. The goal of this panel is to expand the conversation on diversity in engineering by presenting narratives on the experience of these non-traditional marginalized groups. This dialogue is expected to help faculty and administrators develop a better awareness and understanding of the issues and challenges of nontraditional marginal groups on a day-to-day basis, and be equipped to address them in a positive, proactive manner.

The session will begin with a moderator providing a brief introduction and rationale for exploration of this topic. Following will be presentations by each member of the panel. The panel will consist of: a) experts in the field, who will share insights on the state of the related literature; and b) individuals who identify as members of a non-traditional marginalized group. The latter will share their personal experiences of microagressions endured either as engineering students, or members of the academy. After the individual presentations there will be a discussion, led by the moderator, which will focuses on recommendations for faculty, administrators, and institutions to bring about change. Upon the conclusion of the discussion, the floor will be opened for questions.

HTML Comment Box is loading comments...