Transcript A Case Study Presentation: Addressing the Needs of the University of Toledo’s LGBT Community Presented by: Josh Drahos Katherine Ott Tyree Pollard Rachel Schipull.

A Case Study Presentation:
Addressing the Needs of the
University of Toledo’s LGBT
Community
Presented by:
Josh Drahos
Katherine Ott
Tyree Pollard
Rachel Schipull
METHODOLOGY:
Faculty and Staff Interviewed:
Michelle Martinez – Dean of Students
Jo Campbell – Director of Residence Life
Anthony Kapp – Director of LGBT Initiative
Sabina Elizondo-Serratos – Director of Latino Initiative
Jeffery Witt – Director of UT Student Recreation Center
School Comparison:
Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
Eastern Michigan University
Colgate University
Cleveland State University
Theoretical Application:
Anthony D’Augelli - Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development
Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Development
Sullivan’s Synthesis
WHAT IS CURRENTLY
BEING DONE:
•Anthony Kapp is the Director of the LGBT
Initiative
•The LGBT Initiative was instituted at start of
2009
•The LGBT Initiative falls under Dean of
Students Office and is located in Multicultural
Affairs Suite
WHAT IS CURRENTLY
BEING DONE:
•The current budget for the Initiative is $3,000
•Current programs include: Film Series,
Speakers, History Month in October, UT Pride
week
•A recent Open House was held to collect
resources
•The Initiative works in conjunction with
Spectrum
The Office of LGBT Initiatives develops, delivers, and
coordinates programs and services to provide outreach,
support, advocacy, and community building for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning (LGBTQ),
and other undergraduate and graduate students who
self-identify as non-heterosexual, and their allies. In
alignment with the university’s core values, the office
collaborates with offices and programs campus-wide to
serve LGBTQ students and assess and respond to
student and community needs.
What We Know to be True
• A sense of connection
is integral to
persistence and
student satisfaction
• 54% of gay male
college students
participate in an
institution’s LGBT
organization
• Three main problems
faced by gay students
in higher education
include: (a) bigotry,
(b)ignorance, and (c)
silence
What Are Other
Institutions Doing?
Website: http://www.lgbtcampus.org/
Members: The Directory consists over 150 schools across the United
States.
Mission: The combined vision and mission of the Consortium is to
achieve higher education environments in which lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender students, faculty, staff, administrators, and alumni have
equity in every respect. Our goals are to support colleagues and
develop curriculum to professionally enhance this work; to seek climate
improvement on campuses; and to advocate for policy change, program
development, and establishment of LGBT Office/Centers.
For inclusion into the Directory, the program must have a
head of the program whose position meets the following
criteria:
• The position must be at least 50% time (20 hours per
week).
• The position must be filled by a professional staff
person OR a graduate assistant.
• The position's job description must include primary
responsibility for providing LGBT services.
• Graduate assistants' job descriptions must be solely
dedicated to LGBT services.
*Undergraduate student-run and volunteer-run offices are not listed in the Directory.
Ideas from other schools:
GLBT Host Program for Prospective Students
Out @ BGSU
Hosts Training and Awareness Programs
“Out Write” Newsletter
“Big Gay Weekend”
PEER INSTITUTION
COMPARISON
A comparison of UT & EMU
University of Toledo
Eastern Michigan
University
2008-09 Enrollment
22,336
22,638
Type of institution
4-year public
4-year public
Percentage of in-state
students
70.9%
89%
Racial demographics
27.5% minority
32% minority
LGBT Center Budget,
2008-09
$3,000
$25,000
The LGBTR at EMU
http://www.emich.edu/lgbtrc/
• Named one of the top
schools in the nation
for support of LGBT
community
• Maintains a blog
• Offers employment to
students
• Signature events
including ….
– Coming Out/Being Out
Support Group
– Lavender Spring
Celebration
THEORIES RELATED
TO LGBT IDENTITY
DEVELOPMENT
Anthony D’Augelli’s Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity
Development
Vivienne Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Development
Patricia Sullivan’s synthesis of Cass and Hardiman &
Jackson’s Racial Identity Development Model
Anthony D’Augelli’s
Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Identity Development
The 6 Identified Interactive Processes
Phase 1: Exiting Heterosexual
Identity
• One’s awareness that spiritually,
emotionally, and physically attraction to
the same sex.
• Recognition that there feelings are
different from the rest of society
Phase 2: Developing a personal
LGB Identity Status
• Creating a sense of personal stability
• Challenge myths internally about LGB
sexual orientation
Phase 3: Developing a LGB
Social Identity
• Create a social network
• Associate with people with similar
orientations
Phase 4: Becoming a LGB
Offspring
• Disclosing identity
– Parents
– Family
– Others with that support
Phase 5: Developing a LGB
Intimacy Status
• Establishing intimate relationship
• According to D’Augelli most challenging to
individuals
– Lack of role models/scripts
– Cultural discrimination
Phase 6: Entering a LGB
Community
• Making commitments to social change and
political action.
• Some individuals don't pursue this
community because it comes with high
personal risk such as
– Mental and Physical threats
– Losing job
– Losing housing
Cass’s Model of Homosexual
Identity Development
Cass’s 6 Stages
• Prior to first stage individuals identify as
heterosexual
• Progression influenced by social factors
and historical setting
Stage 1: Identity Confusion
• First awareness of homosexual feelings,
thoughts or attractions
• Positive reactions – pursue more
information, move to next stage
• Negative reactions – Foreclosure
Stage 2: Identity Comparison
• Accept possibility of homosexual identity
• Seek out other LGBT individuals and other
resources
• Negative reaction – maintain heterosexual
front, explain away homosexual
attractions, attempt to change (internalized
homophobia)
Stage 3: Identity Tolerance
• Acknowledge LGBT identity
• Seek out other LGBT students/staff
• Success of these contacts can influence
the way they feel about their orientation
Stage 4: Identity Acceptance
• Place positive connotation on LGBT
identity
• Social atmosphere dictates to what extent
students can express their LGBT identity
• Some only out to friends, some pass at
heterosexual, others are more public
Stage 5: Identity Pride
• Focus primarily on LGBT issues
• LGBT identity has foremost importance
• Minimize contact with heterosexual
individuals
• Publicly and vocally out
Stage 6: Identity Synthesis
• Move away from hetero/homosexual
dichotomy
• Judge others based on personality and not just
sexual orientation
• Public and private identities become
congruent
• Sexual identity seen as just one part of self
Defining the Sexual Minority
• Patricia Sullivan combines Cass with
Hardiman and Jackson’s “Racial Identity
Development” model
• Provides framework for students from both
dominant and target group to see LGBT
students as a protection minority
• Sullivan provides tips for intervention as
well
Stage 1: Naïveté
• Little or no awareness of sexual
orientation
• Socialized into heternormativity but not yet
afraid of “deviant” behavior
Stage 2: Acceptance of dominant
ideology
• Heterosexuals: take identity for granted;
aggression or violence towards LGBT individuals
possible
• LGBT individuals: Cass Stage 1 & 2; See
straight orientation as right and normal; actively
reject “gay” things and act straight
• Intervention: confront stereotypes; make campus
environment safe; include LGBT issues in
curriculum, staff trainings, programming, nondiscrimination policies, judicial response to
prejudice, and counseling support
Stage 3: Resistance
• Heterosexuals: recognize and challenge
heterosexism and homophobia; adopt
appreciation of LGBT culture
• LGBT individuals: Cass stages 3,4 & 5; need
LGBT community; conflict between LGBT
identity and dominant culture felt strongly
• Intervention: Ally programs; safe zone;
encourage students to use energy and anger to
challenge and change campus climate;
counseling for dominant and target groups;
student groups and LGBT resources
Stage 4: Redefinition
• All students seek self-definition of orientation,
rather than submitting to norms
• Heterosexuals: need to reclaim their orientation
positively, separate from heterosexism
• LGBT individuals: self-segregate; may stay at
this stage if interaction with the dominant group
is negative
• Intervention: Continue education plans,
programming on gender, sexuality in general,
and healthy heterosexuality helpful here for
dominant group
Stage 5: Internalization
• Integration of “newly defined values, beliefs, and
behaviors into all aspects of life.”
• Heterosexuals: Healthy identity accepted;
recognize what can be gained by continuing to
dismantle heterosexism
• LGBT individuals: Cass’s stage 6; able to
integrate w/LGBT and allies; determine (over a
life time) how much their orientation plays into
their total identity
Weaknesses of the theories
• Two separate developmental paths
• Critical difference from other minorities: LGBT
identity is not VISIBLE to self or others
• Identity development is a mixture of selfcategorizations related to both personal and
social identities
How to Make the Center More
Welcoming
• Make An IdentificationFree Space
• Don't Forget About
Students of Color
• Avoid Overly Public
Spaces
• Avoid Physical Spaces
Not Equally Welcoming
To All Students
Recommendations
•Survey of student body—confidential needs assessment
•Survey faculty and staff
•Increase budget (if supported by student body survey)
•Community mixers
•Bridge transition from high school to college
•Be clear about Residence Life accommodations for
transgendered students
Recommendations
•Offer an anonymous support group through
Counseling Services
•Provide internet-based support and groups
(Facebook, Blogs, AIM)
•Make students aware of the open-door policy at the
LGBT Center
•Make website more visible/accessible
•Offer LGBT studies as a diversity class option
Recommendations
• Collaborative
programming
• First-Year
Experience/Orientation
inclusive of LGBT issues
• LGBT Resource
Professionals
• Apply for membership
in the Consortium of
Higher Education
Recommendations
•Have a clear procedure for reporting LGBT
bias, harassment, and hate crimes
•Consider offering LGBT student scholarships
•Consider attending LGBT National
Conferences
QUESTIONS?
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a
model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J.
Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in
context (pp. 312-333). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
D’Emillo, J. (1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the
university. New York: Routledge.
Sanlo, R. Ed. (1998). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender college
students: A handbook for faculty and administrators. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1992, March/April). Building academic communities of
difference: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus. Change, 41-46.
Wall, V. A. & Evans, N. J. Eds. (2000). Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation issues
on campus. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.
Judith Herb College of Education, The University of Toledo
Spring 2009 Collaborative Initiative
between
The Higher Education Program
and
the Division of Student Affairs