Impact of College
on Student Attitudes Toward Gay and
Lesbian Issues
Introduction
By Diana Kardia
Copyright 1996, Diana Kardia
Reprinted with author's permission.
College and university campuses are
an important arena in which societal
ambiguities in attitudes are often reflected
and confronted. Attitudes toward lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people are no
exception. Reflections of social norms
regarding sexual orientation can be
seen at both the institutional and individual
level within higher education. With
respect to institutional policy, the
historical denial and exclusion of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual students, faculty,
and staff exists side by side with recent
efforts to expand the campus community
to be inclusive of sexual diversity.
More than 150 colleges and universities
have recently included sexual orientation
in their non-discrimination clauses,
or have extended staff benefits to include
domestic partners, although these policies
are often not visible to the campus
at large (Calati, 1993; DeVries and
LaSalle, 1993; Michigan State University,
1992). Funding and support for lesbian,
gay, and bisexual student groups on
campus is commonly available although
such funding is not universal and is
often contested (Michigan State University,
1992; University of Michigan, 1991).
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Queer Studies is
emerging as a curricular recognition
of the relevance and importance of diversity
in sexual orientations, however these
programs are still often marginalized
in terms of resources and importance
to the educational mission of the institution
(Michigan State University, 1992). Overall,
these changes tend to be inconsistent
or so subtle that the institutional
experience of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals remains problematic (DeVries
and LaSalle, 1993). Furthermore, while
these changes are significant, it is
more often the case that institutional
recognition of campus-based homophobia
and heterosexism seldom results in structural
change despite campus task force recommendations
to this effect (DeVries and LaSalle,
1993). For example, while a number of
campus self-studies have recommended
the creation of a student center for
lesbian, gay, and bisexual students,
this type of recommendation is seldom
implemented (DeVries and LaSalle, 1993).
At the individual level, students enter
higher education with the variety of
backgrounds and perspectives typical
of the larger society. Intolerance at
the individual level is reflected in
the high incidence of hate crimes on
college campuses: "In 1989 alone, a
total of 1,329 anti-gay episodes were
reported to the NGLTF by lesbian and
gay student groups on just 40 college
campuses...The overwhelming majority
of the incidences (1,304 or 98%) involved
harassment, intimidation, or vandalism."
(Herek and Berrill, 1992, pp. 32-33).
Research on campus attitudes also reflect
a widespread lack of tolerance among
students (D'Augelli and Rose, 1991),
and reviews of several campus self-studies
confirm that this pattern is consistent
across institutions (DeVries and LaSalle,
1993; University of Massachusetts, 1985).
However, as with other social issues,
college offers students a unique opportunity
to confront and explore the meaning
of their reactions to lesbians, gay
men, and bisexual people. While homosexuality
is still a taboo or at best controversial
subject in elementary and secondary
schools, lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people are much more visible in a college
setting where curricular and extra-curricular
activities are more likely to reflect
the existence of sexual diversity (Grayson,
1987; Sherrill, 1994). Furthermore,
the college campus is a special kind
of community: here, the norms of academic
freedom and learning can allow individuals
to suspend individual judgment while
simultaneously exposing them to new
ways of thinking and being. These circumstances
make college campuses an important and
unique location for studying attitudes
toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people. By studying a college population,
it is possible to investigate a subculture
that is generally reflective of U.S.
culture, yet within which exists unusual
circumstances for the expression and
evolution of attitudes. In addition
to these considerations, higher education
is the training ground for many of U.S.
society's future teachers and leaders.
Attention to student attitudes has far-reaching
implications for responsiveness to diversity
in the communities beyond higher education.
In order to fully understand the development
of tolerant attitudes with respect to
lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people,
it is necessary to reframe the meaning
of these attitudes. The shift toward
visibility and acknowledgment of this
previously ignored group of people signified
more than recognition of a class or
category of individuals. Beginning with
Kinsey's pioneering work in the 1940s
and 1950s (1948, 1953), the act of rendering
lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
visible also forced a redefinition of
sexuality and sexual identity. In his
work, Kinsey accomplished two major
tasks. First, he struck down the illusion
of a single type of sexual identity
by documenting the existence of ten
percent of the population that were
clearly not heterosexual. However, by
demonstrating the continuum of experience
and desire present in the population
as a whole, Kinsey's work also proved
that a dichotomous definition of sexual
identity was inappropriate. Given this,
acceptance of lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual people is more than the acceptance
of a foreign or unknown "other;" it
is recognition and acceptance of the
diversity in human existence, specifically,
the acceptance of sexual diversity.
While the term 'sexual diversity' is
not currently in general use, I introduce
it here as a deliberate attempt to articulate
the scope of this issue. While oppressive
attitudes and social policy directly
impact the lives of individuals, consideration
of these attitudes and policies must
extend beyond a definition of this problem
phrased only in terms of acceptance
of a group of individuals. Creating
and sustaining a diverse community does
not arise through permission given by
one group for a separate group to exist.
A diverse community depends upon a fundamental
recognition and owning of diversity,
as articulated here by Paulo Friere
in a public speech he gave at the University
of Michigan's School of Education in
1992:
Diversity is a matter of differences,
not antagonisms. It is giving emphasis
to differences instead of similarities.
This requires mutual respect and rights,
most of all the right to be different.
It is a fantastic right.
Acceptance of sexual diversity extends
beyond an expressed acceptance of an
individual who is lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
In Friere's words, it is composed of
mutual respect and the right to reflect
the diversity in sexual orientations
that must be recognized as a component
of human experience. Therefore, 'sexual
diversity' will be used in this study
to refer to the full scope of human
sexual experience and identity, including
lesbianism, male homosexuality, bisexuality,
and heterosexuality. Acceptance of sexual
diversity is then an individual's willingness
to acknowledge this diversity in human
existence, rather than defining normal
human existence exclusively in terms
of heterosexuality. For the purposes
of this study, acceptance is defined
broadly and may be expressed in terms
of an individual's reaction to personal
relationships with lesbians, gay men,
and bisexual people or through support
for institutional policies and practices
that acknowledge this diversity.
At a time when the creation of diverse
student bodies, faculties, and curricula
has become an explicit agenda in many
higher education institutions (Thompson
and Tyagi, 1993; University of Michigan,
1993), administrators, faculty members,
and policy makers need empirical information
about what makes a diverse community
possible. In particular, as an increasing
amount of attention and concern is devoted
to the issue of homophobia and heterosexism
on college campuses, we are in need
of a coherent and complex understanding
of student acceptance of sexual diversity
and the impact of the college experience
on these attitudes.
We also need research that explores
the relationship between students' attitudes
and their experiences of social identity.
A considerable amount of research has
found significant gender differences
in attitudes toward sexual diversity
with men expressing a greater degree
of homophobia than women (Herek, 1988;
Kite, 1984; Newman, 1989; Seltzer, 1992)
although satisfactory alternatives for
these differences have not been empirically
established (Herek, 1988). A variety
of explanations for gender differences
in these attitudes have been suggested,
ranging from "remnants of [male] homosexuality
in the heterosexual resolution of the
oedipal conflict" (de Kuyper, 1993)
to "[men's] need to affirm their masculinity
by rejecting men who violate the heterosexual
norm" (Herek, 1988). However, these
theories tend to essentialize homophobia
as a characteristic of men and thus
do not provide a comprehensive understanding
of these attitudes within women and
men.
Additionally, most of the research
thus far has only sampled white students
(D'Augelli and Rose, 1990; Ernst, Francis,
Nevils, and Lemeh, 1991). While numerous
theoretical essays address the issue
of homophobia within various communities
of color (e.g., AnzaldÈa, 1987; Lorde,
1990), there is little empirical evidence
suggesting or refuting racial/ethnic
differences in these attitudes. These
concerns represent significant gaps
in our current understanding of attitudes
toward sexual diversity among our increasingly
diverse student populations.
Purpose of the Study
This study focused on student attitudes
toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people and the impact of college on
these attitudes. Through this examination
I sought to provide information and
insight for higher educational institutions
in their efforts to create viable campus
communities that are inclusive of many
kinds of diversity, including sexual
diversity. The focus of this study was
a cohort of students attending the University
of Michigan-a large, public university
with a conflicted history regarding
many diversity issues, including sexual
orientation (Edwards, Myers, and Toy,
1993; Retzloff, 1991). Through a longitudinal
research design that incorporated analyses
of survey and interview data, this study
examined student attitudes toward lesbians,
gay men, and bisexuals at two points
in time: at entrance to the university
and at the end of their fourth year
of college. In this work, I sought not
only to identify predictors of negative
attitudes-homophobia-but also to identify
aspects of the college environment that
foster student attitudes that are conducive
to the creation and maintenance of pluralistic
campus communities.
The purpose of this study was thus
to answer the following key questions:
- In what ways do students' attitudes
toward sexual diversity change during
college?
- What aspects of the college experience
contribute to students' acceptance
of sexual diversity?
- What is the relationship between
students' attitudes toward sexual
diversity and student background characteristics,
particularly gender?
This study tests the implications of
existing theory, while also expanding
current theory, and develops new hypotheses
about sexual diversity and multiculturalism
on college campuses. Results of this
research are also translated into specific
practice implications for college communities.
(See Chapter 6.) An underlying objective
of this work is to promote more holistic,
thorough, and complex approaches to
research and policy relating to sexual
diversity, multiculturalism, prejudice,
and tolerance on campus. This objective
is accomplished by: 1) identifying factors
associated with positive attitudes as
well as negative attitudes, 2) utilizing
a longitudinal research model capable
of understanding both attitudes and
attitudinal change, 3) combining quantitative
analyses of survey data with qualitative
analyses of interview data to build
on the strengths of multiple methods,
4) translating these results into specific
policy and research implications aimed
at improving institutional efforts to
create diverse communities, and 5) examining
my own role as a member of a diverse
community through the implementation
of this research.
Scope of the Study
This study involves a cohort of students
who entered the University of Michigan
in Fall of 1990. Survey data, collected
from over 1000 students in Fall 1990
and Winter 1994, are used to assess
attitude change and college experiences
during the course of the study. Interviews,
conducted in the Spring and Summer of
1994, augment the survey data by providing
contextual information through case
studies of the complexity of attitude
development in six students.
Each survey measures psychological,
sociological, and identity-based concepts
that have been associated with attitudes
toward racial/ethnic diversity and sexual
diversity. Longitudinal analyses of
survey data are used to identify predictors
of changes in attitudes toward sexual
diversity with women and men considered
separately in all analyses. Through
comparisons of these separate analyses,
gender differences in acceptance of
sexual diversity are examined. Racial/ethnic
differences in attitudes toward sexual
diversity are also explored within each
of these sets of analyses. Interviews
are used to provide specific individual
examples of college students' attitudes
toward sexual diversity and to identify
significant factors affecting these
attitudes, thereby augmenting and extending
analyses of survey data.
Institutional Context
The Ann Arbor campus of the University
of Michigan is both typical and atypical
of national norms regarding homosexuality
and bisexuality. Recent efforts to document
the climate for lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual students on this campus have
shown that issues of invisibility, verbal
and physical harassment, underreporting
of harassment incidents, and a lack
of institutional policies are all significant
problems on this campus as they are
on many campuses (DeVries and LaSalle,
1993; University of Michigan, 1991).
On the other hand, The University of
Michigan was the first major university
to incorporate the needs of lesbian
and gay students into the general student
affairs context (Peterson, 1971). For
more than 20 years, the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual
Programs Office (formerly the Human
Sexuality Office) has offered educational
programming and staff training to residence
halls, classes, and administrative units.
As an example of the scope of this program,
the office conducted a total of 81 presentations
involving 4,128 participants in 1990
alone (Edwards, Myers, and Toy, 1993).
While this is a small percentage of
the nearly 50,000 people on campus,
this program may have an indirect effect
on many more individuals on campus.
Attitudes and policies within the institution
as a whole reflect the contradictions
typical of other institutions and the
larger society. Despite other examples
of institutionalized recognition and
two decades of student protests, it
was not until September of 1993 that
the University of Michigan Regents included
sexual orientation as a protected category
in the non-discrimination clause of
the Regental By-laws that govern the
university (Calati, 1993). Additionally,
to this day one of the University's
elected Regents maintains a vocal and
powerful intolerance of sexual diversity
on campus that threatens to undermine
the policies and practices that are
in effect (University of Michigan, 1991).
These conditions are generally reflective
of other colleges and universities currently
confronting this subject (DeVries and
LaSalle, 1993). Thus, it is appropriate
to extend the applicability of this
single institution study to the experiences
of many other campuses facing the challenges
of recognizing and incorporating sexual
diversity in their campus communities.
Authorial Context
In much the same way that an understanding
of the University of Michigan is relevant
to the interpretation and meaning of
this study, I believe that an understanding
of myself as author also informs this
work. I am a lesbian who has been a
member of the University of Michigan
campus community for the past thirteen
years. I entered the University as a
first year undergraduate student in
1982. While I had "come out" as a lesbian
in high school, the University of Michigan
campus provided the context in which
I came to own and accept this aspect
of myself and to share it with others.
During my undergraduate years I was
politically active regarding issues
relating to lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people and I coordinated the university's
educational program designed to increase
awareness of these issues. Years later,
I applied for graduate study at the
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary
Education with the explicit intent of
writing a dissertation about the attitudes
of college students toward lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people. I was
accepted into this program in the fall
of 1990, the same year that The Undergraduate
Experience at Michigan study commenced.
I know personally the pain of homophobia
and the devastating effects of societal
norms and policies regarding sexual
diversity. I am also intimately aware
of the capacities for attitudinal change.
I have traveled with my father from
a state of complete alienation to a
place of mutual respect and understanding.
I have watched my mother transform her
initial conditional support into an
actualized commitment to create inclusive
and intentional communities that welcome
lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people.
My grandparents, who once seemed the
last people on earth with whom I could
share the realities of my life, are
now my staunchest supporters. My college
roommate, who moved out of our room
when I told her I was a lesbian, hugged
me four years later when we met on the
street and apologized for what she herself
identified as her earlier immaturity.
Given this background, this dissertation
has equal parts academic, personal,
and political meaning for me. At times
this combination has seemed untenable
and I have wished for a simpler task,
a less painful process. But each of
these aspects has informed and enriched
the others and I am grateful for the
opportunity to do this work.
The study of attitudes toward sexual
diversity is not a neutral topic for
me. Before this dissertation ever began,
I was clear that I did not consider
homophobia and heterosexism to be acceptable
social norms and I am deeply committed
to changing the current social reality.
What I didn't know, and what I explore
in this study, is how this change takes
place within a community of individuals.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant both for
the timeliness of these issues and for
its theoretical and methodological scope.
As lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people
on campus become increasingly visible,
there is a great need for information
on how to create campus communities
capable of incorporating this diversity.
Currently, there is a "lack of available
resources for dealing with gay and lesbian
issues in a campus setting" with almost
no research conducted specifically on
the development of student attitudes
within the college environment (Evans
and Wells, 1991). Without this information,
these issues are likely to be addressed
in a haphazard and ineffectual manner,
and student communities are likely to
continue to perpetuate the damaging
consequences of homophobia.
The theoretical context of this research
is significant for its integration of
psychological and sociological theory
regarding attitudes toward sexual diversity
within the framework of theory and research
addressing the impact of college on
students. Along with an emphasis on
understanding positive as well as negative
attitudes, this integration allows for
the creation of a multidimensional approach
rather than the simplistic unidimensional
formulations of attitudes that are common
in the literature (Herek, 1984; Myers
and Kardia, 1996; Plasek and Allard,
1984). For example, this study emphasizes
the role of the development process
in young adults. This emphasis is rare
in the study of attitudes toward lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people (Kurdek,
1987; Herek, 1987) yet it is crucial
to an understanding of these attitudes
within the college student population
(Obear, 1991).
This study also has the strength of
a longitudinal research design-a rarity
in research on attitudes toward lesbians,
gay men, and bisexuals (Plasek and Allard,
1984)-and includes face-to-face interviews
with students which contextualize and
test inferences developed from survey
results. These aspects of the research
design allow for the type of careful
and methodical analyses that are needed
in a newly developing field of research.
Finally, results from the study can
be used for improved policies and educational
interventions at the institution under
study and can inform research and policy
related to students at similar types
of institutions across the country.
The next chapter (Chapter 2) summarizes
previous research and theoretical considerations
that provide the foundation for this
study. This summary places past research
on attitudes toward lesbians, gay men,
and bisexual people in the context of
student development and college impact
theories. Chapter 3 details the specific
methods used to explore students' attitudes
toward sexual diversity. This chapter
includes a description of the data used
to conduct this study and the analytical
methods used to address the questions
posed by this research. Chapter 4 contains
the results of quantitative analyses
of survey data. Through statistical
analyses, summaries of patterns represented
within a student population are presented.
Chapter 5 extends the conclusions derived
from survey data through analyses of
interview data. The final chapter, Chapter
6, integrates the previous chapters
to provide a discussion of what has
been learned through this study of student
attitudes toward sexual diversity. Specific
focus is given to the implications of
this study for institutional policy
and practice as well as suggested directions
for future study.
This piece has been excerpted from
"Diversity's Closet: Student Attitudes
Toward Lesbians, Gay Men, And Bisexual
People on a Multicultural Campus" by
Diana Kardia. If you would like more
information on this study you may email
the author at: dbk@umich.edu.
|
