Advising Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer College Students

Craig M. McGill, Jennifer Joslin, Craig M. McGill, Jennifer Joslin

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781642671797
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Istruzione superiore

Co-published with NACADA.

Changes on college and university campuses have echoed changes in U.S. popular culture, politics, and religion since the 1970s through unprecedented visibility of LGBTQA persons and issues. In the face of hostile campus cultures, LGBTQA students rely on knowledgeable academic advisors for support, nurturance, and the resources needed to support their persistence. This edited collection offers theoretical understanding of the literature of the field, practical strategies that can be implemented at different institutions, and best practices that helps students, staff, and faculty members understand more deeply the challenges and rewards of working constructively with LGBTQA students. In addition, allies in the field of academic advising (both straight/cis-identified and queer) reflect on becoming an ally, describe obstacles and challenges they have experienced and offer advice to those seeking to deepen their commitment to ally-hood.

1

INTRODUCTION

Craig M. McGill and Jennifer E. Joslin

One of the first gay undergraduate student organizations to be officially recognized by a student government was the University of Iowa’s Gay Liberation Front in 1970, formed in the aftermath of the 1969 Stonewall Riots. The 6-day riot at the Stonewall Inn, a bar frequented by drag queens and trans street hustlers in New York City’s Greenwich Village, followed a tumultuous decade of increasing protests marked by the Civil Rights Movement and opposition to the Vietnam War (Franke-Ruta, 2013). Unlike Compton’s Cafeteria Riot in San Francisco in 1966, which also involved trans women and drag queens revolting against police harassment and brutality (Silverman & Stryker, 2005), the Stonewall Uprising made news across the United States and inspired the formation of a new kind of activist group for gay rights: the NYC Gay Liberation Front (GLF). The GLF, though short-lived, represented a dramatic break from previous organizations like the Mattachine Society, which advocated for tolerance from mainstream society (Gosse, 2005). Similar to the NYC GLF, the University of Iowa group represented a growing reality: College students who identified as gay were unwilling to remain invisible any longer. They were prepared to identify as gay and proud in exchange for acknowledgment of a gay student presence on their college campuses. In the 50 years since Stonewall, colleges and universities have seen an explosion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual/allies (LGBTQA+) student organizations, and academic advisors have experienced the joys and challenges of working with this unique population.

Changes on college and university campuses have echoed changes in U.S. popular culture, politics, and religion since the 1970s through unprecedented visibility of LGBTQA+ persons and issues. The past 35 years have been characterized by the major issues taken up by activists and scholars, which include the AIDS epidemic, same-sex marriage debates, and, eventually, marriage equality. Highly charged political issues also contribute to ongoing commentary about gender and sexuality in U.S. culture. The debates over LGBTQA+ people in the military, which began in earnest in the early 1990s, have continued with the involvement of U.S. forces in the Middle East. The same-sex marriage and civil union debates have attracted a great deal of media attention in the United States and are considered controversial and galvanizing issues during election years by advocates on both sides. The debate over ordination of gay and lesbian clergy by several mainstream faith traditions has been in the public eye continuously for over 2 decades. This increased visibility has led to enormous strides for LGBTQA+ persons in some areas of U.S. life.

The LGBTQA+ movement has grown globally and expanded to include greater social and individual human rights goals as society acknowledges LGBTQA+ people and becomes more inclusive of people’s sociocultural identities (Hill & Grace, 2009). Worldwide, the Pride Movement has gradually taken many forms, including annual marches and celebrations of LGBTQA+ rights and freedom from oppression (e.g., Pride Month and Pride parades); political and legislative efforts to attain legal rights and protections for LGBTQA+ people equivalent to those of heterosexuals; increased and balanced portrayals of LGBTQA+ persons in news media, arts, and entertainment; and the right to marry same-sex partners (Bronski, 2011).

Although great strides have been made, LGBTQA+ people still face oppression across the globe. The United Nations (UN) secretary-general opined that LGBTQA+ rights protection was “one of the most neglected challenges of our time” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights [ACHPR] et al., 2016). These issues are complicated by international differences around the types of legal jurisdictions regarding homosexuality (Mendos, 2019). While the UN and other international organizations have reported progress in LGBTQA+ rights and protections in some countries in the past few decades, they have also identified persistent areas of concern (ACHPR et al., 2016). There are countries passing progressive laws and making social changes (e.g., Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand), countries passing progressive laws but experiencing little social change (e.g., South Africa, Ecuador), countries making social changes but few legal changes (e.g., Eastern European countries), countries with mixed internal legal and social systems and municipalities or states with varyingly progressive laws (e.g., United States, Australia), and countries making few legal changes and little social progress (e.g., Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia). None of these situations constitute a “gay heaven” where there is an entirely unproblematic and completely respectful society for sexual minorities, but obviously some are better than others (Eichler & Mizzi, 2013, p. 95).

The tension between these enormous strides and increasing civic restrictions creates a perception of both progress and resistance to progress that can be stressful for LGBTQA+ individuals. In addition, institutional responses to LGBTQA+ students can vary widely by region of the United States and institutional affiliation. While some states may have a restrictive legal climate for LGBTQA+ persons, higher educational institutions (and the college towns they reside in) within that state may have nondiscrimination policies that create a positive climate for LGBTQA+ students, staff members, and faculty members. Institutional affiliation also plays a role in the development of campus policies. Despite living in a state that has a more favorable political climate, an LGBTQA+ student at a school with restrictive policies due to a religious affiliation, for example, may measure campus climate using a very different scale than a student at a different institution in that same state. The visibility of LGBTQA+ persons and issues in the public consciousness, as well as the 38-year history of LGBTQA+ organizations and centers on campuses, demonstrates that Americans are speaking out about LGBTQA+ issues as never before.

However, this sense of visibility is often belied when individual LGBTQA+ students work with advisors. Despite the sense that discussions of LGBTQA+ issues abound, advisors are not always cognizant of LGBTQA+ students in their caseloads and classes. Whether due to fear of discrimination or feeling restricted to the discussion of academic issues (to name two of many possible explanations), LGBTQA+ students may not disclose their identity during advising sessions. Therefore, to support this population, in addition to typical college student issues (e.g., the development of racial identity, spiritual faith formation, the importance of mentoring relationships), as well as major and career development questions, advisors must be aware of issues unique to LGBTQA+ students, including identity development, campus climate, and restrictive or discriminatory policies at the institutional level.

To thrive in college, LGBTQA+ students need support, safety, nurturing, and education. Without such supports, students may experience marginalization, isolation, and invisibility, and they may drop out of college. In the face of hostile campus cultures, LGBTQA+ students should be able to rely on their academic advisors for support, nurturing, and information about safe outlets on campus. As LGBTQA+ students work through their identities and navigate heterosexist environments, advisors can “connect students to the campus and help them feel that someone is looking out for them” (Kuh et al., 2005, p. 214). As the NACADA Core Values make clear, advisors must work with the whole student (NACADA, 2017). A holistic approach requires that advisors engage each student while being mindful of their academic, social, cultural, economic, and individual situations. Programmatic responsibilities include creating a welcoming environment, offering professional development on working with LGBTQA+ students, and offering a safe space for all students in advisors’ caseloads. Advisors also face a personal responsibility to respect and meet students where they are. The result of a conscientious and holistic approach to students is the creation of an enduring and rich connection that furthers student development. Taken in this context, advocacy for LGBTQA+ students is not the province of one crusading advisor or administrator but rather the responsibility of all advisors, administrators, and educational professionals who are part of the NACADA community.

Purpose and Audience

There is a dearth of literature on advising LGBTQA+ students. Even since the formation of the previously titled LGBTA Concerns Commission in 1997, only two full-length chapters (Joslin, 2007; Self, 2007) and a handful of short articles in the NACADA Clearinghouse and Academic Advising Today (Forest, 2006; Lindenberg, 2012; McGill, 2013; Menke et al., 2015; Moorhead, 2005; and Smith, 2006) addressing the advising of LGBTQA+ students have been published by NACADA. Most of these works are over 10 years old. Further, to our knowledge, no empirical work has ever been conducted on LGBTQA+ advisors or on advising LGBTQA+ students. Although important work is being done in related fields (e.g., higher education, student affairs/personnel, gender and queer studies), academic advising is lagging. LGBTQA+ studies is a growing academic field. In the ever-changing political landscape, there is an increasing need to identify diverse student populations and learn to work with them effectively. This edited collection offers essays on a wide variety of advising topics that have never been addressed. In this book, we offer a theoretical understanding of the literature of the field, practical strategies that can be implemented at a variety of different institutions, and a best practice that brings students, staff members, and faculty members into a deeper understanding of the challenges and rewards they confront when working constructively and meaningfully with the LGBTQA+ student population on campus. Specifically, we offer the following:

• to establish theoretical foundations for topics including sexual and gender identity development, the concept of intersectionality, and theoretical lenses such as queer theory as they relate to academic advising;

• to apply sexual and gender identity development, the concept of intersectionality, and theoretical lenses such as queer theory to academic advising;

• to examine critical campus issues and advising approaches impacting LGBTQA+ students (e.g., sexual assault, mental illness, and career advising);

• to explore the intersections of LGBTQA+ identities with other important identity factors (e.g., athletes, international students, students of color, and those majoring in certain academic fields);

• and to offer advisors exercises and resources to (re)consider their own identities and privileges within the framework of allyhood formation.

There are primary and secondary audiences who will find value in this book. The primary audiences for this book include:

• primary-role academic advisors: Whether they are aware or not, academic advisors work with LGBTQA+ students all the time;

• faculty academic advisors: Not only do they share the need for knowledge with primary-role advisors in the advising setting, they can also use this information in the classroom;

• graduate students in higher education, student affairs/personnel, and academic advising roles: This text would be useful in courses dealing with multiculturalism, diversity/inclusion, and especially a graduate course on advising LGBTQA+ students;

• researchers of academic advising and LGBTQA+/queer studies: Every chapter of this book will conclude with implications for both practice and research, providing a launching point for a variety of research topics;

• and LGBTQA+ students: Because this book is about working with LGBTQA+ students, there will be some who are interested in its chapters, particularly those who are studying LGBTQA+, queer, and/or women’s and gender studies.

The secondary audiences for this book include:

• other practitioners in higher education settings: since many of the chapters deal with the identity intersections of LGBTQA+ students, this book will be of interest to those working with LGBTQA+ students outside of an advising context;

• and practitioners who work with LGBTQA+ people outside of a higher education setting: Although this book focuses on advising, much of the information will be applicable in other settings.

A note about terminology: In this text, we have encouraged authors to name and claim their use of the ever-shifting landscape of language and terminology as it applies to their chapter and, indeed, to their focus. As you read, you will realize that authors have defined terms such as heteronormativity and cisgender consistently but not with identical words. The definitions reflect age and generational influences, class, race, identity, expression, background, and familiarity (or lack thereof) with queer theory. In several chapters, authors have staked a claim to new terms and language that will be heard for years to come, including Black and indigenous people of color (BIPOC) and trans (for transgender or trans) individuals.

There has been a long history of how to group and describe people who belong to a sexual or gender minority. In our living memory, there has not been consensus around a term that sufficiently describes all members of such a community. We have navigated the tension between consistency for the reader and having authors use their own chosen acronym. Ultimately, we ha...