Last Thursday, Campus Pride was proud to join with Campus Progress and the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus to present a special Capitol Hill policy briefing on our new report, The 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People.

The report, authored by Campus Pride’s Q Research Institute for Higher Education (Rankin, Blumenfeld, Weber & Frazer), gathers data on the experiences of over 5,000 respondents, uncovering the persistent harassment and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer (LGBQ) students, faculty, and staff on college campuses across the United States, and pointing to the need for more inclusive campus policies, programs and practices. At the briefing, a panel of academics, national leaders and students will discuss the findings of the report and offer national policy solutions to address these critical findings.

Some photos, news round-up and transcript of the event after the jump...

Photos

Jacob Wilson and Warren Blumenfeld

(l-r) Warren Blumenfeld (Co-Researcher, Co-Author); Jacob Wilson (Student); Yvette Lerma (Student); Rebecca Rubinstein (Student Observer); Shane Windmeyer (Exec. Dir. Campus Pride): Sue Rankin (Co-Researcher, Co-Author); Genevieve Weber (Co-Researcher, Co-Author)

Media highlights

Report: Gays face high rate of harassment on college campuses
"Answer Sheet" - Washington Post
The U.S. military is not the only difficult environment for gay and lesbians. A new research study on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people on college and university campuses across the country reveals high rates of harassment and a lack of inclusiveness in policies and programs. The 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People is the first comprehensive national study documenting this issue on college campuses. It was released by Campus Pride, a national non-profit working to create safer and more inclusive colleges for LGBT people.
Read the rest...

ISU community members speak to Congress about LGBT study
Iowa State Daily
Two members of the ISU community spoke to Congress about issues and hardships that surround students of the LGBT community. They were two of the five main speakers that spoke to an audience of 75 people on behalf of a year-and-a-half long research study. The study included surveys from 5,149 students, faculty and staff from more than 2,000 colleges and universities across the United States.
Read the rest...

PLUS... see our past media highlights...

Transcript

Shane Windmeyer, Campus Pride Executive Director

Thank you.  My name is Shane Windmeyer, the executive director of Campus Pride.  Campus Pride is the leading national nonprofit organization for LGBT and ally students and campus groups. Our mission is to build future leaders and create safer, more LGBT-friendly colleges and universities.

Today’s briefing reflects that mission and shares the necessary research to create the necessary action on campuses across the country.   Four years ago, Campus Pride embarked on this research project by creating the Q Research Institute for Higher Education.  Today we will share the findings of the first-ever research of its kind and the most comprehensive LGBT higher education research to date.   The findings from the report are troubling and in many ways alarming to consider in 2010.

Less than seven percent of all colleges and universities have institutional support for LGBT students; 13 percent have sexual identity included in nondiscrimination policies and only 6 percent have gender identity protections.  Campus Pride’s 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People demonstrates that we indeed have a long way to go.  It would be difficult at best to give institutions of higher education a passing grade on LGBT issues.  The percentages that have LGBT inclusive policies remain low and the support from college administrators is lacking across the country.

Today as we share the findings from this national report, University of Rhode Island students are engaged in a nonviolent, direct action protest to demand University administration take immediate steps to ensure the safety and inclusion of LGBT students, faculty and staff.  Indeed, the URI protest is one example of LGBT students not feeling safe or welcomed on college campuses. For years, college administrators and other officials have been paralyzed by a combination of invisibility and a lack of credible data to address LGBTQQ concerns. The 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People is a wake up call - a loud reminder that we still have work to do. It is a chance for higher education to take responsibility for creating a welcoming, safe learning environment for everyone, regardless of sexual identity, gender identity or gender expression.

With this report, and the recommendations contained herein, we can begin taking action to mobilize and address the needs of LGBTQQ people in higher education. We can foster safe and supportive educational environments for those to whom we have entrusted the future of our communities, nation and world.

Sue Rankin, Lead Researcher, Campus Pride QRIHE

My name is Sue Rankin. I am an Associate Professor of Education at The Pennsylvania State University and lead author of the 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People National Report.  My colleagues and I appreciate your interest and your time to review the key findings of the report.  We are especially grateful to Jacob and Yvette, two current students who can speak about their own personal experiences and provide “voice” to the data.

In 2003, I conducted a similar project much smaller in scale than the current initiative. Given the increase in LGBT research, inclusive policies, curricular initiatives, co-curricular programs,  student services and an increase in the number of institutions in higher education supporting LGBT centers (99 in 2003 and 160 in 2010), I was curious to know if the campus climate for LGBT students, faculty, and staff had changed. This national study seeks to respond to this question.

We recognize that “LGBT” does not represent the fluid spectrum of sexual and gender identities offered by the respondents or used in our community. Many of our participants did not fit the socially-constructed definitions of gender identity, sexual identity, and gender expression. In the narrative, we use the language provided by our participants to honor their voices and their own self-descriptions. We use LGBT throughout our discussion today as a means of simplifying our dialogue.

Our report, The State of Higher Education for LGBT People, is the most comprehensive national research study of its kind to date. It documents experiences of over 5,000 students, faculty, staff, and administrators who identify as LGBT at colleges and universities across the United States.

We explored how LGBT people experience campus climate, we reviewed their perceptions of campus climate, and we presented behavioral (personal) and institutional (campus) responses to LGBT issues and concerns. In order to capture the complexity of campus climate, we paid particular attention to the intersections of racial identity and sexual identity, the intersections of racial identity and gender identity, and how such intersections impacted the experiences and perceptions of those who encounter multiple forms of oppressions. We also considered institutional position to examine any differences in the experiences of students, faculty members, and staff members, and again reviewed these differences as they intersect with sexual identity, gender identity, and racial identity.

Recommended best practices from this national study provide the means for campus advocates, program planners, and policy makers to implement strategic initiatives that address the needs and concerns of LGBT students and employees.

With regard to students, the literature indicates that campus climate plays a large role in students' educational experiences and outcomes. A challenging campus climate negatively influences educational outcomes, persistence, and identity development.

Support: Empirically-supported student development and environmental theories suggest that students from different social groups perceive campus environments differently (Chang, 2003; Evans et al., 1998; LaRocca & Kromrey, 1999;Rankin & Reason, 2005). Several other empirical studies reinforce the importance of the perception ofnon-discriminatory environments for positive learning and developmental outcomes (Aguirre & Messineo, 1997;Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, & Nora, 2001). Perception of climate also appears to influence student learning (Persaud & Salter, 2003; Salter, 2003; Salter & Persaud, 2003).

With regard to faculty & staff, a challenging campus climate leads to decreased productivity, decreased sense of value to the community, and, ultimately, decreased retention.

Support: Settles et al. (2006) suggest that the personal and professional development of employees is significantly impacted by campus climate. Trower and Chait (2002) made an important observation in this regard when discussing the slow rate of change in faculty diversity at American colleges and universities: “despite earning doctorates in ever-increasing numbers, many women and persons of color are eschewing academic careers altogether or exiting the academy prior to the tenure decision because both groups experience social isolation, a chilly environment, bias, and hostility” (p. 36). Thus, Trower & Chait add their voices to other higher education scholars who suggest leaders and scholars must look to campus climate to improve the experiences of underrepresented and marginalized groups in higher education.

So what did we find?

In 2010, LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) students, faculty, and staff experience a climate in higher education that often interferes with their ability to successfully work, live, and learn on campus. Because of this climate, one-third of LGBQ (33%) and transgender (38%) students, faculty, and staff have seriously considered leaving their institution due to the challenging climate.

Genevieve Weber, Campus Pride QRIHE Research Team

My name is Genevieve Weber. I am an Assistant Professor of Counselor Education at Hofstra University, and a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in the State of New York who has worked with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients on various personal issues related to the impact of homophobia on their lives. I identify as heterosexual and as an ally to the LGBT community.

I will present the key findings from the report. As Dr. Rankin mentioned, our study confirmed that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, faculty, and staff experience campus climate more negatively than their heterosexual, and men and women counterparts.

In particular, we examined experiences with harassment, defined as exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that had interfered with one’s ability to work or learn on one’s campus within the past year.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer students, faculty, and staff experienced significantly greater harassment than heterosexual respondents. Specifically, one–quarter (23%) LGBQ respondents reported experiencing harassment. LGBQ respondents (83%) were also seven times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts (12%) to indicate sexual identity as the basis for harassment.

Among LGBQ student, faculty, and staff respondents who experienced harassment, those who identified as “queer” (33%) experienced significantly greater harassment than those who identified as lesbian (23%), gay (21%), or bisexual (19%).

Transgender respondents experienced significantly higher rates of harassment. One third of transgender respondents (39%; 38%; 31%) experienced harassment Transgender respondents were also significantly to indicate that their gender identity was the basis of the harassment. Unlike heterosexism which at times surfaces in subtle ways on campus, transgenderism is often manifested in overt and blatant ways such as physical assault and exclusion. Such mistreatment is evident in the rates of harassment for transgender respondents, which were the highest among all demographic groups analyzed in our study.

Sexual identity and racial identity, and gender identity and racial identity intersected for respondents in our study, which resulted in multiple oppressions and more negative experiences and perceptions of campus climate. For example, LGBQ Respondents of Color were significantly more likely than LGBQ White Respondents to observe harassment, and Transgender Respondents of Color were significantly more likely than Men and Women of Color to experience and observe harassment. This means that identification with two or more oppressed identities (i.e., sexual, gender, and or racial), placed individuals at higher risk for harassment.

Other key findings from our study corroborate the chilly campus climate for LGBT students, faculty, and staff.

LGBT respondents more often seriously considered leaving their institution, avoided LGBT areas of campus, and avoided disclosure of sexual identity and gender identity to avoid intimidation and fear of negative consequences.

More than a third of all transgender respondents (43%) and 13% of LGBQ respondents feared for their physical safety. This finding was more salient for LGBT students and for LGBT Respondents of Color.

LGBT faculty and staff experienced significantly greater discriminatory employment practices (hiring, firing, promotion) than their majority counterparts (heterosexual allies, men & women).

LGBT students were more likely to have seriously considered leaving their institution, with this difference becoming greater during the latter years of study.

The results in our report clearly underscore the prejudices and discrimination towards LGBT individuals in higher education institutions across our country.  Students’ educational success, and faculty and staff members’ personal and professional development depend on a welcoming campus climate. The current chilly campus climate for LGBT students, faculty and staff calls for your attention and action.

I welcome Dr. Warren Blumenfeld who will add voice to the aforementioned quantitative findings by sharing themes that emerged from the qualitative responses.

Good Morning.

Warren Blumenfeld, Campus Pride QRIHE Research Team

My name is Warren Blumenfeld, and I will relate some of the study data that gives personal voices of the respondents.

The majority of respondents discussed the overt acts, as well as the subtle microaggressions  (as one participant termed, the “death by a thousand tiny cuts”) creating an uncomfortable and emotionally and physically unsafe environment.

1.      Feeling of Invisibility and Isolation

Respondents shared their experiences about feeling ignored or excluded. For example, a student respondent shared, “I felt under-appreciated, especially as I became more out about my sexual identity and was excluded from the social parts of group membership.” A staff respondent shared a similar experience, “I find students who come in to talk to me in my role as a staff member are often hesitant because they do not want to be labeled 'gay'. This means when I see them in public spaces I am often ignored or left out of the conversation.” And “I am FTM I do not feel safe enough to be out as trans, so I live stealth on campus, which honestly makes me sad because it prevents me from doing as much activism as I would like to”.

1.      The “Resident Authority”

Respondents felt pressure to represent all others. One respondent stated, “Often in a class if I come out, I am considered to be the 'resident authority' of queer issues, so people will actually ask me to explain things or when discussing queer issues will deliberately look at me.” A faculty respondent's comment reiterated a parallel experience, “As one of the few out members of faculty on this campus, I am often asked to speak on behalf of 'gay people,' which leaves me often getting stared at.”

2.      Concerns for Emotional Safety

Other respondents underscored their experiences with psychological abuse and their fears for physical safety. For example, one student respondent noted, “Professors have pathologized my experiences as a member of the LGBT community by claiming that participating in activism within the LGBT community is indicative of mental illness.”

3.      Concerns for Physical Safety

These respondents expressed an overarching and major theme evident throughout the survey: “Our campus has recently been the place of multiple attacks against the GLBTA community, so my safety is a serious concern for me.” And “Among many incidences of being called derogatory names or experiencing verbal conflict, I was the victim of a hate-crime. I was called a 'tranny freak' and physically assaulted in a public space on campus. My attack was one in a series of assaults on campus and my university was less than responsive.” Another respondent  underscored her experiences in the residence halls, “Our floor in my dorm had 'about me' signs on everyone's door, to get to know each other. Someone wrote 'dyke' on mine.”

One student explained: “[A person] rallied students with the cry 'we can either accept homosexuals or BURN THEM AT THE STAKE! ARE YOU WITH ME?!' A large group of people were yelling and saying 'burn them!' and there I was in the midst of it all with a rainbow flag on my bag, alone and scared. Tried to get him removed from campus -- no one seemed to deem it necessary or possible.”

LGBQ faculty and staff respondents shared their experiences regarding other colleagues and students. For example, one faculty respondent shared, “I had students who wrote derogatory things on my evaluations and made reference to my sexual orientation. The chair pretty much ignored it.” A second faculty respondent noted, “It's difficult to work with students who don't respect you because of the way you identify despite the on-going trainings that they have. They are set in their ways and say things that are inappropriate.” A staff respondent explained, “My department included me as long as I never mentioned my life or my partner. As soon as I did (like everyone else), people shut down, walked away, and I became uncomfortable.”

Respondents often claimed that, overall, their institution is doing little or nothing to improve conditions: “Our campus is currently experiencing an anti-gay atmosphere that the institution is ignoring.”

4.      Inequity in Services and Benefits

While the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes the provision of “equal protection of the law” to all citizens of the United States, some campuses offer no benefits and services to same-sex households. One respondent complained: “I am not kidding when I write that both administration and the 'faculty union' do not support these issues. Only last year did the 'union' attempt something, but they were shut down and gave up at once. I am the only out person on campus, and I have had to leave the 'faculty union' because of so many issues, but certainly because so many are faculty are just bigots who say and do horrible things to LGBTQIA persons.”

In most instances, campuses will not cover specialized medical services for transgender people: “[T]ransgender health care is not included in our plan, and unmarried partners don't get free tuition while married partners do.” Others campuses, while providing equal access to some campus facilities-for example, athletic facilities and libraries-extend no additional benefits to same-sex couples and families.

For students, colleges and universities serve as their homes away from home. Faculty, staff, and administrators have chosen colleges and universities as their workplaces to practice their craft. All have a right to live, learn, and work at institutions that not only are welcoming and work to ensure their emotional and physical safety.

Thank you.

Yvette Lerma, Campus Pride QRIHE Research Team

I considered transferring out of Penn State. Most people that know me would be surprised to hear that.

After the release of the key findings from the 2010 State of Higher Education for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, it seems that my experiences and thoughts are common. It found that it is significantly more common for individuals who are LGBT than our heterosexual peers to have seriously considered leaving their institution.

When I arrived in Happy Valley, I fell in love with Penn State. I became involved in several organizations, made many great friends and excelled in my classes. It would have appeared that my life as an undergraduate student was ideal.

Unfortunately as only a few individuals knew at that time, my feelings about school had changed by Spring 2007. I heard homophobic slurs in too many of my labs and was rejected by many of my classmates once they found out I was in a relationship with someone of the same sex. I began to battle a familiar fight with depression during that semester. This had an effect on my social life as well as academic courses.

Although I had these experiences, I had things that kept me at Penn State, the individuals working at the LGBTA Student Resource Center and the members from Undertones, the LGBT organization on campus for students of color. These two groups were able to guide me in the right direction to overcome these challenges. These were the people that helped me become a proud Chicana lesbian.

My undergraduate experience have improved due to the support I have received from my fellow LGBT students as well as affirming heterosexual peers, but it has not been without incident.

Currently, I am in a committed relationship with another Penn State student. We are both out to our families, in our classes and in the community and are involved in various organizations on campus. I might have faced my share of homophobia and heterosexism on my own but my sexual identity is more apparent while in my relationship. This has resulted in more direct harassment over the past four semesters.

Although many of our days go unmarked by homophobia and heterosexism, there are moments that have been tainted. Many strolls on campus and downtown have included gawking from others. Reactions to our presence have made a few of our dates considerably awkward.

Some of the worst harassment has occurred while in environments where alcohol has been present. One Wednesday night, we went out dancing at a local 18 and over club. Normally we would only attend “rainbow nights” at the local establishments, since our options were limited during the time my partner was under 21. While we were dancing together, a fellow student shoved us intentionally. While we decided to move away from this group of students, we were soon harassed by another group of students. Sadly, we decided to end our night early, seemingly the only option for us to avoid any more issues that evening.

I will not deny the fact that I have enjoyed my time in Happy Valley but these moments will be a part of my college memories too. I have been able to get through some of the tough moments because of the availability of resources at Penn State, but sadly, not all colleges have the same resources available for their LGBT students. It is these negative views of the LGBT community that keep people from coming out and accessing the resources if they are available. If we are to move forward, we need to eradicate these issues, and change the way LGBT students experience their educational careers.

Jacob Wilson, Campus Pride Student Voice

First let me thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today and also for your willingness to listen to the challenges facing LGBT students on college campuses across the United States.

My name is Jacob Wilson, and I am a senior in Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies at Iowa State University.  As a gay man, coming from a small town in rural Missouri with little to no exposure to LGBT issues, I was  so excited to start college. I knew that things would be different once I was able to go to this almost magical place where everyone was able to be themselves and where diversity was celebrated. In the Fall of 2004, I started classes at the University of Central Missouri, and quickly found that college wasn’t quite what I had expected.

From my first couple weeks on campus, I realized that coming out was very difficult. Homophobic remarks were common on campus and in my residence hall. From hearing, “that’s so gay” to classmates calling female professors with short hair dykes, it was clear that college was not going to be so magical.

During my second semester of college, I quickly discovered that coming out was not something you did once, but rather, something you have to do on a daily basis. On top of the challenges of trying to manage a full course load and be involved on campus, I was also dealing with a very challenging life at home. My parents were not supportive when I told them I was gay. In the biggest transition of my life, I did not have support of my family, and in fact, was essentially disowned. I didn’t know where to turn, as I didn’t know of any services on campus that could help me.  I found myself so depressed and overwhelmed with everything, that I couldn’t focus on my classes. That semester, I had to drop out of college.

It was after I left college that my family and home church encouraged me to attend an ex-gay program in Memphis, Tennessee. I decided to go through with the reparative therapy with the hope that I would be able to have a “Normal” life…to be able to get rid of a part of me I was told was a choice. I spent the next 6 months of my life trying to change my sexual orientation through therapy and prayer.  As evident by being here today, the ex-gay treatment program did not work. After 6 months of looking at myself, I realized that not only did I not choose to be gay, but also that there was nothing wrong with me. This one aspect does not define me, just as being right handed or having blond hair define who I am as a person.

Two and a half years later, I enrolled at Iowa State University and began classes that fall. Being at ISU has not been challenge-free, but has given me many opportunities to grow, while advocating  for other students.

Just last semester I ran to be the Vice President of the Student Body, the first openly-LGBT student to run on an executive ticket. The campaign allowed me to see so much of our campus, including the sides that are not in brochures. A couple of weeks before students voted, it was brought to my attention that one of my campaign signs had been vandalized. Someone had written the word FAG above my name and placed it prominently in their residence hall. I had prepared myself for some negativity in the campaign, but this was not something I had expected. Over the course of the last few years I have dealt with many things that have helped me become a stronger person and that have thickened my skin. This incident, though nasty and malicious, was something I knew I would be able to survive and deal with.

But what about students on campus who were still struggling with their sexuality? Students who are just starting to come out to family and friends? How is this going to affect them?  What kind of message does this send to young men and women, both gay and straight, as to what behaviors are acceptable? I was very fortunate to have great friends and an LGBT Student Services coordinator who worked with me, the Dean of Students, and the Department of Residence to take down the signage and provide me the support I needed.

Rather than holding my head down, I continued to run a campaign that focused on my vision for ISU. I wanted to be a voice for ALL students, even the ones that defaced my campaign sign. Our campaign was about starting a dialogue on issues that affected ALL students, no matter how difficult that dialogue might be.  That is why I am proud to be here today, as this subcommittee’s leadership realizes the importance of having this dialogue on LGBT issues in higher education. I know from personal experience that sometimes this conversation is not only difficult, but also can be unpopular.

The campus climate study that is being presented to you today by these trail blazing researchers raises many red flags about what LGBT students are facing on campuses in EVERY state. I shared some of my own struggles from being disowned by my family to being labeled a Fag on my campaign posters. The reasons why these terrible things happen are very complex, and I don’t claim to have the solutions; however, I can tell you that these experiences are not unique to just myself. The harassment, bullying, and cases of physical violence happen every day on college campuses across the country. We aren’t just talking about strangers either; we are talking about sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, members of our spiritual community, and our best friends and colleagues who are the victims of this harassment.

It is my sincere hope that the dialogue that we have started today will continue past the 111^th Congress and transform into meaningful policy that will positively affect the lives of ALL college students. As every member of this subcommittee knows, LGBT issues are not a Democratic or Republican issue, but an issue that touches the lives of ALL Americans. I will continue working on my campus and in my community to end LGBT bullying and discrimination, and I am hopeful that while I’m working in Iowa, I will have allies working with me in Congress.

Thank you again for your time.