Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses

Elizabeth Cramer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317823278
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book presents an integrated approach toward changing attitudes about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students, faculty, and staff on contemporary college campuses. From Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses you can learn specific classroom techniques for handling homophobia and heterosexism in the classroom. This book tackles a wide variety of subjects including academic freedom, diversity training, nontraditional families, and religion, each of which plays an integral part in the sense of community found on any college campus. Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses provides you with the basic tools to set up sensible programs that have worked for others in the past and can work for you in the future!

In Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses you'll also find:

• a list of helpful feature films and documentaries
• case studies from the US, Canada, and Australia
• methods to combat homophobia and heterosexism among social work students
• practical ways to set up Safe Zone or Allies programs
• techniques for reducing trans-anxieties
• lectures and role-playing games geared toward changing thoughts and live

Part I
The Campus Environment: Campus-Wide Programs and Policies

Allies in the Struggle: Eradicating Homophobia and Heterosexism on Campus

Tricia Draughn
Becki Elkins
Rakhi Roy

SUMMARY. Providing a community that is committed to standards, diversity, and enhancement of the academic environment is often difficult. Offering an Allies or Safe Zone program is among of the first steps an institution can take to achieve a community that embraces diversity and creates a learning environment that is accepting of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals. While there are many opportunities in institutional group settings to address these issues, they often go either unnoticed or untapped. How can being an ally impact the greater institutional environment? This paper will discuss the campus environment for LGBT students, examine existing Allies and Safe Zone programs, and offer a framework to assist program coordinators and participants in establishing comprehensive programs to change the campus climate and develop institutional environments that are gay affirmative. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Ally/Allies, campus climate, heterosexism, homophobia, safe zone

A student responds to a comment in class by blurting out “that’s so gay.” The class, including the faculty member, laughs and continues the discussion....Students arrive on campus one morning to find the sidewalks chalked with such phrases as “fags, go home” and “death to queers.”...Afirst-year female student who intends to major in engineering is told by her student orientation advisor that the odds of finding a boyfriend will be in her favor....An English professor fails to include sexual orientation in contextual conversations for literary works. . . . The Student Activities Office uses an image of a woman and a man kissing to advertise its healthy dating program.

Countless incidents of heterosexism and homophobia such as these confront college students across the nation every day. Often perceived to be a safe haven for students, the college campus remains uninviting, at best, and treacherous, at worst, terrain for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students (e.g., Berrill, 1996; Franklin, 1997, 1998). In response to this environment, “Allies” and “Safe Zone” programs emerged on campuses nationwide during the decade of the 1990s (Klingler, 2001). These volunteer programs generally provide visible support for campus members of the LGBT community. Though they hold enormous potential for addressing homophobia and heterosexism in group-level interactions, Allies and Safe Zone programs tend to focus on preparing participants to provide individual support to LGBT students, while failing to address homophobic and heterosexist institutional environments.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential role to be played by Allies and Safe Zone programs in the eradication of homophobia and heterosexism on campus. The paper begins with a discussion of the campus environment for LGBT students and an analysis of the existence of Allies and Safe Zone programs. Finally, the article attempts to create a framework to assist the coordinators and participants of such programs in establishing comprehensive programs that work to change the campus climate and develop institutional environments that confront homophobia and heterosexism.

The Campus Environment

To understand the impact of the campus environment on LGBT students, faculty and staff must first understand the background experiences and pressures faced by LGBT students. Many LGBT students arrive on college campuses having survived high school environments steeped in homophobia and heterosexism. A report by the Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth (1993) found that 97 percent of high school students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their peers on a repeated basis; 53 percent reported hearing such remarks from members of the school staff. A study by Garafalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, and DuRant (1999) of 4159 randomly selected 9th-12th graders in Massachusetts schools revealed that, over the course of a month, 25.1 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students reported being threatened with a weapon at school and 25.3 percent reported missing school out of fear.

As a result of these and other experiences, the emotional well-being of LGB students often suffers. As much as 80 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth reported experiencing severe social, emotional and cognitive isolation (Hetrick & Martin, 1987). Suicide represents a critical issue for LGB students, with recent research indicating that 35.3 percent of LGB youth report having attempted suicide as compared to 9.9 percent of their heterosexual peers (Garafalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1999).

Close examination of the social environment reveals that homophobia and heterosexism remain acceptable prejudices within the U.S. culture (American Psychological Association, 1998). Entering institutions of higher education, one might expect to find a more accepting environment, as colleges and universities emphasize non-discrimination statements and a “commitment to diversity.” Yet, it is at educational institutions that 10 percent of all hate crimes occur (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999). In fact, evidence suggests that there has been a significant rise in the number of harassment and violence reports against LGBT individuals on campuses, indicating that “just as in the larger society, bigotry may be gaining ground on many college campuses” (Berrill, 1996, p. 175). While crimes reported as targeting the LGB population rank third highest in the FBI report, other research has indicated that crimes targeting sexual minorities may be the most socially acceptable and widespread among youth and young adults (Franklin, 1997 & 1998).

Though hate crimes are the most extreme manifestation of prejudice, the nature of the harassment varies greatly. LGBT students are subjected to offensive jokes, ugly graffiti, sexual harassment, hate mail/e-mail, verbal insults, and threats of physical violence to vandalism of personal property, having objects thrown, being chased, followed, spat upon, punched, kicked, beaten, and assaulted with weapons (e.g., Berrill, 1996; Herek, 1993). These experiences are not rare. A review of research indicates that between 40 and 76 percent of LGB students report having been verbally harassed, 16 to 26 percent having been threatened with violence, and nearly 5 percent having been the target of anti-gay physical assaults over the duration of their college careers (Berrill, 1996).

Allies and Safe Zone Programs

In light of both the national and campus environments for LGBT individuals, many colleges and universities have developed “Allies” or “Safe Zone” programs. Conversations with students and faculty and staffmembers from different institutions provide anecdotal evidence of the existence of such programs on most types of campuses in most regions of the country. A review of the literature, however, reveals that there has been little documentation of the development or effectiveness of Allies or Safe Zone programs. The documentation that does exist generally focuses on case presentations of individual campus programs (e.g., Burns Hothem & Keene, 1998) or on steps individuals may take to become allies to members of the LGBT community (e.g., Broido, 2000; Washington & Evans, 1991). Although this information holds value for single programs and individuals, it fails to provide a comprehensive assessment of Allies or Safe Zone programs. Without such research, knowledge about the missions, objectives, processes, and outcomes of these programs remains restricted to that shared from individual to individual, either anecdotally or through program presentations.

To address this void in the literature and create a manual for developing such programs, Klingler (2001) collected information from programs at 21 institutions across the U.S. According to his research, the proliferation of Allies and Safe Zone programs occurred during the 1990s. Generally, these programs consisted of a network of faculty, staff, and students who identified as being supportive of LGBT students, who were willing to provide a safe haven for students in need of support, and who, as a result, displayed an “Ally” or “Safe Zone” sticker in their office or living space. Although individual programs differed, Klingler found a number of commonalities in purposes and goals. Program missions included providing confidential and visible support to LGBT individuals, fostering student development, creating an atmosphere of acceptance and support, and reducing the presence of homophobia and heterosexism on campus. While several of the institutions listed specific goals designed to address the campus environment for LGBT individuals (e.g., the elimination of homophobia/heterosexism on campus; support for campus equity and non-discrimination policies), the majority of program goals emphasized individual interaction. That is, goals for individual allies or safe zone participants included providing safe spaces for students to talk, being aware of and providing resource information to students in need, increasing visibility of support for the LGBT campus community, and working to create welcoming environments. All of these goals speak to the potential for individual members to have one-on-one interactions with LGBT students. Of the 21 programs reviewed, according to Klingler’s research, only two programs specified that displaying the Allies or Safe Zone sticker represented an individual’s commitment to confront specific incidents of homophobia or heterosexism on campus.

There are several limitations to Klingler’s (2001) research, namely the number and types of institutions reviewed (predominantly mid- to large public colleges and universities). In addition, to date, his research does not specify whether the programs required participants to attend an educational or training seminar prior to displaying the Allies or Safe Zone sticker. Nonetheless, the results are instructive. Given that the majority of institutional and program goals focused on individual interaction, it could be argued that what training and educational requirements existed as prerequisites to participation emphasized aspects of individual interaction. These aspects often included general education about LGBT issues, such as vocabulary; examples of harassment, discrimination, and denial of rights; exploration of personal biases; awareness of campus and community resources; and how to assist an individual who is facing issues related to sexual identity.

Every day on campuses across the nation, allies, and potential allies, encounter multiple opportunities to effect societal change with regard to the treatment of LGBT individuals. Institutional issues include increased visibility, normalcy, and equity (Evans & Wall, 2000). Confronting homophobic comments, correcting misinformation, infusing the curricula with the histories and cultures of LGBT people, identifying and addressing incidents of harassment and discrimination, and including sexual orientation in diversity education efforts (Broido, 2000) represent a few of the opportunities that exist to effect institutional change. Many, if not most, of these opportunities occur in group settings, such as classrooms, faculty and staffmeetings, student organization meetings and events, as well as collegial and peer gatherings. Often, however, these educational opportunities remain untapped, either as a result of a failure to identify them, or of a lack of knowledge as to how to address them, leaving institutional environments intact. As Broido suggests, “while providing support to students is necessary, it does not change the social structure that sustains homophobia and heterosexism” (p. 361). What appears to be missing from Allies and Safe Zone programs, then, is a comprehensive approach to confronting homophobia and heterosexism in the campus environment, including, in particular, how to respond in group-level interactions.

A Framework for Allies and Safe Zone Programs

Developing Allies and Safe Zone programs that successfully address homophobia and heterosexism in the campus environment involves numerous steps. First, both the institutional climate and the existing Allies or Safe Zone program should be assessed. From that assessment, participant recruitment and education methods as well as options for on-going training and development must be considered. Finally, in addition to preparing members to provide support to LGBT individuals in one-on-one interactions, strategies for confronting incidents of homophobia and heterosexism in group-level situations must be formulated. The following suggestions are drawn from the authors’ experiences working with and coordinating Ally/Safe Zone programs at several public institutions.

Assessment

Prior to addressing the campus environment, an assessment of it is essential (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). Formal assessment measures may include campus-wide or area-specific surveys, focus group interviews, and individual interviews conducted with faculty, staff, and students. While formal campus assessments have the potential to yield information critical to formulating effective strategies for addressing homophobia and heterosexism, the number of campuses conducting such research remains fairly small (Malaney, Williams, & Gellar, 1997).

In place of a formal campus climate assessment, individuals interested in improving the environment can conduct an informal assessment of their campus through reflection on personal experiences, conversations with others, review of campus policies and documents, and examination of campus culture. Questions to consider in determining, through informal means, the campus environment for LGBT students include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. To what extent are issues affecting LGBT individuals visible on campus? How are such issues represented in the campus media?
2. What support systems exist for LGBT members of the campus community? Does the institution have a designated LGBT Resource Center? An Allies or Safe Zone program?
3. Does the institution have a non-discrimination policy and, if so, is sexual orientation covered by it?
4. How, if at all, is intolerance of homophobia and heterosexism communicated to new members of the campus community?
5. Have incidents of homophobia received campus attention over the past few years? If so, what form did such attention take (e.g., news reports, open forums, educational programs). If not, is the lack of attention due to a lack of such incidents on campus or due to limited awareness or desire to deal with such incidents?
6. What aspects of institutional culture serve as potential barriers to an inclusive, safe environment for LGBT individuals? As suggested by Love (1998), questions to consider include what is the institutional culture, what external or peripheral constituencies influence the institution, and what are the culturally appropriate ways to discuss sexual orientation at the institution.

In a similar fashion, the campus Allies or Safe Zone network should also be assessed. Questions to consider include:

1. What is the nature of the organization? Is it an active, visible presence on campus or a presence in name only?
2. What is the stated purpose of the organization? Does the purpose a...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• ABOUT THE EDITOR
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I The Campus Environment: Campus-Wide Programs and Policies
• Part II Attitude Assessment and Change
• Part III Practitioner Training Programs
• Part IV Pedagogy and Classroom Interventions
• Part V Feature Films and Documentaries
• Index