Impact of College
on Student Attitudes Toward Gay and
Lesbian Issues
Discussion - Implications for Institutional
Policy
By Diana Kardia
Copyright 1996, Diana Kardia
Reprinted with author's permission.
During the past decade, research and
policy in higher education has reflected
two emerging trends. First, it is now
generally acknowledged that the existence
of sexual diversity on college and university
campuses is a non-negotiable fact. Lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people exist regardless
of intolerance, misinformation, or invisibility.
This awareness is reflected in the number
of institutional reports regarding campus
climates and the increasing media and
other public attention to this minority
group on campus. Second, there is general
agreement that intolerance of sexual
diversity expressed through discrimination,
harassment, and violence is an unacceptable
occurrence and requires institutional
intervention in order to assure an equitable
and supportive environment for all students.
Acceptance of this premise is reflected
in institutional decisions to add 'sexual
orientation' to non-discrimination policies
and mandates, in the reporting of hate
crimes based on sexual orientation,
and through concerns raised by campus
task forces and higher education publications
(e.g., Change Magazine and the Chronicle
of Higher Education) regarding the climate
experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual
students, faculty and staff. However,
few institutions (in higher education
or elsewhere) wholeheartedly embrace
a commitment to increasing individual's
acceptance of sexual diversity, even
given a climate, such as that at the
University of Michigan, where acceptance
of racial/ethnic diversity is championed
as a primary goal of current educational
efforts.
When a commitment to promoting students'
acceptance of sexual diversity is proposed,
it often comes in direct contrast to
a belief that such a commitment may
be antithetical to the desired outcome
of educational processes, that promoting
such acceptance is a matter of indoctrination
and "political correctness." However,
this study suggests otherwise. At the
University of Michigan, most students
express more positive attitudes toward
sexual diversity after four years of
college than they did at entrance. While
liberal political attitudes are predictive
of positive attitudes toward sexual
diversity, students at this campus are
not, on average, becoming more liberal.
Therefore, this increase in acceptance
cannot be generally associated with
a liberal political agenda. Rather,
it seems that the opportunities and
conditions for contact with lesbians,
gay men, and bisexual people presented
by the college environment and the general
processes related to student development
are the main contributors to this attitude
change. The evidence provided by this
study is that student attitudes are
changing toward greater acceptance of
sexual diversity because students are
developing a more thoughtful, empathic,
and realistic orientation regarding
the existence of sexual diversity on
campus and beyond. Furthermore, interview
data provides preliminary evidence that
this type of change may be occurring
even when an individual continues to
express negative attitudes toward sexual
diversity-i.e. value expression does
not necessarily have to change toward
acceptance of sexual diversity for there
to be evidence of increased respect
for an individual's right to be lesbian,
gay, or bisexual.
Together, these results suggest that
an explicit institutional commitment
to creating communities that are inclusive
of sexual diversity is likely to be
consistent with general educational
and student development goals. Furthermore,
while most students' attitudes are likely
to become more accepting of sexual diversity
as the misinformation and assumptions
that are generally conveyed in U.S.
society are confronted and dispelled,
the cultivation of respect for individual
differences in sexual orientation need
not rest on the goal of having all students
fully embrace or accept sexual diversity.
With these results in mind, colleges
and universities who have already expressed
a commitment to multicultural education
can and should open the door to diversity's
closet: recognition of sexual diversity
should be an explicit component of educational
efforts designed to increase students'
capacity to function in and appreciate
a diverse social reality. This conclusion
is further underscored by the finding
that student participation in curricular
or co-curricular programs reflecting
racial/ethnic diversity is not predictive
of students' acceptance of sexual diversity:
there is no "spill-over" effect. Sexual
diversity must be explicitly addressed
for change to occur. Any other strategy
simply reinforces the invisibility of
this issue and the related intolerance
associated with this invisibility.
This study also provides direction
for explicit institutional commitment
to promoting respect for sexual diversity.
Colleges and universities can play a
proactive role in providing the opportunity
and conditions under which students
may come into productive contact with
the lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people on campus. This role may be fulfilled
through many venues. By providing explicit
and consistent recognition and respect
for sexual diversity at the institutional
level (and by supporting this recognition
with institutional policy designed to
protect lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people from the negative consequences
of intolerance), college and university
administrations can create campus climates
in which lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people feel safe enough to be visible.
By incorporating recognition of sexual
diversity into the curriculum and by
providing co-curricular programming
that explicitly addresses sexual diversity,
colleges and universities can provide
a unique forum in which students may
replace false stereotypes and assumptions
with more accurate and realistic information.
Through these experiences, students
may become more open to contact with
lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people.
College and university administrations
can also take into account the finding
that lesbians, gay men, and bisexual
people are less likely to be visible
in some environments (at the University
of Michigan this includes the Business
School, science departments and courses,
the Engineering School, and the Athletic
Department). Once these differences
in opportunity for contact are acknowledge,
institutional norms and co-curricular
programming can be directed toward increasing
the visibility of sexual diversity in
these environments. Finally, this study
suggests that proactive efforts to educate
students about civil and human rights
issues relating to sexual diversity
may decrease students' concerns about
"special privileges" and thus further
promote better conditions for contact
to occur. The consequences of directly
addressing institutional norms regarding
sexual diversity may extend beyond students'
response to sexual diversity. While
attention to racial/ethnic diversity
may not impact students' response to
sexual diversity while the latter issue
remains invisible, a strong institutional
commitment to broadening inclusivity
and recognition of difference may indirectly
benefit efforts that are specific to
racial/ethnic diversity.
The evidence found in this study regarding
the relationship between developmental
processes and students' attitudes toward
sexual diversity also has implications
for institutional policy and practice.
Specifically, conscious efforts to promote
students' capacity for empathy is likely
to promote students' acceptance of sexual
diversity as is the development of students'
ability to form a complex and critical
understanding of the social world. Additionally,
gender differences in the cognitive
states examined in this study, in conjunction
with other research that addresses gender
differences in related areas of student
development (Baxter Magolda, 1993; Davis,
1984; Fletcher, et. al., 1986; Gilligan,
1982), suggest that specific attention
might be given to promoting empathy,
cognitive complexity, and critical consciousness
in male students.
Finally, these results suggest that
educational interventions and institutional
policies may need to be particularly
responsive to the greater level of homophobia
and heterosexism likely to be found
within the fraternity system and within
religious groups on campus. Homophobia
within the fraternity system has been
linked with sexual assaults committed
by fraternity members (Sanday, 1990).
Thus, in addition to concerns regarding
the creation of a safe community that
is inclusive of sexual diversity, attention
to negative attitudes toward sexual
diversity in the fraternity system may
also be necessary to promote the safety
of women on campus. The University-Wide
Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues
at Michigan State University (1992)
included the following strategies as
suggested responses to homophobia within
MSU's fraternity system: monitoring
of fraternities' compliance with anti-discrimination
policies, inclusion of nondiscrimination
policy statements in fraternity rush
and membership documents, the creation
of a task force on Greek lesbian and
gay concerns, and educational programs
through which gay fraternity alumni
may speak out as positive role models
and influences. Concerns about negative
attitudes toward sexual diversity within
campus religious groups relate more
to the presence of discrimination within
these groups which may exclude participation
by lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people.
As noted previously, educational interventions
may be designed to promote respect for
sexual diversity without assuming that
all individuals must profess acceptance
of sexual diversity.
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.
|
