Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study
(USC Thesis Other)
Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
i
Assessing LGBT Student Experiences and Perceptions: A Campus Climate Case Study
by
Michael Dean H. Rodriguez
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION
May 2014
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
ii
Abstract
Though the study of campus climate for minority university students has grown over the
last three decades, the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) student
perceptions of campus climate into the literature is limited relative to other non-majority groups
such as women and ethnic minorities. The recent national media attention on the bullying and
harassment of sexual minority students in the United States provides universities with an
opportunity to reprioritize campus climate assessment for LGBT students at their respective
institutions. Because anonymity is especially important when researching this population,
Western Pacific University (WPU) is used a pseudonym to ensure respondent confidentiality
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). This exploratory case study examines the campus climate
experiences and perceptions of LGBT students at WPU. The purpose of the study is to better
understand the campus climate perceptions of LGBT students at Western Pacific University.
Research methods included surveys, interviews and a focus group of university students who
self-identify as LGBT. The analysis included coding of data, triangulation of data, and member
checking in order to identify following three themes: a) the respondents have a surface level
satisfaction for the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU, b) the Greek system has a direct
impact on the campus climate for LGBT students, and c) there are varying classroom
environments at WPU that create an uncomfortable climate for LGBT students. These findings
serve as a launching pad for future research at WPU, which should include the perspectives of
graduate students, staff, and faculty who identify as LGBT.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
I. Chapter 1: Introduction 1
A. Silenced Voices 1
B. Problem Statement 2
C. Purpose of this Study 4
D. Research Questions 5
E. Study Significance 6
F. Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions 7
G. Key Terms 8
II. Chapter 2: A Review of LGBT Campus Climate Literature in Postsecondary Education 9
A. Early Stages of LGBT Campus Climate Research 10
B. The Transformational Tapestry Model 13
C. Campus Climate and the Transformational Tapestry Model on a National Level 15
D. Next Steps for the Literature 18
III. Chapter 3: Methods 20
A. WPU as an Informative Case for Research 21
B. Sample 23
C. Data Collection 24
D. Data Analysis 26
E. Trustworthiness 27
IV. Chapter 4: Overview of Purpose, Findings, and Data Presentation 30
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
iv
A. Interview Participant Profiles 31
B. Focus Group Participant Profiles 35
C. Survey Results 37
a. Survey Part 1: Respondent Background Information 38
b. Survey Part 2: Feelings About Campus Climate 43
c. Survey Part 3: Campus Experiences 48
d. Survey Part 4: Campus Response 52
e. Survey Part 5: Additional Comments 56
D. Finding 1: Surface Level Satisfaction 57
a. Above the Surface 57
b. Beneath the Veneer 59
E. Finding 2: The Greek Community’s Influence 62
a. From the Outside Looking In 63
b. From the Inside Looking Out 68
F. Finding 3: Varying Classroom Environments at WPU 72
G. Closing Discussion 74
V. Chapter 5: Understanding the Context of This Study and Findings 76
A. Comparing the Findings to Previous Research Data 77
B. Implications for WPU and the LGBT Resource Center 79
C. Undergraduate Student Opportunities for Research 80
a. An Overarching Campus Climate Study 80
b. A Campus Climate Study for Minority Groups Within the LGBT
Community 81
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
v
c. A Study that Focuses on the Classroom Environment for LGBT Students 82
D. Opportunities for Future Research Within Other LGBT Communities 83
E. Final Thoughts 84
References 85
Appendices
A. Electronic Questionnaire 92
B. Interview Protocol 101
C. Focus Group Protocol 103
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Silenced Voices
On September 22, 2010 at 8:42 pm, Tyler Clementi posted his final Facebook status
update: “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry” (Friedman, 2010). Clementi committed suicide
within the first month of his freshman year at Rutgers University. Days before his death,
Clementi’s college roommate, freshman Dharun Ravi, allegedly attempted to use a webcam to
secretly record and livestream Clementi and another male student engage in a sexual encounter
(Friedman, 2010; Talbot, 2010). Clementi was 1 of 6 gay youths whose suicide was covered by
the national media over a 5-week span in the fall of 2010 (Windmeyer, 2010). Of the
aforementioned students who committed suicide, 5 were tied to bullying and harassment at their
respective campuses (Comer, 2010). Three of the suicides were university students: Clementi at
Rutgers University in New Jersey, Raymond Chase from Johnson and Wales in Rhode Island
and Corey Jackson from Oakland University in Michigan (Comer, 2010; “Corey Jackson
Mourned,” 2010; “Raymond Chase Commits Suicide,” 2010).
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students have defined their campus
climate as hostile for decades (Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008), even at the most LGBT-
friendly of universities (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazier, 2010) but the recent string of
suicides helped propel the conversation of bullying and harassment to a national media level
(“The View,” 2010; Katz, 2010; Ditzian, 2010; Egan, 2011; Friedman, 2010; Murphy, 2010;
Shephard, 2011; Talbot, 2010). President Barak Obama joined the discussion, posting the
second-most watched video on the White House YouTube channel in 2010 (Shephard, 2011). In
his video, President Obama (2010) admits, “I don’t know what it’s like to be picked on for being
gay, but I do know what it’s like to grow up feeling that sometimes you don’t belong”
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
2
University responses to the suicide epidemic and emerging LGBT student needs have
varied. Rutgers University chose to pilot a gender-neutral housing program in fall 2011, which
gives students the option to live with a student of the opposite gender (Friedman, 2011).
According to the program, no students are asked to disclose their sexual orientation, but first year
students are able to request a roommate that is “supportive of their sexual preference” (Friedman,
2011). Johnson and Wales provided immediate grief counseling for faculty, staff, and students
(Martel, 2010). Oakland University organized a suicide prevention forum and created a
scholarship in the name of Corey Jackson for students who demonstrate leadership and service to
the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Ally (LGBTQA) community at their
campus (Reikowski, 2011). The national media attention on the bullying and harassment of
sexual minority students provided not just these – but all – universities with an opportunity to
reprioritize campus climate assessment at their respective institutions.
Problem Statement
Marginalized student voices rise to the surface through a campus climate evaluation, as
Hall and Sandler (1982) present in their research on women’s experiences in higher education.
The researchers found that some women experienced a “chilly” classroom environment, and that
male faculty treated male and female students differently in the early 1980s. Hall and Sandler
(1982) introduced campus climate research into the literature, and also opened the floodgates for
similar studies relative to minority communities on campus. The campus climate studies that
followed focused heavily on ethnic minority groups and women, with comparatively little
attention placed on LGBT students. Of the limited published LGBT campus climate studies, few
intentionally consider the varying campus climate perspectives of LGBT students of color
(Sanlo, 2005) and LGBT students who are the first in their family to attend college.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
3
Though campus climate assessment grew to incorporate the LGBT student community,
the initial research pertaining to this population was collected and analyzed in different ways at
different universities (Rankin, 2003; Renn, 2010; Tierney & Dilley, 1998). Rankin (2003), in
partnership with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, conducted the first
national campus climate assessment for LGBT-identified faculty, staff, and students. The study
found that the majority of respondents described their campus environment as “hostile” (Rankin,
2003). Renn’s (2010) evaluation of LGBT and queer research in higher education calls for the
incorporation of a queer theoretical approach in future studies, even those that are not focused on
LGBT populations. Renn (2010) stated that predefined categories, such as male/female or
Black/White, limit the way students construct their identity. By allowing students to self-
identify, researchers gain a more accurate picture of their participants (Renn, 2010).
In her report, Rankin (2003) recommends the Transformational Tapestry Model as a tool
to assess the climate for minority communities on campus, as well as a vehicle to identify the
need for new or augmented intervention strategies and services, and some of the subsequent
campus climate research incorporated the Transformational Tapestry Model in their design
(Rankin & Reason, 2008). Rankin & Reason (2008) recommend their updated approach to the
Transformational Tapestry Model, which extended it to incorporate the study of six types of
campus climate influences: (a) access and retention; (b) research and scholarship; (c) intergroup
and intragroup relations; (d) external relations; e) curriculum and pedagogy; and (f) university
policies and services. These influences are evaluated through four dimensions within the model.
The first dimension utilizes focus groups and interviews to understand the current campus
climate for a minority population. The second dimension calls for the creation of a university-
wide mixed-methods survey. This dimension is extremely involved, employing five distinct
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
4
phases to generate a survey that uniquely reflects the needs of the specific university. The
resulting findings direct student affairs staff in creating university-specific strategies. The final
two dimensions of the model enable student affairs staff to implement their strategies and
measure success. The following study should be considered as a component within the first
dimension of Rankin and Reason’s (2008) Transformational Tapestry Model. The first
dimension calls for a sample that includes LGBT undergraduate students, graduate students,
faculty, and staff. However, this thesis will focus primarily on the perceptions and experiences
of undergraduate students at WPU, and serves as a building block to a larger, macro-level
research study that includes an assessment of graduate LGBT students, faculty, and staff at
Western Pacific University.
Rankin et al. (2010) drew from the Transformational Tapestry Model and employed a
queer theoretical approach in their data collection and analysis in their LGBT campus climate
study. Their evaluation of the campus climate for sexual minority faculty, staff, and students
contained the largest sample of this population in one single study. Among their many
recommendations, Rankin et al. (2010) encouraged university administrators to assess the
campus climate for LGBT faculty, staff, and students on a regular basis, and incorporate the use
of both the Transformational Tapestry Model and a queer theoretical approach.
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to use both the Transformational Tapestry Model and a queer
theoretical approach to assess the campus climate perceptions and experiences of LGBT students
at Western Pacific University (WPU), with a particular focus on the experiences of students of
color and those who are the first in the family to attend a university. Anonymity is particularly
important when researching the LGBT population; thus, Western Pacific University (WPU) is
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
5
used a pseudonym to ensure respondent confidentiality (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Because
the LGBT community is a comparatively understudied minority group in higher education, the
campus climate opinions of all LGBT students – independent of ethnic and first-generation
identity – will add to the literature. The literature claims that universities with LGBT-specific
offices and resources are more likely to have a positive campus climate for sexual minority
students (Rankin, 2003; Rankin et al., 2010). WPU, and the LGBT Resource Center specifically,
receive national recognition for their LGBT-specific programs, resources, and services. Given
this, it may be assumed that WPU has a relatively positive campus climate for LGBT students,
but the university has not formally assessed the campus climate for LGBT faculty, staff, and
students in the last five years. However, The Western Pacific University was included in Rankin
et al.’s (2010) national study.
The Division of Student Affairs at WPU charges the LGBT Resource Center to complete
a regular programmatic assessment. Current LGBT programs and services at WPU are assessed
annually by the Center, and in 2010 student perceptions of the campus environment were
incorporated into the evaluation process. This assessment was conducted through an electronic
survey, which was promoted using an internal database and a Facebook group. The
Transformational Tapestry Model and a queer theoretical approach are untapped research tools
that would help the Center not only evaluate its programs and services, but also gauge the current
campus climate for LGBT students.
Research Questions
The primary research question guiding this study is: What are the campus climate
perceptions and experiences of LGBT students at WPU? A secondary question include is:
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
6
Which factors contribute to the campus climate perceptions and experiences of LGBT students at
WPU?
Study
Significance
Assessing the campus climate for underserved communities allows higher education
institutions to better understand factors that impede or support student retention and success—
and develop interventions accordingly (Rankin et al., 2010). Students who are engaged, and
develop campus connections outside the classroom, are more likely to persist and graduate
(Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1993; Rankin et al., 2010). Conversely, those who experience insecurity and
depression as a result of marginalization (Schlossberg, 1989) within the university setting are
less likely to feel connected, and therefore less likely to persist (Astin, 1984; Evans, Forney,
Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Students who encounter unmanageable challenges are at risk of
leaving the university and higher education in general (Evans, et al., 2010). Administrators gain
a sense of the stresses and challenges that students face at their respective universities through
campus climate assessment (Mayo, 2007; Renn, 2010; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008;
Rankin et al., 2010).
Because campus climate greatly impacts student retention and academic success (Astin,
1984; Rankin et al., 2010) this type of exploratory case study will produce data that informs the
larger university, outside of the Division of Student Affairs. For peer institutions, WPU’s
aggressive and continual rise in rankings (Grant, 2007) makes it a university with student affairs
practices that are worth benchmarking. Institutions can learn from a campus climate exploratory
case study at WPU by considering how a university— with national recognition for its rich
LGBT programs and services—assesses and responds to student needs. In this vein, a LGBT
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
7
campus climate exploratory case study at a university like WPU is a progressive step forward for
higher education research and practice.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
As identified in the aforementioned problem statement, this study benefits from the
inclusion of LGBT students of color. However, because only one student in the sample is the
first in her family to attend a university, it is not reasonable to utilize this data assess the
perceptions and experiences of first-generation LGBT students at WPU. Overall, the LGBT
population at WPU is an invisible community, which creates sampling limitations for this
campus climate case study.
This exploratory case study assumes that students were honest. This honesty begins with
trusting that the participants who completed the anonymous questionnaire were indeed students,
and that their responses were factual. This study also assumes that there are additional, varying
LGBT undergraduate student voices that could further sharpen the understanding of the
perceptions and experiences of LGBT students at Western Pacific University. Finally, this study
assumed that LGBT undergraduate students would have varying experiences and perceptions of
the campus climate at WPU, and therefore employed a queer theoretical approach to organically
discover how those experiences and perceptions were similar and different.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
8
Key Terms
This thesis includes terms that relate to the LGBT community as well as campus climate
research. Below is a list of these terms and their correlating definitions for the purposes of this
study.
Term Definition
L Lesbian
G Gay
B Bisexual
T Transgendered
Q
An overarching term used to refer to anyone
who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgendered, often implying a sociopolitical
connotation.
Campus Climate
The overall state in which students live and
learn at the university
Discrimination A prejudice bias
Experiences
Actual events and exchanges that have taken
place
Harassment
Conduct that has interfered unreasonably with
a student’s ability to work or learn on campus
or has created an offensive, hostile,
intimidating working or learning environment
Perceptions Feelings and opinions
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
9
Chapter 2: A Review of LGBT Campus Climate Literature in Postsecondary
Education
The study of campus climate for minority university students has grown over the last
three decades. Hall and Sandler (1984) were the first to research the “chilly” classroom climate
that women experienced in higher education. This study highlighted the unequal treatment of
women and men in the classroom, and laid the foundation for future campus climate studies.
The scope of these studies expanded to include the perceptions of other groups, first non-White
students and later LGBT students (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998; Rankin,
2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Rankin et al., 2010; Sanlo, 2005; Soufleris, 2001). The inclusion
of LGBT student perceptions into the literature was relatively slow. Early campus climate
literature on LGBT students in the 1990s was the result of a combination of official university-
designated ad hoc committees, and faculty, staff, and students who initiated research on their
own (Rankin, 2003).
Rankin (1998) analyzed 30 of the independent 1990s studies and later conducted the first
national campus climate study for LGBT students in 2003. Her study introduced the
Transformational Tapestry Model, a campus climate assessment tool that gauges the campus
needs for LGBT students and helps define unique and specific intervention strategies for the
university (Rankin, 2003). Throughout the 2000s the Transformational Tapestry Model was
used in campus climate research across the United States and was updated by Rankin & Reason
(2008). Rankin, et al. (2010) used the model as a blueprint for the largest national campus
climate study of LGBT faculty, staff, and students.
Rankin et al.’s (2010) study also served as an example of the benefits of incorporating
Renn’s (2010) queer theoretical approach when analyzing and coding data. Renn (2010)
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
10
contends that applying a queer theoretical approach can better capture participant identity, and
minimize socially limiting categories such as gay/straight and male/female (Rankin et al., 2010).
Rankin (2010) and her colleagues considered the interconnected relationship of ethnicity and
sexual orientation. Their findings are consistent with the relatively limited LGBT campus
climate research that preceded their study, which found that non-heterosexual populations often
describe their campus climate as hostile (Eliason, 1996; Rankin, 1998; Rankin, 2003; Rankin et
al., 2010). However, Rankin et al. (2010) add that LGBT students of color are more likely to
experience a negative campus climate than White LGBT students. Rankin et al. (2010)
advanced
the
literature
through
their
study
of
intersecting
identities. Their national study,
representing all 50 states, is a testament to advances in LGBT campus climate research over the
last three decades.
Early Stages of LGBT Campus Climate Research
Hall and Sandler’s (1984) study of women’s experiences in postsecondary education was
the first national report to unveil the unequal treatment of women and men in the university
classroom (Siefried, 2000). Male faculty members greatly contributed to the chilly classroom
climate that women in the study endured (Hall & Sandler, 1984; Seifried, 2000). Though Hall
and Sandler’s (1984) report has been critiqued for its lack of empirical evidence and heavy
reliance on anecdotes (Constantinople, Cornelius, & Gray, 1988; Crawford & McLeod, 1990;
Seifried, 2000), the researchers were the first in a surge of subsequent research to focus on
campus climate assessment for minority communities in higher education. Campus climate
research was of particular interest due to the role that the university environment plays in student
development and success. Students who are actively involved in the classroom and
extracurricular activities are more likely to succeed and graduate (Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1993;
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
11
Rankin et al., 2010). Students who experience self-consciousness, irritability, and depression as
a result of marginalization (Schlossberg, 1989) within the campus environment are less likely to
be involved, and therefore less likely to succeed (Astin, 1984; Evans, et al., 2010). In assessing
campus climate, practitioners would gain a pulse for some of the environmental stresses and
challenges that students face at their university.
In the following three decades, campus climate research expanded to include non-White
and non-heterosexual populations (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998; Rankin,
2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008 Rankin et al., 2010; Sanlo, 2005; Soufleris, 2001). The expansion
in the literature has been more prominent for some minority communities. In a review of
university campus climate research, Sanlo (2005) claimed that the literature focuses more on the
ethnic minority experience than the LGBT experience. However, Sanlo (2005) did not imply
that a student’s ethnicity and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive identities. She also
acknowledges the lack of literature that considers the intersection of sexual and ethnic identities.
The gap in the literature related to ethnic minority LGBT students partially stems from a
combination of the limitations of LGBT student development theories, as well as the
foundational years of LGBT campus climate research. Cass (1979), McCarn and Fassinger
(1996), and D’Augelli (1994) consider LGBT identity development as both linear and fluid
models, depending on the theorist. Early LGBT student development theories did not consider
ethnicity as a prominent intersecting influence in the student’s identity development. Because
few student development theories address this intersection, it is not surprising that early campus
climate research fails to consider non-White LGBT students specifically.
Throughout the early 1990s, several university leaders created task forces or ad hoc
committees to assess the campus climate for LGBT individuals at their institutions, while LGBT
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
12
faculty, staff, and students at other universities began independent investigations within their
respective campuses (Rankin, 2003; Renn, 2010; Tierney & Dilley, 1998). Rankin (1998)
analyzed 30 of the aforementioned institutional reports and concluded that “GLBT people on
campus are subjected to physical and psychological harassment, discrimination, and violence, all
of which obstruct achievement of both educational and professional goals,” though each study
varied in terms of methodology and sample (Rankin, 2003, p. 9). Many universities responded
to the findings of these studies by creating more inclusive student programming, developing an
on-campus LGBT Resource Center, implementing safe space programs, incorporating non-
discrimination policies, and adopting domestic partner benefits (Rankin, 2003).
In collaboration with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, Rankin
(2003) conducted the first national campus climate assessment for LGBT-identified staff,
students, and faculty in the United States. The study included 1,669 respondents from 14
institutions. The participants completed a 35-question survey on their perceptions of the campus
climate for LGBT individuals on campus, which yielded mixed results. Thirty-six percent of the
undergraduate students, and 20 percent of all participants, had experienced harassment within the
year prior to completing the survey. Rankin (2003) adds, “20 percent of all respondents feared
for their physical safety because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 51 percent
concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid intimidation” (p. 4). In addition to
the chilly campus climate findings, the study showed some positive advancement for LGBT
students: 64 percent felt that their work/classroom environment accepted them as LGBT
individuals, and 72 percent agreed that campus resources for sexual minority students were
visible. However, Rankin (2003) concluded that the results may reflect the campus climate for
“the most gay-friendly campuses in the country,” as the majority of universities that participated
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
13
in the study had a LGBT Campus Resource Center. At the time of the study only 1.8 percent of
universities in the United States had a LGBT resource center (Rankin, 2003).
Rankin’s (2003) national campus climate study highlighted that some universities shifted
toward a more positive campus climate for LGBT students. It is unclear whether intervention
strategies from the 1990s, such as developing an on-campus LGBT Resource Center and
implementing safe space programs, fostered this positive shift. It is also unclear whether these
strategies were the university’s only response to creating a campus climate that is safe and
conducive to LGBT student success. Not all universities in Rankin’s (2003) study reported a
positive campus climate, which cemented the need for further research and intentional action
from university leaders. Rankin (2003) recommended the Transformational Tapestry Model as a
research tool to assess campus climate in future studies, and to aid in the development of
university-specific intervention strategies.
The Transformational Tapestry Model
The Transformational Tapestry Model was informed by Smith et al.’s (1997) analysis of
research pertaining to diversity in higher education (Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008;
Rankin et al., 2010). For Smith et al. (1997), campus climate and intergroup relations is one of
four examinable dimensions of campus diversity; the other three are access and success,
education and scholarship, and institutional viability and vitality (Rankin, 2003; Rankin 2010;
Smith et al., 1997). The Transformational Tapestry Model serves as a departure from Smith et
al.’s (1997) four dimensions of campus diversity as it provides a vehicle to not only examine the
campus climate, but also to create strategic intervention strategies that respond to the unique
institutional needs (Rankin, 2003). Rankin (2003) defined the Transformational Tapestry Model
as “the internal assessment of a particular minority culture on a university campus” (p. 41). By
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
14
assessing campus climate, practitioners gain a pulse for some of the environmental stresses and
challenges that students face at their university (Rankin, 2003). Rankin (2003) considers five
types of campus climate influences: (a) access and retention; (b) research and scholarship; (c)
inter- and intragroup relations; (d) curriculum and pedagogy; and (e) university policies and
services. These influences are assessed through four components within the model. The first
two utilize focus groups, interviews, and university-wide mixed-methods survey. The resulting
findings guide student affairs in developing university-specific strategies. The final two
components of the model enable student affairs staff to assess their response and gauge success.
By 2008, more than 70 campuses had used the Transformational Tapestry Model to
assess campus climate (Rankin & Reason, 2008). In a later study, Rankin and Reason (2008)
further develop and outline the Transformational Tapestry Model and conceptualize the tool
through a power and privilege lens. Rankin and Reason (2008) posit that a power and privilege
lens is more inclusive as it acknowledges that everyone possesses multiple social identities; and
therefore, varying degrees of power and privilege over others. Their version of the
Transformational Tapestry Model includes the same four dimensions; however they expanded
their list of campus climate influences within the first dimension to include “external
relationships” (Rankin & Reason, 2008). In their review of the recent campus climate literature,
Rankin and Reason (2008) found that terms such “environment” “climate” and “culture” are
used interchangeably throughout many of the campus climate studies. Though these terms vary
from study to study, Rankin and Reason (2008) believe that a common understanding of concept
of “campus climate” exists throughout the literature. They explicitly define the word “climate”
as “the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and students of an
institution” (Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264; Rankin et al., 2010). This definition was chosen in
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
15
an effort to heighten the validity of their research (Rankin & Reason, 2008). In doing so, the
researchers created a solid understanding of the concept and a foundation upon which future
research could build. Rankin and Reason (2008) also call for further implementation of the
Transformational Tapestry Model, even at universities that have implemented the model in the
past. They believe that follow up studies at these universities can help administrators gauge its
effectiveness.
Campus Climate and the Transformational Tapestry Model on a National Level
Considering campus climate studies on a national level was a step forward in the
literature (Renn, 2010); however, not all institutional and national studies incorporated the
Transformational Tapestry Model. Rankin et al. (2010) evaluated the campus climate for the
largest sample of sexual minority faculty, staff, and students to date. The researchers surveyed
5,149 participants at 150 universities—representing all 50 states—to assess the campus climate
for sexual minority students, staff, and faculty (Rankin et al, 2010). Though they did not directly
apply the Transformational Tapestry Model, Rankin et al. (2010) base their survey instrument on
Rankin’s (2003) questionnaire. The study considered the demographics of the respondents as
well as the position of the institution, which is defined as, “the perceptions of students, faculty
and staff” (Rankin et al., 2010, p. 105). Rankin and her colleagues (2010) used Renn’s (2010)
queer theoretical approach when collecting and analyzing participant demographics. The
researchers use queer theory as a means to more clearly capture student identity. By not placing
their participants in predetermined sexual, gender, racial, and other social constructed identity
categories, Rankin et al. (2010) were able to create identity terms during their data analysis that
were unique to this study’s respondents. The queer theoretical approach was utilized in an effort
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
16
to dilute social hierarchies, which evolve from socially limiting categories such as gay/straight,
male/female, Black/White, and abled/disabled (Rankin et al., 2010).
Renn (2010) recommended applying a queer theoretical methodology to future LGBT
research, which allows scholars to analyze their data in new, non-limiting ways as noted in the
aforementioned study. Renn (2010) stated:
Queer theory, then, becomes a key to opening doors to theoretical advances across higher
education research. The juxtaposition of queer theory with nonqueer higher education
contexts casts new light on existing questions and problems, and indeed makes scholars
question what is or might be a question to investigate. There is much to be learned from
studies that use queer theory and studies that theorize on the nature of gender identity and
sexuality as constructed in—and constructing—higher education organizations and the
experiences of people in them. (p. 137)
Following their analysis, Rankin and her colleagues (2010) organized their findings into
three overarching categories: experiences with campus climate, perceptions of campus climate,
and individual and institutional responses to campus climate. Their national sample, and
inclusion of faculty, staff, and students, allowed the researchers to produce a variety of results at
multiple levels of demographic intersection.
The data showed the prevalence of social privilege within the LGBT community. While
LGBT respondents were more likely to experience harassment than their heterosexual
counterparts based on sexual identity, respondents who did not identify as a man or woman were
more likely to experience harassment than male or female-identified respondents (Rankin et al.,
2010). Further, LGBT respondents of color were more likely to indicate race as the basis for
harassment than LGBT White respondents, but sexual identity was the primary cause of
harassment for both groups (Rankin et al., 2010). The researchers found that “the intersection of
multiple cultural and social identities increase the risk for negative perceptions of campus
climate” (Rankin et al., 2010, p. 13). Rankin (2003) yielded similar results in her national LGBT
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
17
campus climate study (Rankin et al., 2010). Neither study considered the intersection of a
student’s first-generation status, which refers to “college students from families where neither
parent earned had more than a high-school education” (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, &
Terenzini, 2004). First-generation students are a growing population on college campuses
(Pascarella et al., 2004), and, like LGBT students, they are also an invisible community. First-
generation students are less likely to have access to selective institutions and less likely to persist
throughout their undergraduate career compared to their non-first generation counterparts
(Ishitani, 2003; Pascarella et al., 2004). Therefore, a student’s first-generation social identity
plays a role in separating levels of power and privilege among the student body, and should be
considered when evaluating the intersection of multiple identities and its impact on negative
perceptions of campus climate. Finally, LGBT students were more likely to consider leaving
their university than their heterosexual counterparts, though this consideration decreased with
time at the institution (Rankin et al., 2010).
This finding adds substance to Longerbeam, Inkelas, Johnson & Lee’s (2007) conjecture
that time would enable students to have a more accurate understanding of their campus climate.
Not using the Transformational Tapestry Model, Longerbeam et al. (2007) surveyed 71,728
students living in residence halls at 34 universities in 24 states and the District of Columbia.
Their goal was to gauge the how LGB students perceive their broader college experience, as this
aspect of research was missing from the available literature at that time (Longerbeam et al.
2007). Of the 23,910 students who responded, 4 percent self-identified as Lesbian, Gay, or
Bisexual (LGB) and 28.6 percent did not disclose their sexual orientation. Longerbeam et al.’s
study did not find any evidence to support the hostile campus climate, as identified by Eliason
(1996) and Rankin (2003), and Rankin et al. (2010). The sexual minority students in
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
18
Longerbeam et al.’s research (2007) did not experience a more negative campus climate than
heterosexual respondents. However, the research team acknowledge that approximately half of
the self-identified LGB students in their study were in their first year and may not have lived on
campus long enough to accurately assess the climate (Longerbeam et al., 2007). Further, the
researchers recognize that “some students may not have been publicly out and therefore may not
have been subjected to a hostile climate” (Longerbeam et al., 2007, p. 225).
Overall, institutional and national level LGBT campus climate studies utilized different
approaches and yielded mixed results in terms of hostility towards the minority community.
Studies with a larger and more diverse participant pool (Rankin, 2003; Rankin et al., 2010) find
that LGBT students still define their campus climate as hostile, but at lower rates than in
previous studies. Rankin and Reason’s (2008) used a power and privilege lens when considering
the intersections of LGBT students’ multiple identities. Finally, the most recent research
suggested (Renn, 2010) and used (Rankin et al, 2010) a queer theoretical approach in collecting
and analyzing data, which enables unique coding and classification opportunities for researchers.
Next Steps for the Literature
From the collective body of LGBT research, it is clear that campus climate studies can
justify the expansion of student services and university initiatives for LGBT students (Rankin,
2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Sanlo et al., 2002; Renn, 2010). Rankin and Reason’s (2008)
Transformational Tapestry Model is a campus climate assessment tool that collects campus
climate data and informs university intervention strategies that are unique to the institution.
Rankin et al. (2010) provide recommendations for universities that lack sexual minority-specific
services, or institutions that require a transformative shift at the senior leadership level.
However, Rankin et al. (2010) do not include specific assessment recommendations or strategies
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
19
for universities that have established programs and supportive senior administrators. Renn
(2010) urges higher education researchers and practitioners to reassess the campus climate for
sexual minority students, faculty, and staff. This area of research serves two purposes: (a) it
presents an opportunity to gauge progress intuitions have made since their first assessment, and
(b) it helps make the universities more accountable to the on-campus sexual minority community
(Mayo, 2007; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Renn, 2010).
Universities can regularly conduct campus climate studies to assess the needs for current
or new student affairs initiatives at their continually evolving intuitions (Rankin, 2003; Rankin et
al., 2010; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Renn, 2010). The Transformational Tapestry Model is an
effective assessment tool that has been utilized at institutional and national levels to both gauge
campus climate and develop intervention strategies (Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008).
The recent inclusion of a queer theoretical approach and a power and privilege lens, fill a gap in
the literature; however, they fail to address the influence of a student’s first-generation social
identity. The limited literature that considers the campus climate for first-generation LGBT
students and LGBT students of color—coupled with Rankin and her colleagues’ findings that
LGBT students of color are more likely to experience a negative campus climate—calls for a
university study that assesses the current services for all LGBT students, and includes the
perspectives of the sub-populations within the LGBT student community.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
20
Chapter 3: Methods
Campus climate research is not a new area of study within higher education; yet it
provides new and comparable benchmark data, and holds universities more accountable to on-
campus minority communities (Mayo, 2007; Renn, 2010; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason,
2008). Rankin’s (2003) Transformational Tapestry Model is a tool that enables student affairs
practitioners to not only examine the campus climate for a specific minority community, but also
to create strategic intervention strategies that respond to the college’s unique institutional needs.
The Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankn, 2003) includes four dimensions, the first of
which employs focus groups and interviews to identify initial campus climate challenges. The
resulting findings inform the second dimension, which utilizes a 5-phase assessment model.
Successful completion of these two dimensions will guide student affairs interventions and
initiatives, which will lead to a transformed campus climate. (Rankin, 2003). Rankin and Reason
(2008) encourage campus climate researchers to use a power and privilege lens when assessing
campus climate so varying degrees of difference within the sample can be analyzed and
considered.
Time constraints limited both the sample size and scope of this study. Thus, this
exploratory case study exclusively gauged the experiences and perceptions of undergraduate
students as a building block to a potential future macro-level research project that would require
the input of graduate students, faculty, and staff. This thesis should be considered as a
component within the first dimension of Rankin’s (2003) Transformational Tapestry Model.
Using a combination of grounded and queer theory (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Renn; 2010)
and the Transformational Tapestry Model as a guide, this exploratory case study sought to
answer: What are the campus climate perceptions and experiences of LGBT students at Western
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
21
Pacific University? What factors contribute to the campus climate experiences and perceptions
of LGBT students at WPU?
WPU as an Informative Case for Research
The Western Pacific University is an institution on the rise. WPU has quickly and
continually catapulted up university ranking system, from No. 41 in 1991, to No. 27 in 2008, and
then No. 23 in 2011 (Grant, 2008). The widely published and referenced U.S. News and World
Report ranking system is based on a variety of factors, including retention and graduation rates;
therefore, it is clear that student success is a priority of any advancing university. As stated
previously, a positive campus climate is an integral component in creating a university that is
conducive to student persistence and graduation (Astin, 1984; Rankin et al., 2010). Thus, a
survey of the campus climate at Western Pacific University is appropriate and informative for
WPU as well as any institution seeking to mirror such nationally acknowledged success.
In addition to the overall advancements WPU has made in the last 20 years, its LGBT
Resource Center has received national attention for university’s commitment to LGBT-identified
students. Recognition from websites such as www.campuspride.com and publications such as
The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students are standard-based, meaning that WPU services
and programs are assessed against a standard list of pre-defined LGBT services and programs.
Some examples of LGBT standard services that are assessed are: (a) the presence of an Ally
Program or Safe Space/Safe Zone; (b) a formal campus procedure for reporting LGBT bias
related incidents and hate crimes; and (c) regularly planned LGBT social activities.
LGBT-specific services and programs were available to students prior to the
establishment of the LGBT Resource Center as it exists today at WPU. Resources and
organizations such as the LGBT-themed housing option (Rainbow Floor), the unique alumni
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
22
group (Lambda Alumni Chapter), and mentoring services (LGBT Peer Mentoring Program) were
decentralized and operated independently of one another. WPU’s Division of Student Affairs
created a full-time staff position for the Director of the LGBT Resource Center in 2006. The
Center weaved the previously independent LGBT campus resources together, focused the
mission for each service, and created new programs all under one office.
WPU’s LGBT Resource Center assesses its rich services and programs on an annual
basis via an electronic survey that has been promoted through its newsletter database in 2010 and
Facebook group in 2011. In 2010 the Center included a question about the students’ perception
of the campus community, but not the climate specifically. The 2011 results demonstrated that
students felt that LGBT events were exclusive to only certain members in the campus
community. WPU participated in Rankin and her colleagues’ (2010) national campus climate
study for LGBT faculty, staff, and students. This study marked the first LGBT-specific campus
climate assessment at WPU since the establishment of a fulltime director. As stated previously
in this thesis, researchers urge postsecondary institutions to conduct campus climate studies to
both gauge progress and identify needs for intervention (Mayo, 2007; Renn, 2010; Rankin, 2003;
Rankin & Reason, 2008; Rankin et al., 2010). The LGBT Resource Center assesses
programming and services/resources, and is beginning to consider the perception of the campus
community; however, there is room to survey students’ perception of the campus climate as a
whole. Due its reputation as a university on the rise, its nationally recognized LGBT Resource
Center, the lack of an internally led LGBT campus climate assessment, and the limited
“gatekeeping obstacles” in gaining access to students, WPU is an informative case for research
(Angrosino, 2008, p. 31).
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
23
Sample
LGBT students at postsecondary institutions are considered an invisible population
(Rankin, 2003; Rankin et al., 2010; Renn, 2010), and therefore one that is nearly impossible to
identify through traditional university demographic databases. Given this understanding of
LGBT students, snowball sampling was the most efficient way to generate interview and focus
group candidates (Dattalo, 2008 as cited in Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). The Director of the
LGBT Resource Center was in daily contact with LGBT students at WPU. He efficiently
provided a list of ten demographically diverse—in terms of grade level, self-defined gender,
sexuality, ethnicity, and first-generation status—LGBT students to contact, 5 for individual
interviews and 5 for a focus group. A diverse sample, defined by the above characteristics was
necessary because Rankin and Reason (2008) recommend the use of a power and privilege lens
to identify and assess the varying degrees of difference within the minority sample.
Convenience sampling was used to select exactly which 5 students participated in an interview
over the focus group. Ultimately, student availability, willingness to meet, and follow-through
determined which students were interviewed and participated in focus group.
In regards to the electronic survey, WPU is in the advantageous position of having a
LGBT Resource Center that maintains both a newsletter database and Facebook group. These
two data sources consist of alumni, faculty, staff, and students whose sexual identities include
lesbian, gay, straight, and bisexual. In 2011, 56 students from the Facebook group responded to
the Center’s electronic program assessment survey, compared to 0 faculty and 7 staff members.
In 2010, 275 students, 3 faculty, and 10 staff members from the newsletter database responded.
The higher response rate from students versus faculty and staff in 2010 and 2011, coupled with
the decline in total student response from 2010 to 2011, reveals that students have the highest
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
24
response rate, and using the newsletter database as a convenient sample (Flick, 2007) yields
more responses than that Facebook group. Thus, undergraduate students were the sample for this
study, and the LGBT Resource Center’s newsletter database and Facebook group served as
resources for recruiting participants through convenience sampling. Both the database and
Facebook group were used in order to cast a wider net and increase the total sample responses.
Rankin (2003) found that 36 percent of undergraduate—and 26 percent of graduate—
respondents were completely closeted with their sexuality, and Rankin et al. (2010), reported that
46 percent of undergraduate students were not out to their “nuclear family.” These results
cement the notion that anonymity is especially important when researching this population; and
therefore, pseudonyms are used to ensure respondent confidentiality (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2011). Each student response to this exploratory case study’s electronic survey was included in
the data collection and analysis process, using the same queer theoretical approach to sampling
and analysis employed by Rankin et al (2010).
Data Collection
In accordance with the first dimension of the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin
& Reason, 2008), this study used interviews and a focus group to collect respondents’
perceptions of the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU. Because of the timing of this
exploratory case study, it was recommended that an electronic survey instrument precede and
inform the interviews and focus group. This deviation added a preliminary layer to the first
dimension of the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008), which further
limited ability for this data to transition into the second dimension of the Model.
The survey very closely resembled the instrument used by Rankin (2003) in her study,
though two changes were made. First, the sexual identity question was now open-ended and
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
25
designed to enable students to self-define their sexuality. Shifting this question from a limited
multiple-choice option was an intentional effort to employ a queer theoretical approach. Second,
the survey included a multiple-choice question to determine if the student is the first in his or her
family to attend a university in the United States. The survey included 34 multiple-choice
questions divided into four parts: (a) campus experiences; (b) feelings about campus climate; (c)
campus resources; and (d) background information. Like Rankin’s (2003) study, the survey
included a fifth open-ended section that allowed participants to add additional comments or
suggestions in regards to campus climate. The survey questions can be found in Appendix A.
The electronic survey was completed using a public online survey application and marketed via
the LGBT Resource Center’s newsletter database and Facebook group. The online survey
application was utilized because of its ease in transferring data into excel spreadsheets, charts,
and graphs. It also limited researcher transcription error, as the respondents entered their
responses directly in the electronic survey. All student responses to the electronic survey are
included in the data collection and analysis process, and presented in the discussion section.
In the fall, of 2012, 39 undergraduate and graduate students completed an electronic
questionnaire. Over the following three months, four undergraduate students were interviewed,
and 3 undergraduate students participated in one focus group. The interviews took place in a
private office and the focus group was conducted in a conference room on campus. None of the
interview or focus group informants were compensated for their time. In order to help the
informants feel comfortable with me and provide the most honest responses throughout the
interviews and focus group, I sought to establish a rapport with them (Angrosino, 2008;
Spradley, 1979) by starting each interview and the focus group with a casual and information
discussion that focused on the participants’ interests and involvement on campus.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
26
I used a semistructured interview protocol in order to ask predetermined open-ended
questions (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Seidman, 1991). I placed a particular focus on
descriptive and grand tour questions (Spradley, 1979), such as: “Describe the campus climate at
Western Pacific University.” These questions enabled the informants to provide data in their
terms and allow me to capture their voices. The focus group protocol was similar though
attention was placed on the social dynamic of the setting. Participants were encouraged to
interact with one another by continually asking the group clarifying follow up questions such as:
“Has anyone had a similar or different experience?” Asking these types of clarifying questions
from all respondents helped limit any one participant from overpowering the discussion, though
one student was reserved and participated less than the other two focus group participants. The
follow-up questions enabled me to gauge uniformity of perspectives and levels of saturation
within the group (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). The interview and focus group protocols are
included in Appendix B and C.
Data Analysis
The multiple-choice electronic survey responses were compiled into graphs and charts in
order to analyze the quantifiable results. The open-ended responses were added to the qualitative
data to give voice to the students’ experiences and perceptions of campus climate. Renn (2010)
presents the academic benefits of using a queer theoretical approach in collecting and analyzing
sexual identity. Students’ self-defined sexual identities were compiled and listed by frequency in
a chart that reflects their prevalence throughout the study.
Brief memos (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Miles and Huberman, 1984) were written
immediately following each interview and focus group. The memos helped summarize and
document any initial reactions to the data. All interviews and the focus group were audio
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
27
recorded, allowing time for reflection on the conversation and nonverbal cues from the
participants (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). I transcribed the audio recordings and, utilizing open
coding (Charmaz, 2004 as cited in Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Strauss and Crobin, 1990 as
cited in Gibbs, 2009), I made brief (1 to 3 word) notes on each line of the varying quotes
provided by interview and focus group participants (Gibbs, 2009; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011;
Merriam, 1997). The notes highlighted topics covered in that line of the interview, and the audio
recordings helped me identify any new, repetitious, or conflicting codes. The codes were literal
during the initial process, but then evolved into more analytical and focused codes as the
interviews and focus group were analyzed in their entirety. Each of the resulting codes were be
categorized into different themes, which rose organically from the data (Gibbs, 2009). The open
coding took place after each interview, with the intention of using the themes to identify
qualitative data that could be confirmed or denied through subsequent participants.
Trustworthiness
Currently, I am a graduate student and full-time staff member at WPU. I have personally
experienced what I would describe as an anti-homosexual comment from a fellow graduate
student in the classroom setting. Aside from that one experience, I have never experienced a
chilly campus climate as a result of my sexual identity. I entered this study with these personal
experiences at WPU, and they could have impacted my interpretation of the data, or the data that
I chose to highlight. In an effort to minimize the influence that my personal campus experience
played in the study, both positive and negative campus climate comments were considered,
categorized, and explored via interviews and the focus group. For example, the questions that I
prepared and asked in the interviews and focus group were not “value free”; meaning, my
personal opinion and reaction to participants could have guided the interview away from
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
28
potential discovery (Harding, 2004, p. 136 as cited in Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). I maintained
trustworthiness by taking an active role in the co-creation of meaning with the informant,
probing consistently throughout the interview, and following up with all markers, not just those
that I found personally relevant or interesting (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011).
Undergraduate students might have viewed me as an authority figure on campus given
my professional role on campus. This could have impacted the level of honesty that the
informants and I achieved together in a short amount of time; therefore, both my attire and
demeanor were the result of conscious decisions designed to support my immersion into their
environment (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw 1995). The rapport that I established with the participants
was critical.
Including faculty, staff, and student perspectives would paint a more holistic and
trustworthy picture of the campus climate as the data is triangulated (Flick, 2007; Mathison,
1988; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) via three different types of informants (Spradley, 1979).
This exclusion restricts the data that would otherwise be generated and analyzed when
considering baseline campus climate challenges according to the Transformational Tapestry
Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Although the trustworthy benefits of incorporating
perspectives from faculty, staff, and student participants are evident, the time limitations of this
study prevented the use and thorough analysis of such a layered sample. In response, I practiced
methods triangulation (Flick, 2007; Mathison, 1988; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) by using
interviews, the focus group, and the survey as three separate means of collecting data and
comparing themes. This approach is also consistent with Rankin and Reason’s (2008)
Transformational Tapestry Model. Further, no claim is made that this exploratory case study is
reflective of a larger population. The qualitative data does not include the perspectives and
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
29
experiences of graduate students, faculty, and staff; but, it does give voice to a subset of a
minority student population. This exploratory case study also lays part of the foundation for the
second dimension of the Transformational Tapestry Model, which is one step closer to an
internally led campus climate study that WPU has yet to implement.
Finally, the audio for each interview and the focus group was recorded to ensure that the
participants are quoted accurately. The online survey tool enabled participants to personally type
their responses, which greatly reduced any possible error that I could have caused in transferring
the data from one source to another. Fieldnotes, interview and focus group data, e-mails, audio
recordings, and coding sheets will be available for audit trails (Guba, 1981).
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
30
Chapter 4: Overview of Purpose, Findings, and Data Presentation
The goal of this study is to use both the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin &
Reason, 2008) and a queer theoretical approach gauge the campus climate perceptions and
experiences of LGBT students at WPU. The study seeks to include the voices and experiences
of students of color, and those who are the first in the family to attend a university; though, all
LGBT undergraduate student respondents are welcome and valuable to reach a better
understanding of the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU. The research questions
leading this thesis are: What are the campus climate perceptions and experiences of LGBT
students at WPU? Which factors contribute to the campus climate perceptions and experiences
of LGBT students at Western Pacific University?
By embarking upon the first dimension within the Transformational Tapestry Model
(Rankin & Reason, 2008) I learned that participants in this study have a mixed perception of the
campus climate for LGBT students at WPU. Respondents feel that the university provides
resources, support, and visible leadership dedicated to serving the LGBT student community, but
there are still times and places on campus when LGBT students do not feel completely
comfortable or safe. The two most commonly cited locations were in certain classroom
environments and when around members of Greek letter organizations. Thus, the following
three findings rise to the surface from the data: a) the respondents have a surface level
satisfaction for the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU, b) the Greek system has a direct
impact on the campus climate for LGBT students, and c) there are varying classroom
environments at WPU that create an uncomfortable climate for LGBT students.
This chapter first presents participant profiles, which provide contextual background and
demographic information on each interview and focus group respondent. The interview
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
31
participants are presented first, followed by the focus group respondents. The profiles are
followed by quantitative and qualitative data from the electronic questionnaire. This data is
presented in different tables and organized by survey topic and question. Finally, each of the
aforementioned three findings are analyzed and discussed, with each theme first referencing
quantitative statistics from the survey, and then adding supporting qualitative data from the
interviews and focus group.
Interview Participant Profiles
Sean
Sean is a second-year undergraduate student from the Midwest. He is White, about 5’7’’
with a boyish look that serves as a reminder that he is on the front-end of his college experience
at WPU. He has a constant, yet genuine, smile that echoes his upbeat personality. Sean came to
my office directly from class. He sits at the conference table with both his black backpack and
brown skateboard on the floor. Sean wears solid black slip-on shoes with white ankle socks. His
khaki shorts and solid red shirt round out his outfit. I do not notice any visible brand names on
his clothes; they are as unassuming and casual as he is personality. This is not to say that he is
shy. As an official Tour Guide and Summer Orientation Advisor for the university, Sean is quite
the social, outgoing, and involved student leader on campus. He sits forward as I ask him
questions, nodding his head as he follows my words. He is present physically and, from our rich
discussion, analytically as well.
It was not until a third of the way into our conversation that he admitted to being awarded
a competitive full-tuition scholarship to WPU. In this example, he did not offer the information,
I deduced it from one of his stories and he clarified. Sean is not the student to boast about his
accomplishments, though he could and it would be difficult to fault him for it: including his
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
32
aforementioned scholarship and leadership positions, he is a triple major (from three different
colleges on campus), community service activist, and is approved to study abroad for a full year
starting next fall, all while maintaining an impressively high GPA. He truly comes across as
confident enough in himself that he does not need my validation, yet, humble enough to share his
triumphs on a need-to-know basis.
Monica
Monica is in her third year as an undergraduate student at WPU. She self-identifies as
“Queer” and “Fem” because of the “politicized notion that is attached to those terms.” Though
she admits that, “When I talk to my mom, or someone who is unaware, I use ‘Lesbian.’” By
employing a queer theoretical approach to this study, this study was able to capture the varied
terms Monica used to define her sexual identity. The array of terms that survey participants used
to define their sexual identity is captured in Table 1.2.
Monica holds an elected and prominent leadership position within the LGBT student
organizations on campus, which places her in the university public eye. She dresses casually,
wearing a plane white short-sleeve t-shirt, blue jeans and brown flip flops. Her dark brown hair
extends to just below her shoulders. Her slightly wavy bangs are unevenly cut and brush against
the top of her medium rectangular-framed glasses. Monica’s hair and apparel give her a
somewhat rough look. Her personality is consistent with her appearance: welcoming, bold, and
genuine.
She is ethnically, as she puts it, “half and half” but identifies as Latina. Her mother is
from El Salvador and immigrated to the US in the 70s. Monica attended a private all female
Catholic high school. During that time she identified as straight and came to WPU with the
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
33
intention of acquiring an education that would prepare her for law school and advance her
socioeconomic status. Then once she arrived everything changed. She tells me:
I opened myself up to, like, all this internal racism that I was dealing with. Because, like,
growing up my mom really wanted me to be White, because… coming as an immigrant
“White” is what is valued and is what is preferred and is what is rewarded. And because
I have that half identity with me, my mom really wanted me to bank on that. And I
always just felt really uneasy about it but I never could articulate why I felt so uneasy
about it. So, what I got here [to WPU] I took a Latino Movement course, I took a bunch
of gender studies courses, like these social studies type things. So my experience at
WPU has been interesting because I’m so, like, detestful of the Frat and Sorority scene.
Because it is so blatantly oppressive to me, so blatantly privileged, heterosexual, White,
upper middle class, yuppie type thing. But, then, on the flip side I’ve had this incredible
experience of having these very conscious classes and professors.
Sara
Sara is an international student from Asia in her third year at WPU. She actively
straddles two lives: one in the United States where she is herself, and one in Asia where she
admits with a giggle, “I don’t conceal my identity, but, more like, tone it down”. She uses her
bedroom in Asia and her bedroom in the US to compare her two different lives. Sara
lightheartedly shares, “If you, like, take a picture of my two rooms, it’s just totally different.
Like my room here is a bunch of L Word posters, and maybe the occasional guy clothes, and guy
deodorant and body wash, the rainbow bracelets, QuASA calendars, and pictures of me and my
girlfriend.” Her joking spirit really comes to life as she describes her bedroom in Asia. She sits
relatively still in her chair, but her voices jumps up and down as she laughs throughout her next
description. Sara continues, “First of all, my room is pink at home… to, like, overcompensate. I
think my mother purposely did that. It’s really organized, just a lot of books and family pictures.
It’s very almost sanitary. It’s almost 50 percent of who I am.” Her laughter slows down as she
finishes her thought. She tells me, “My parents have requested that I don’t appear as gay as I do
normally.” There is a brief beat before we continue our discussion.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
34
As we chat, Sara sits with the middle of her upper back against her chair as she slouches
slightly. She uses limited arm gestures, keeping her hands relaxed in her lap. I notice that she
wears a rainbow bracelet snuggly around her left wrist; against her solid black shirt and khaki
men’s cargo shorts, it is the most colorful item of her wardrobe. I feel as though we are sitting
on a Southern porch on a late summer afternoon having a casual conversation. Her collected
demeanor permeates my office as she walks me through her college experiences.
Cole
Cole and I are seated in a small conference room on campus. Cole’s shoulders are back,
with both arms rested on the table between us. He wears a dark green polo shirt, and his brown
hair is parted slightly to the side. Cole is one of the few openly gay students who are actively
involved in the Greek system at WPU. In fact, the Greek system played a major role in his
choosing to attend WPU. Cole is from a small high school in a smaller town. His family is
ethnically mixed—his father is White and his mother is Mexican American—but considers
himself White. As the only openly gay student at his high school, Cole came out during his first
year, played varsity football, and had—what he describes as—a very positive high school
experience. Cole believes that there were limited social opportunities because his high school
was so small. He wanted a college that provided a strong “social party scene” and a good
football program. He feels that he found both in WPU. Cole sums up, “high school was good,
but compared to WPU I could not be happier.”
We talk about how the Greek system often rejects students based on their sexual or ethnic
identity, specifically how he was initially rejected during his freshmen year. He responds:
There are way worse things. I’ve never really been bothered by people holding a hatred
for people of a certain sexual orientation or even race. I can’t hate people for their
beliefs. I can’t hate people behaving according to how they were raised. I can’t hate
people for acting according to society. It bothers me that it happens, that this is the
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
35
society and that this is the way it is. But, it doesn’t bother me personally that it happened
to me. The fact that I could even rush the fraternity, that I could consider joining the
Greek system here..., and that they didn’t invite me back to the house and then beat me,
or something, like could easily happen if I went to school in the South. I’m very good at
putting things in perspective I guess. I go to WPU; I could have gone to (another
university back East). If I had gone (there), I couldn’t even have thought about rushing.
There is no way that I could have joined (their) Greek system because it is infamously
conservative and preppy and Southern, and would not tolerate openly gay guys. So,
yeah, it bothers me. It bothers me that I got cut based on my sexual orientation; but I’m
glad that they cut me, and overall my life is better because of it.
Focus Group Participant Profiles
Ryan
Ryan is a White male in his third year at WPU. As a third-year undergraduate student
Ryan has been involved with both LGBT-centered student organizations, as well as clubs and
leadership roles outside of the LGBT community. He is from the Northwest and feels that WPU
is more welcoming of LGBT students than his high school. He is tall and lanky, with short
blonde hair and blue eyes. His facial expressions are animated, and reaffirm his feelings when
he speaks. Ryan is seated directly across from my at the conference table. Because he is the
furthest to my left, his head constantly shifts between looking forward and to his left, where the
other two respondents are sitting.
He talks about first getting involved on campus, and navigating between what he
identifies as ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ student organizations. Ryan explains:
When I came to WPU I had pretty recently come out, very much on my own terms. I was
in the ‘Raging Gay Phase’. I was gay, and I was on campus, and I very much wanted to
join the Queer community. I pretty much hit a wall though because I felt pretty excluded
from it because I was coming into it during the middle of the year. And, I didn’t have
any Queer guys on my floor and I didn’t really meet people right away. I went to a few
gay-related events and met some people, but didn’t have, like, good positive experiences
in my interactions with them. So, I got really heavily involved with predominantly
straight, like, student groups. And it was really, really great. My gay identity took a big
part there because I was the only gay student that had joined at that point. So as an
organization, there were a lot of guys that didn’t know what to make of that. And, it was
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
36
a really unique opportunity for me to sort of, like, educate and advocate a little bit. And,
like change the perception of a lot of people. And, that was really powerful for me.
Beth
Beth defines herself as half White, a quarter African American, and a quarter Native
American. She defines her sexual orientation as “gender-indifferent.” She qualifies this term by
saying, “If I like you, I like you.” Beth is originally from Orange County, California and is also
in her third year at WPU. She sits to my far right during the focus group. She wears a black tank
top over a white tank top, and speaks the most informally in the group. Beth often introduces
and connects ideas that are beyond the scope of this study; but, in an effort to implement a queer
theoretical approach, I allow her to organically speak and share opinions and experiences.
Beth straddles different cultures and has a very fluid sexual orientation, which makes it
difficult for her to fit neatly into any one demographic box. Beth speaks to the resulting
struggles and ramifications of having such varied identities:
I experience a lot of rejection because I never had to come out, not just to my parents, but
to my friends… because I never put a word to it until college. I just liked who I liked and
people made assumptions for me. I’ve never been bullied, no one really cared. It was
never a big deal and I never made it one.
As we transition into a conversation about ethnicity, she adds:
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told I’m not Black enough. What does that
mean? And, why would you say that? When I tried to get involved in the Black
community, they’re just giving me this ‘You think you’re better than us.’ I wish I could
be more involved in the Black community on campus. Just because I didn’t struggle the
way you did doesn’t mean that I didn’t have struggles of my own.
Rosa
Rosa is a first-generation college student from the local area, and uses the word
“Lesbian” to define her sexuality out of simplicity. She wears a blue tank top and sports finger
nails that are cut short, but painted white. Rosa has curly black hair, which she wears in a short
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
37
pony tail. Her glasses sit firmly on her nose, and allow me to notice the freckle under her left
eye. She sits in between the two other students during the focus group. Rosa’s eyes are often
fixated at the far end of the table in front of her. She does not speak often, or physically respond
to the conversation as much as Ryan and Beth. This makes her contributions all the more
noticeable and valuable to the discussion. She will often nod in agreement, and at times smiles,
but beyond those gestures, she is as much of an observer as I am.
Rosa attended an underserved urban high school not far from campus. She qualifies
feeling “guilty” as she tried to hide her ethnic identity at WPU:
At the end of last semester [freshman year] and going into sophomore year, I tried to hide
the fact that I was a Spanish speaker and Latina from Compton. This was mainly because
I felt that coming to WPU was a mistake. I felt really stupid because I come from [a
local, underserved high school], and coming here I saw all these people looking so
prestigious, and they would say things so intelligently that I would be scared to say
something and sound stupid and automatically they would think ‘Oh, well she’s Mexican,
or she’s from [a bad part of town].’ So when I would need to say where I’m from, I
would mumble under my breath. My first supervisor at my job here knew how to speak
Spanish, and he knew I knew how to speak Spanish. So, he would try to talk to me in
Spanish in the office while we were working. And I would talk English. He was like,
‘Why don’t you speak in Spanish?’ And I would tell him that I don’t want to. I don’t
feel this is the right place to speak Spanish. A lot of Latino workers [on campus] would
smile at me or try to talk to me in Spanish. And I would be kind of rude because I
wanted to, like, hide that. I feel like a lot of people here appreciate the Latino food, but
they really have a lot of prejudices against people of color, especially Mexicans or
Blacks.
Survey Results
It is important to note that the tables in this section only reflect the 20 respondents who
identified as both an undergraduate and LGBT student. There were 23 additional participants
who responded to the survey: 13 graduate students, six incoming freshmen, and 4 undergraduates
who did not fully complete the survey. Because graduate students are not a part of the identified
sample for this study, their responses were recorded but omitted from the analysis and
presentation of the data. Incoming freshmen responses were recorded but omitted because
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
38
respondents completed this survey in August 2012, before the semester began. Incoming
freshmen would therefore be unable to speak to their past student experiences on campus
because they had not yet created any as a current WPU student. Finally incomplete survey
responses were omitted in an effort to maintain the integrity and holistic analyses of the data.
Thus, all 23 additional responses were recorded, but are not included in the tables that follow.
The following tables include all 20 complete undergraduate survey responses, both
quantitative and qualitative. These results are organized and presented in the same fashion that
the corresponding questions appeared on the survey: a) respondent background information, b)
feelings about campus climate, c) campus experiences, d) campus response, and 3) additional
respondent comments.
Survey Part 1: Respondent Background Information
The first section of the survey captures the respondents’ demographic information. In an
effort to incorporate a queer theoretical approach, certain questions were left open-ended to
empower students to define their gender, sexual identity, and racial/ethnic identity in their own
words. Each table below reflects an individual survey question, and the corresponding
respondent responses. Questions in this section were both open-ended and multiple choice.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
39
Table 1.1 What is your gender?
Table 1.2 What is your sexual identity?
Table 1.3 What is your age?
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Female
-‐
50%
Male
-‐
25%
Female-‐bodied,
genderqueer
-‐
5%
Gender
queer
-‐
5%
Genderqueer/gender
neutral
-‐
5%
Male
Drag
Queen
-‐
5%
Womyn
-‐
5%
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Gay
-‐
40%
Lesbian
-‐
15%
Queer
-‐
15%
Open
-‐
5%
Bisexual
-‐
5%
Bisexual.
I
think.
-‐
5%
Gay
(Lesbian)
-‐
5%
Pansexual
-‐
5%
Pansexual/Queer
-‐
5%
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
20
yrs
-‐
30%
21
yrs
-‐
25%
19
yrs
-‐
20%
18
yrs
-‐
15%
22
yrs
-‐
5%
27
yrs
-‐
5%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
40
Table 1.4 Which type of student are you?
Table 1.5 Do you have a disability that substantially limits a major life activity (such as seeing,
hearing, learning, or walking)?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Yes
-‐
5%
No
-‐
95%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
41
Table 1.7 What is your racial/ethnic identity?
Table 1.8 Are you among the first generation in your family to attend a four-year university?
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Caucasian
-‐
20%
White
-‐
20%
Asian
-‐
10%
Chinese
American
-‐
10%
Asian
American
-‐
Chinese
-‐
5%
Caucasian/White
-‐
5%
Chicano
-‐
5%
Mixed
-‐
5%
Particularly
White
-‐
5%
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Yes
-‐
30%
No
-‐
70%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
42
Table 1.9 What is your citizen status?
Table 1.10 Place yourself on the following continuum with “5” being out to everyone personally
and professionally, “4” being out to family and friends, “3” being out to a few friends/family
members, “2” being out to a few close friends, and “1” being totally closeted.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
US
Citizen
-‐-‐
born
in
the
US
US
Citizen
-‐-‐
naturalized
Permanent
Resident
International
(F-‐1
or
J-‐1
visa)
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
"1"
"2"
"3"
"4"
"5"
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
43
Table 1.11 To whom are you most attracted?
Table 1.12 Where do you live?
Survey Part 2: Feelings About Campus Climate
In the second section of the survey, students were asked to indicate, in their individual
opinion, how likely a list of statements were accurate. After each statement, the respondents
chose from a list of multiple choice answers: a) Very Likely, b) Likely, c) Somewhat Likely, d)
Uncertain, e) Somewhat Unlikely, f) Unlikely, and g) Very Unlikely. If students had no basis to
respond, they were instructed to select “Uncertain.” Students could only select one answer,
unless otherwise indicated in the question. Each table below reflects an individual survey
question, and the corresponding respondent responses.
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Women
-‐
45%
Men
-‐
30%
Both
Men
and
Women
-‐
25%
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Off
campus
(not
owned
or
operated
by
USC)
-‐
35%
Off
campus
(owned
or
operated
by
USC)
-‐
30%
Residence
Hall
-‐
20%
Fraternity
or
sorority
house
-‐
15%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
44
Table 2.1 “Lesbians are harassed on campus due to their sexual orientation/gender identity.”
Table 2.2 “Gay Men are harassed on campus due to their sexual orientation/gender identity.”
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Very
Likely
Likely
Somwhat
Likely
Uncertain
Somwhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Very
Likely
Likely
Somwhat
Likely
Uncertain
Somwhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
45
Table 2.3 “Bisexual Persons are harassed on campus due to their sexual orientation/gender
identity.”
Table 2.4 “Transgender persons are harassed on campus due to their sexual orientation/gender
identity.”
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Very
Likely
Likely
Somwhat
Likely
Uncertain
Somwhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Very
Likely
Likely
Somwhat
Likely
Uncertain
Somwhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
46
Table 2.5 “I fear for my physical safety because of my sexual orientation/gender identity.”
Table 2.6 “I conceal my sexual orientation/gender identity.”
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Very
Likely
Likely
Somwhat
Likely
Uncertain
Somwhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes
Sometimes
No
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
47
Table 2.7 If you conceal your sexual orientation/gender identity, why do you do so?
“Because sometimes I'm with a bunch of straight dudes who don't know me, and I don't want
them to think I'm gonna be attracted to any of them. I just want to be their friend, not their gay
friend.”
“I'm afraid of being treated differently.”
“To avoid drawing unnecessary attention to myself, to avoid potentially offending another
person.”
“I don’t think everyone is accepting of my orientation.”
“Avoid uncomfortable situations with peers; appear professional to professors.”
“As to not make others uncomfortable when first meeting them.”
“because it can get tiring to explain; for convenience and my own comfort.”
“It isn't something I bring up to everyone, but when someone asks me I'll tell them. “
“fear of judgment; parents (mother mostly) criticized GLBT persons severely when I was a
child/to this day and the extended family has similar views; "bi" is often frowned upon even in
G:BT community.”
“Professional reasons; reveal sexual orientation on a loose need-to-know basis.”
“depends on the situation if I feel safe (more emotionally than physically).”
“I'm not sure how people will respond. Especially the Greek community.”
Table 2.8 “I stay away from areas of campus where gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender
persons congregate for fear of being labeled.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Very
Likely
Likely
Somwhat
Likely
Uncertain
Somwhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
No
Response
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
48
Survey Part 3: Campus Experiences
The third section of the survey asks students to respond to questions based on their
college experiences. Respondents chose between “Yes” and “No” as their responses to the
following questions. Students could only select one answer unless otherwise indicated in the
question. Each table below reflects an individual survey question, and the corresponding
respondent responses.
Table 3.1 Throughout your college experience at Western Pacific University have you ever
feared for your physical safety because of your sexual orientation/gender identity?
Table 3.2 Throughout your college experience at WPU, have you ever concealed your sexual
orientation/gender identity to avoid intimidation?
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Yes
-‐
30%
No
-‐
70%
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Yes
-‐
60%
No
-‐
40%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
49
Table 3.3 Throughout your college experience at WPU, have you ever avoided disclosing your
sexual orientation/gender identity to an instructor, TA, administrator, or a supervisor due to fear
of negative consequences, harassment, or discrimination?
Table 3.4 Throughout your college experience at WPU, have you ever been a victim of
harassment due to your sexual orientation/gender identity?
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Yes
-‐
35%
No
-‐
65%
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Yes
-‐
40%
No
-‐
60%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
50
Table 3.5 If you experienced harassment, in what form was it (Mark all that apply)?
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Derogatory
remarks
-‐
32%
Direct
or
indirect
verbal
harassment
or
threats
-‐
24%
Pressure
to
be
silent
about
your
sexual
orientation/gender
identity
-‐
12%
Threats
of
physical
violence
-‐
8%
Other
-‐
8%
Written
comments
(e.g.
anti-‐LGBT
clyers,
publications,
etc.)
-‐
4%
Denial
of
services
-‐
4%
Actual
physical
assault
or
injury
-‐
4%
Threats
to
expose
your
sexual
orientation/gender
identity
4%
Anti-‐LGBT
grafciti
-‐
0%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
51
Table 3.6 If you answered "Other" to the previous question, please specify.
“professor refused to let me use my preferred name on assignments.”
“A nurse at the health center kept insisting that I keep condoms on me "just in case" I decided
to have sex with someone who is male-bodied. I had told her numerous times that I have
absolutely no interest in such activities, and that I was in a long-term, same-sex relationship”.
Table 3.7 If you experienced harassment, where did this harassment occur (Mark all that apply)?
Table 3.8 If you answered "Other" to the previous question, please specify.
“Dormitory”
“West 28th Street (The Row)”
“off campus, but within student housing”
“Social events off campus”
“Residence Hall”
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
While
walking
on
campus
-‐
25%
In
a
public
space
on
campus
(e.g.
student
union)
-‐
25%
Other
-‐
25%
At
a
campus
event
-‐
10%
In
a
class
-‐
10%
In
a
campus
ofcice
-‐
5%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
52
Table 3.9 If you experienced harassment, who was the source of the harassment (Mark all that
apply)?
Table 3.10 If you answered "Other" to the previous question, please specify.
“People from the neighboring community “
“Football fan”
Survey Part 4: Campus Response
In this section of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed
or disagree with a list of statements that related to the universities response to the LGBT
community on campus. The students could choose from a list of multiple choice answers: a)
Strongly Agree, b) Agree, c) Neither Agree or Disagree, d) Disagree, and e) Strongly Disagree.
Students could only select one answer unless otherwise indicated in the question. Each table
below reflects an individual survey question, and the corresponding respondent responses.
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
Student
-‐
67%
Other
-‐
17%
Campus
Police
-‐
8%
Staff
Member
-‐
8%
Administrator
-‐
0%
Faculty
-‐
0%
Resident
Assistant
-‐
0%
Teaching
Assistant
-‐
0%
Don't
know
-‐
0%
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
53
Table 4.1 “WPU thoroughly addresses campus issues related to sexual orientation/gender
identity.”
Table 4.2 “WPU has visible leadership from the administration regarding sexual
orientation/gender identity issues on campus.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
54
Table 4.3 “The curriculum adequately represents the contributions of LGBT persons.”
Table 4.4 “The climate of the classes I have taken are accepting of LGBT persons.”
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
55
Table 4.5 “WPU provides visible resources on LGBT issues and concerns.”
Table 4.6 “WPU has a rapid response system for incidents of LGBT harassment”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentage
of
Survey
Respondents
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
56
Survey Part 5: Additional Comments
The final section of the survey provided an opportunity for respondents to record
additional comments. They were not given a specific topic to which they needed to respond, and
this section was optional. Their responses are included in the following table.
Table 5.1 Additional Respondent Comments
A “In the ‘who are you attracted to’ question, those taking the survey are only presented with
binary ‘men’ or ‘women’ or ‘men and women.’ Genders other than the aforementioned
binary identities exist, and many people experience sexual attraction beyond the gender
binary. It upset me that answers were limited and did not include non-binary gender
identities.”
B “Some areas of the university (Greek life/predominant night life activities, mostly) seem
only superficially accepting of LGBT persons while other areas (Res Life, academics) are
very accepting.”
C “The director of the LGBT Resource Center is great. When I answered the question about
whether administrators were adequately addressing the needs of LGBT students, I put
disagree. Gender neutral housing faced great opposition among administrators and I don't
think considering the LGBT population when making their decisions is a high priority.”
D “I think the school should provide more resources for bisexual individuals and for those still
not fully ‘out’ yet who may be scared/intimidated by the prospect.”
E “It has been a few years since I have had to attend a freshman orientation, but when I
attended over 3 years ago, there wasn't much of an emphasis on diversity. I think it's
important that orientation for freshmen includes a session on diversity, to set the tone of
acceptance early, and to educate students who may not know much about diversity.”
F “on the surface, it seems like we're doing fine which attracts a lot more lgbt students which
can lead to change; but I feel there is a lot we ignore when it comes to systematic exclusion
instead of just individual.”
This section offered an opportunity for the survey participants to speak directly to the
researcher, and share insight that would otherwise be missing from the study. Comments B, C,
and F all support the first finding of this study: respondents have a surface level satisfaction with
the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU. Comments D and E offer recommendations for
the university, which should be considered throughout the second dimension of the
Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Finally, Comment A provides a
direct critique of the survey instrument itself. By not providing content boundaries for the
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
57
students to communicate with the researcher, this study benefits from having a) additional
qualitative data to support a salient theme from the research, b) participant-suggested
intervention strategies, and c) recommendations to further enhance how researchers collect data
from LGBT respondents.
Finding 1: Surface Level Satisfaction
“On the surface, it seems like we're doing fine which attracts a lot more LGBT students which
can lead to change; but I feel there is a lot we ignore…” – queer, southeast Asian – American,
womyn, third-year undergraduate student.
Above the Surface
Of those surveyed, 60 percent of participants feel that WPU provides visible resources,
support, and leadership to create a safe campus climate for LGBT students (Table 4.1). 95
percent of questionnaire respondents agree that WPU provides visible resources for LGBT issues
and concerns (Table 4.5). The university also ranked highly in terms of acknowledging LGBT
issues, and providing discernible institutional leadership appointed to respond to resulting
concerns: 65 percent of respondents feel that WPU “thoroughly addresses campus issues related
to sexual orientation/gender identity, and has visible leadership from the administration
regarding sexual orientation/gender identity issues on campus” (Table 4.1). In the “Additional
Comments” section of the questionnaire a self-defined Lesbian/Queer, Multiracial, masculine
female, third-year graduate student defines the specific resources and student affairs leadership
that creates a positive campus climate for LGBT students: “The LGBT Resource Center and its
director are crucial to creating a safe space on campus for LGBT students and staff” (Table 5.1).
With a national reputation for demonstrating a commitment to LGBT-identified students,
and survey results that affirm the rich resources and services available on campus, it is of little
surprise that the focus group and interview informants like Ryan feel that WPU is a “safe place.”
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
58
“WPU is the safest place I’ve been or spent any time at. Going home, or going to Jordan [for a
study abroad trip], or going to visit friends where they live, I am always really glad to return to
WPU where I finally feel, like, back to normal again” explains Ryan with a smile and honest
chuckle. His voice booms across the table where we are seated, yet he maintains a
conversational and non-threatening nature as he shares his perspective. Refraining from
speaking in absolutes, Ryan clarifies that he “definitely wouldn’t commit to a statement saying
that ‘(WPU) is overall very friendly’… um, but it’s the most friendly place that I’ve ever lived
and I really appreciate that, and I really, really value the diversity here.”
According to Ryan, the campus climate at WPU isn’t “overall very friendly,” but it is the
best he has experienced thus far in his life. Sean believes that if students like Ryan had
experienced a comparatively more positive high school campus climate, their perception of the
campus climate at WPU would be different. Sean explains:
My high school wasn’t super friendly (towards the LGBT community) and, like, I didn’t
care as much. But I think it’s my personality and also where you come from. What you
have to compare WPU to is a huge impact in my opinion. Because I feel, like, compared
to everything else that I’ve know, WPU is great, but maybe if you’re from San
Francisco… or the East Coast, maybe (WPU) is just not going to seem that different.
And it’s not like all of Wisconsin is evil and, like, against the gays; it’s not. But, at my
high school there wasn’t a queer community at all. So you just felt alone at times, even
though you have friends and everything. But when you come here, you feel like you’re
part of something a little bigger than yourself. In my opinion, WPU was like a saving
grace, but for other people they may not feel that.
Sean is a student who appreciates and enjoys WPU, but knows that not all experiences
are created equally. He and Ryan are similar in that they both enjoy the welcoming campus
climate at WPU, but also recognize that their individual perception is all they know. Neither
attempt to speak for all LGBT students on campus. However—like almost all of the interview
and focus group informants—both are able to provide examples of when they feel comfortable
and welcomed on campus, and examples of when they do not. Why, then, do the participants in
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
59
this study feel positively about the WPU campus climate only in certain terms? I dive deeper
into the survey and interviews to find when and where the respondents feel that the campus
climate is not as comfortable and welcoming.
Beneath the Veneer
Though survey respondents feel that WPU provides visible resources, support, and
leadership to create a safe campus climate for LGBT students, participants still admit to
concealing their sexual identity and experiencing harassment on campus. Sixty percent of survey
respondents have concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity during their college
experience, and did so for one or more of the following reasons: a) fear of judgment, b) being
treated differently, c) for personal safety, d) to not offend others, e) to avoid uncomfortable
situations, and f) feeling unsure of how others will respond within the Greek community (Tables
2.7 and 3.2). The majority of these students concealed their sexual identity to avoid intimidation,
nine of whom did not disclose their sexual orientation/gender identity to an instructor, TA,
administrator, or a supervisor due to a fear of negative consequences, harassment, or
discrimination (Table 3.9). When placing themselves on a continuum of disclosing their
sexuality, 40 percent reported to either be “out to everyone personally and professionally,” or
“out to family and friends”; while, 60 percent reported that they were either “out to a few
friends/family members”, or “out to a few close friends.” No students in this study reported
being “totally closeted” (Table 1.10).
If the campus is equipped with sufficient resources, support, and leadership—as defined
by the survey participants, then why are students concealing their sexual identity to avoid
intimidation? Both Ryan, the third-year male student who speaks positively about the campus
climate on campus, and Sara, an international student in her third-year, concealed their sexual
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
60
orientation during study abroad trips to Jordan and Belize. For these two students, it was not to
avoid intimidation campus, but instead out of respect to the foreign cultures. When asked why
students tend to mask their sexual identity on such a campus that is so positively rated by LGBT
students in the survey, she responds, “You pick and choose your battles. Sometimes it’s easier to
conceal than to attempt to educate someone who won’t listen.” Cole has friends who are gay,
Greek and in the closet. He shares, “I can understand why they don’t come out and it’s hard to
explain to someone who is not in the Greek system. I’m sure they’re frustrated. It’s frustrating
not being able to be who you are.” Finally, Sean shares that he has a friend at WPU who chooses
to conceal his sexuality because of his status as an athlete of a Division I sports team. Beth,
Cole, and Sean provide snapshots of instances in which LGBT students choose to conceal their
identity: when wanting to avoid a confrontation with someone who is disinterested in
understanding more about sexual identity, when serving as an active member of the Greek
system, and when participating in the WPU athletics program.
Beyond the act of LGBT students choosing to conceal their sexual identity on campus,
harassment is another theme that contributes to an unwelcoming campus climate for LGBT
students at WPU. A third of surveyed respondents feel that gay, lesbian, and bisexual students
are harassed on campus because of their sexual/gender identity. That number doubles for
transgendered students. A third of the surveyed students reported to being the victim of
harassment due to their sexual orientation/gender identity. One in five surveyed participants
currently fears for his or her physical safety on campus because of his or her sexual/gender
identity. Slightly more have feared for their physical safety at least once during their academic
career at WPU.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
61
My conversation with Sean provides a glimmer of the segment of the LGBT community
on campus whose needs are not being met; students who just want to meet other LGBT-
identified students without the being involved in the LGBT Resource Center. He told me:
I think that if WPU has any (programming) that is related to the LGBT Center or
QuASA, then it automatically deters people from wanting to (participate) because it’s
like ‘Oh, this is really affiliated with really, like, gay things, so I just don’t want to do it’.
So, it’s really not any of their faults, it’s just how it kind of ends up for an outsider’s
view.
I asked Sean if he knew of any LGBT students who might fall into his category of “an outsider,”
and who would therefore have a different perception of the campus climate than he does. Before
I could finish asking my question he interjected gently, “Yeah, my roommate feels that way for
sure. He is the perfect candidate actually to have that other viewpoint just because he’s on a
completely different level developmentally and coming to terms with his identity. He has never
been involved with anything queer on campus.” I asked Sean to conjecture if his roommate
would think that WPU is a campus that is inclusive of the LGBT community. He answered
swiftly, “I think he would say that it’s less inclusive than they want people to believe when they
come to campus. And I think that is also just because of where he is at now, and what he thinks
about being queer means.” Sean’s maturity and self-awareness shined through his responses
and, specifically, his depiction of his roommate. Sean was able to acknowledge that he was still
developing as an individual, and both recognized and respected that his roommate was at a
different place in terms of sexual identity.
His roommates’ perception of the campus climate at WPU for LGBT students might add
a missing dimension to this study. I neutrally asked Sean if his roommate would be interested in
meeting with me to share his roommate’s perception of the campus climate at WPU. “I think he
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
62
might be. I could ask him,” Sean told me. The next day Sean’s roommate declined to participate
in this study.
Sean’s roommate serves as an example of the perspectives that are missing from this
study, and is an example of a LGBT student is not satisfied with the campus climate at WPU.
However, the subset of students who conceal their sexual identity, experience harassment, and
fear for their physical safety still require exploration. From the survey, harassment was most
commonly in the form of derogatory remarks and direct/indirect verbal harassment or threats.
Other forms include: a) threats to expose your sexual orientation/gender identity, b) pressure to
be silent about your sexual orientation/gender identity, c) denial of services, d) written
comments, e) threats of physical violence, f) actual physical assault or injury. The experiences
of harassment occurred both on campus and on the Row, which is a neighborhood adjacent to
campus where many fraternities and sororities have houses. When speaking with interview and
focus group participants, the two most common places where students experience an
unwelcoming campus climate were, unanimously, within the Greek community on campus, and
in certain classroom settings. Both of these findings are explored in the following two sections.
Finding 2: The Greek Community’s Influence
“Everyone has to be constantly working in a certain direction to keep the (fraternity) house
going in a certain direction. To have brothers who were openly gay would go against that
direction.” – Cole, gay, White, male, third-year undergraduate, fraternity leader
Neither the survey nor my interview questions specifically addressed the Greek
community or the Row, a street near campus where fraternity and sorority houses are assembled
next door to one another. Despite this omission, two survey respondents cited the Greek
community as either a source of harassment or a space in which a participant does not feel
comfortable (Table 2.8; Table 3.6); and, every interview respondent commented on the direct
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
63
impact that fraternities and sororities have on the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU.
This theme is presented from two vantage points: a) the perspectives of LGBT students outside
of the Greek community; and b) the perspective of a LGBT student who belongs to the Greek
community. The first vantage point includes experiences of discrimination, verbal threats, and
physical danger. The second vantage point confirms the Greek system’s practice of
discrimination, and claims that the division on campus is not unique to the LGBT community;
rather, it is between Greek and non-Greek students as a whole.
From the Outside Looking In
Sean enrolled at WPU with the impression that it was a “Queer friendly campus.” He
shared with me his experience participating in Explore WPU: an overnight admissions program
targeted to high school seniors, and designed to yield academically competitive prospective
students.
There were three of us (prospective students) with one host (a current WPU student).
One other Explore student in my group identified as Queer first and that’s how it got
brought up that there was… a spring dance at Ground Zero for Queer students. It was
one of the events listed on the little sheet that they gave us, so it made me feel like, oh,
WPU is very accepting. My host didn’t identify as Queer but he still was fine with going
to that. I think it shows how the community is more accepting here in a way, than I
initially would have thought.
Sean was not specifically looking for a university with a strong LGBT community and inclusive
environment when he was researching colleges as a high school senior. He admits that a gay-
friendly campus was more important to his parents; for Sean, academics, tuition costs, and the
strong alumni base primarily guided his decision to select WPU. The award-winning LGBT
services that the university provides were more of a welcomed perk once he settled on WPU.
In retrospect, he recognizes that his experience at Explore WPU may have inaccurately
colored his perception of the campus. Sean explains, “It’s not like everyone on campus is 100
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
64
percent accepting. You’re just not going to get that anywhere, and you kind of idealize that. Just
because I had one host who was, like, accepting doesn’t mean that everyone is going to be that
way. I kind of had the impression that it was.” I asked him why his perception has shifted now
that he is entering his sophomore year. Sean suggested, “I think the Greek scene… makes it
seem like the campus isn’t as friendly because, like, historically fraternities aren’t open to, like,
anyone who doesn’t identify as straight. So, I feel like they are not necessarily hostile towards
the Queer community but it just kind of gives off that vibe sometimes.” Sean added that the
Greek community did not threaten him; he just did not know that the Greek community was so
visible before attending WPU.
Though Sean did not “feel threatened,” he did admit that his friend was called “slurs”
while the two of them were on the Row. Sean told me, “You kind of get the vibe that it’s not
100 percent welcoming for certain people. It’s not just the Queer community, but, like, maybe a
Muslim wouldn’t necessarily feel welcome in certain fraternities as well, or different religious
backgrounds or ethnic backgrounds.” Sean indicated that the Greek community not only impacts
the campus climate for students who identify as LGBT, their exclusivity spans religious and
ethnic identities as well. During my individual interview with Monica, she supported this
perspective without prompting: “The Greek system is not an inclusive space if you’re not
straight, not White, and not interested in partying and playing beer pong,” she passionately tells
me. Both stories that she has heard and her personal experiences on the Row inform her
impression of the Greek community on campus. I asked her to share with me an example of
something that she has heard, or something that she has witnessed firsthand. Monica tells me
about her friend Kevin who is transgendered:
He was sitting very close to one of his friends (while on the Row) and two fraternity guys
came up to him and threw slurs at him. They asked him: ‘What are you? Are you a guy?
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
65
Are you a girl?’ and stuff like that. Just blatant, you know, such blatant hatred. I mean,
just because you don’t understand someone’s gender identity you respond with hatred,
and respond with making them feel like shit.
Monica pauses for two seconds and then the pitch of her voice noticeably rises. She is no longer
remembering the story; she is now present in the interview with me. “I know him, you know?
He’s my friend! I know him! I was like, ‘I can’t believe that just happened!’ when he told us
about it last year in QuASA.”
As we continue our conversation, Monica also touches upon the disrespect and safety of
women on the Row. “I’ve been on the Row and someone’s grabbed my ass. Oh, and one of my
friends (who is bisexual)… she was date raped on the Row,” Monica adds in a pragmatic tone.
“I actually know of a lot of people, [who] have been in scenarios where they don’t want to do
anything; but, they don’t say ‘No’. But, that doesn’t make the man stop. I’ve heard of a lot of
date rape cases on the Row and I’ve heard of maybe 3 cases of homophobia in the Greek space.”
Her pitch rises again and I can feel her passion as she states, “But those are things that happen on
the Row, you know? All of these events that I’m talking to you about happen in, like, frat houses
on the Row. So if we are talking about other spaces (on campus) that aren’t inclusive, I really
can’t think of one.”
Sara felt that fraternities and Asian sororities are the most verbal with discriminatory
remarks, and that PanHellenic sororities are the most regulated. “If you are a fem lesbian, you’re
fine,” Sarah tells me with a slight chuckle out of the right side of her mouth. She continues:
Frat guys will like you. You can pass off as straight most of the time, and no one is the
wiser. If you’re a butch lesbian, most people won’t say anything, but some drunk frat
guys might try to get in your way. With gay guys it’s a little bit more testy. Especially if
the frat guys are around, and they, like, see two guys holding hands, it can get violent
very quickly.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
66
Sara added that fraternity members have threatened gay male students with physical violence,
but “fortunately they would never pursue it.”
In terms of sororities, Sara differentiates between Asian sororities and social sororities
which are governed by PanHellenic. According to Sara, Asian sororities still permit hazing
activities. Sara’s first-year roommate, who was participating in the sorority pledge process, was
pulled out of bed in the middle of the night for an unannounced four-day trip to Las Vegas
during finals. Her roommate was not supportive or comfortable with Sara’s sexual identity and
Sara felt it. Beyond her roommate, Sara does not elaborate on ways in which Asian sororities as
a whole contribute to a negative campus climate. Yet, when speaking about social sororities,
Sara is the only non-Greek respondent to share a positive encounter with the Greek community.
She tells me about her friend who is transgendered. While her friend identifies as a male now, he
used to identify as a female lesbian. The sorority was accepting of her friend when they thought
he was a female lesbian, and allowed him to join the organization. After they discovered he was
transgendered, they told him, “‘it’s not that we are against trans people, it’s because the rules of
the sorority say that you must identify as a female.’ So, they were not supportive, but they were
very accommodating. They did not kick [him] out, but they did say ‘these are the rules and you
can de-pledge if you want without any consequences.’”
During the focus group, Ryan added to Sean, Monica, and Sara’s perceptions of the
Greek community at WPU. Ryan stated, “I just know that I don’t feel safe when I’m on the
Row. I don’t feel welcome. I feel very intense there.” He recalled a couple of memories, one of
which was from his freshman year when he was trying to enter a fraternity party with his female
friends: “We all walked up to the door at the frats, where you can get in if you have a bunch of
girls. And they’ll be like, ‘No guys are getting in anymore unless you’re, like, a faggot’. And
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
67
it’s just like them throwing those words around like that. I’ve heard that statement on multiple
occasions.” I asked Ryan if he chose to enter the fraternity party after the incident at the front
door. He shared, “No, I think the couple of occasions that I heard that I didn’t. Because, it’s like
a joke that there would even be gay people there. It’s unthinkable that there would be a gay
person approaching the house because, ‘Oh, there aren’t gay people on the Row,’” Ryan
concluded sarcastically. Rosa noded her head in agreement but does not look up. She simply
releases an audible “Yeah”.
Ryan transitioned to another memory, when a group on campus designed a shirt that he
believes read “Gay and Greek, Fine by Me.” According to the students, the shirts were meant to
be positive and bridge the two communities. Not everyone agreed that the shirts were a step in
the right direction. Ryan recounts:
Personally, I really resented those. It was an organization who was committed to
promoting the dialogue between the two communities because they were not necessarily
opposed; but, I think in a lot of ways people in each community feel like they are
opposed. So, like, while [the shirts] were really nice, I wish that were the case. I was
really offended because I don’t feel people who are Greek are supportive of different
identities at WPU.
Beth chimed in “They weren’t really reflective of what was going on.” Both Ryan and Beth felt
that the shirts were false advertising. Much like the first finding of this study, it is as if the shirts
represented the surface level satisfaction of LGBT students, and ignored the honesty that rested
beneath the veneer. Ryan explained, “It felt one-sided and I felt like we were being thrown a
bone instead of being taken seriously.” Beth agreed, “Yeah.” Ryan finishes his story by saying,
“I feel like there are few issues that come down to having to choose between ‘Greek’ and ‘Gay’,
but…” He paused and noticeably exhaled before continuing, “I know a lot of individuals who
identify as Queer in someway, who are in the Greek community, and it has been very rough for
them.”
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
68
As non-Greek members, Sean, Monica, Sara, and Ryan all speak from the perspective of
LGBT students standing on the outside of the Greek community. Sean feels that the Greek
community’s visible presence on campus produces a “vibe” that WPU is not completely
welcoming of different sexual, religious, or ethnic identities. Monica adds specific anecdotes of
the mental and physical danger that her LGBT friends have experienced on the Row. Sara shares
the role that a sorority played in supporting a transgendered student’s transition process on
campus. Finally, Ryan recalls not being allowed to enter a fraternity party with slurs like
“faggot” being directed to him. I never introduced the Greek community into any of the
interviews or focus group. Fraternities and sororities became a part of the discussion organically
by each of the respondent individually. In an effort to more holistically understand this theme, I
sought out the perspective of an LGBT-identified student who belongs to the Greek community.
From the Inside Looking Out
“At WPU, especially after your freshman year when you get off campus and get to live in
the apartment buildings or move into a house, there becomes a very clear divide between the
Greek system and the rest of the WPU community,” Cole told me. Cole enjoys the social
opportunities that the Greek community presents at WPU, but acknowledges that his life is very
separate from other students on campus. Cole stated, “I feel 100 percent divided from the non-
Greek students. My entire life is within the Greek system. I spend most of my time on the Row.
So I think because of that, it’s very understandable that gay kids, who aren’t in the Greek
community, would not feel comfortable in the Greek community.” Cole did not feel that the
Greek divide on campus is exclusive to the LGBT community. For him, the division at WPU
was much greater. “I think even straight kids, who aren’t in the Greek community, would feel
uncomfortable. I think kids who aren’t a part of that… they feel a little bit ostracized. They feel
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
69
a little bit uncomfortable with anything related to the Greek system… like they don’t really
belong, and a little disdainful too.”
The non-Greek LGBT participants agreed that they felt unwelcomed by the Greek
community. Some of the respondents, like Ryan and Monica, were vehemently intolerant of the
way Greek students subjugated them at the front door of a fraternity party and during an English
classroom discussion, respectively. It seems, from his statement, that Cole believed non-Greek
students were upset with the Greek community simply because they did not belong to it. Cole’s
implication was that the non-Greek students’ abhorrence is simply based in jealousy. He was
missing the respondents’ greater concern for an overall safe and inclusive environment that
embraces and celebrates diversity on campus instead of division. Further, Cole’s very
acknowledgement that he “feels 100 percent divided from the non-Greek students” reinforces
that the Greek community is exclusionary.
Yes, this very division between Greek and non-Greek students is fueled by the
discriminatory nature of the fraternity and sorority systems themselves. Cole proudly shared that
in the Greek selection process, “You can say ‘no’ to someone for whatever reason you want. We
can feel free to choose our members at our own discretion, whenever we want to, however we
want to, for whatever reasons… and that is one of the great things about it.” I asked Cole for
clarification, as it seems as though discrimination is condoned by the Greek system. He
responded quickly, “The Greek system is all about discrimination. Discriminating people based
on looks, where they’re from, how they act, how much money they have, on their hobbies,
activities, sports… everything.” Cole further explains how the discrimination against LGBT
students is not exclusive. He reveals, “There’s a fraternity that has a bad reputation for being
extraordinarily racist, and they do not have a single black member. You can’t prove that these
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
70
kids are racist. You can’t do anything about it. If they don’t want to let in any black kids, then
they don’t have to; and, they can get away with that.” While discrimination is an openly
acknowledged method in selecting members to join the Greek community, Cole values the
shared ability and power that comes with this practice.
Cole’s depiction of the Greek selection system validates Sean’s aforementioned
perspective that various types of social and religious minorities would not feel welcomed in a
Greek space. Greek students are in classes, eating in dining halls, studying in libraries, and
involved in clubs and organizations. Because Greek students do not exclusively reside on the
Row, their presence and culture permeates the campus and segregates students in a way that both
Greek and non-Greek students agree. This segregation and feeling of being unwelcomed creates
a non-inclusive campus climate for LGBT students, and potentially other minority communities
according to both Cole and Sean.
How is it that an ethnically mixed and openly gay student thrives in a racially and
sexually discriminatory community? Cole recognized that he is “extraordinarily rare and lucky.”
He was out in high school, has been out in college, lived in fraternity house, and—according to
him—has never experienced harassment. However, as our conversation continued, Cole did
experience something that he called a “negative experience” and a “blessing in disguise.”
During the fraternity recruitment season of his freshman year at WPU, Cole toured various
houses and really connected with a particular fraternity. He pledged that house and felt like it
was the perfect fit until:
On the third day they cut me. They didn’t invite me back the next day. And I was really
shocked. I was, like, this is completely out of the blue. It’s too late for me to rush any
other houses… it’s too late for me to get a bid from this house. I messaged a guy on
Facebook and was like, ‘Hey I was just, like, wondering what happened? Did I do
something wrong during rush that caused me to get cut?’ He told me that apparently one
of the guys in the house knew a girl who lived on my floor and she told him that I was
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
71
gay. And they were like, ‘Well we can’t have this kid. We can’t have any openly gay
kids.’ That fraternity has that reputation and I’m just not a big fan of that fraternity.
Cole’s eyes narrowed slightly as he completes his story; this is an experience of which he is not
fond. His tone lightens when he tells me that another, more accepting, fraternity heard of Cole’s
situation and allowed him to participate in their pledge process. A short time later he was
accepted by the second fraternity, which resulted in his socially rich and enjoyable college
experience thus far. He recognized that there are certain fraternity houses that would not accept
an openly gay student and houses that would not accept non-White students. More explicitly,
these are houses that would not accept him because of his sexual identity and ethnicity. There is
a place for gay and non-White students in the Greek community at WPU, per my conversation
with Cole, but these students have to understand the system and accept the differential treatment.
Cole defined this point, “The Greek system is: you opt in. And, if you opt in, you have to play
by the rules.” Given his level of happiness and position as an elected leader in his fraternity,
Cole is effectively playing by the rules.
The Greek system has a long tradition at WPU, and with it comes the campus division
that fuels the mixed campus climate perception for LGBT identified students in this study. The
Greek and non-Greek LGBT interview participants all identified the unapologetic discriminatory
practices of the fraternity and sorority communities. The Greek system is comprised of students
who seek and provide approval based on arbitrary parameters. One’s culture, religion, sexuality,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are openly considered metrics used to accept or reject
students into the Greek community. This prejudiced mentality funnels into the campus climate,
and impacts the experiences of LGBT students like Sean, Monica, Sara, and Ryan. This
mentality also impacts Cole’s experience and development. As an ethnically mixed and openly
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
72
gay fraternity leader, he has witnessed the discriminatory nature of the Greek selection process;
yet, he accepts it and, as already presented, feels that it is “one of the great thing about it.”
Finding 3: Varying Classroom Environments at WPU
“I just feel like it’s so commonsensical that you’re not supposed to exclude such a significant,
and generally outspoken, portion of the community. It’s rare, but this happens a few times per
semester. And I’m like, oh, that professor is not sensitive.” – Ryan, gay, White, male, third-year
undergraduate student
Student respondents’ opinions of the classroom environment for LGBT students are quite
similar to their aforementioned perspectives of the overall campus climate: mixed. Sixty five
percent of respondents felt that the climate of the classes that they have taken are “accepting of
LGBT persons” (Table 4.4). The interview and focus group respondents provided additional
perspectives on what the classroom environment was like for them. Sean recently added a major
in Business. He had taken Business classes for three weeks when he told me:
I feel like the student body (of the Business school) is different a little bit. Like in an
International Relations class, or (the honors general education alternative curriculum),
they’re all like the intellectual type. They’re all like super accepting, pretty liberal. Then
you get into the Business classes and they’re like a little bit more conservative I would
say. That doesn’t make me feel not welcomed, but it makes me think: “maybe they
wouldn’t vote for, like, marriage equality or something.” And then that makes me feel
like it’s not as accepting. Even if they are not outright doing it, it’s like their beliefs don’t
align with mine as much.
Sean recognizes that his feelings are created internally, based on his perception of the type of
student who would enroll in a Business class versus one who pursues studies in International
Relations. He continues, “We’ll talk about social issues a lot more in like (honors general
education classes, or in the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences), which is fine. And then in
(Business classes) they tend to talk about a lot of things that I tend to equate with conservatism,
like the economy is just a huge focus in a lot of our classes.”
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
73
Monica’s experience in an upper division English course demonstrated that not all
Liberal Arts courses are created equally, even when the content clearly incorporates the
contributions of LGBT persons. In her most recent semester, Monica was in an upper division
English course with 10 students. She told me that the class was approximately 80 percent men
and 20 percent women. She and one male student were the only two students of color. One
particular class reading and discussion was dedicated to a Queer Latina author. Monica sets the
scene for me: “The guys in my class were like, just fratty (sic) and dueschy (sic) and I just did
not like them. I knew that they were just going to write this off as like just minority literature, as
like based on emotion, not relevant, not grounded in historical fact.” I hear both frustration and
fervor in her voice as she recounts the memory: frustration in her classmates and fervor for the
reading. Her enthusiasm shines through as Monica defines the author’s argument, and how it
influences her to respond during the classroom discussion:
The history of oppression of Chicana queer women is due to hegemony, to, like, the
White patriarchy, from having their land taken from them. I came out as queer and said
that I’m queer and I identify with everything that (the author) is talking about.
Everything with like the borderlands, and not knowing where you fit… It’s really
difficult for me to mitigate all of these different identities. I’m queer and I’m Latina, but
I’m biracial, and I’m a first generation, and all this stuff.
And then something unexpected happened – according to Monica – the professor said, “I believe
that this argument is based on emotion and I don’t really think that oppression is real.” Monica
was flabbergasted. Her words began to race, as she seemed to be reliving the anxiousness she
felt that day in class. “This opens the gate for these men to just boom, boom, boom, boom.”
They fire questions at her; with Monica interpreting that their underlining message is that
oppression is not real. She passionately looked at me and confirms, “This is emotion but that
doesn’t mean that it’s not real.” Simply from the look in her eyes it is clear that she is extremely
bothered by this experience. She told me, “It was me versus everyone. I’m, like, defending
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
74
oppression as a queer woman of color in my class of all white men. It wasn’t a direct attack on
me. It was a statement that, ‘everything that you feel, coming out to your parents, it’s not real. It
doesn’t matter.’ I left the class crying.”
Beth offers a third perspective that steps beyond the discussion of course content and
sociopolitical tone of the class. Beth addresses how professors will engage with students during
classroom instruction. She shared, “Sometimes in class professors will be talking and looking
for a perspective about something, but assuming that everyone is hetero… or, sometimes they’ll
say, ‘let’s separate girls and boys.’ And I’ll be like, where do I fit in all of this?”
The interview and focus group informants shared their varying classroom environments.
When coupled with the mixed survey responses (Tables 4.3 and Tables 4.4), it becomes clear
that this finding is worthy of future study and exploration. In an effort to remain consistent with
the first dimension of the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008), further
analysis of this theme, and the overall impact of the curriculum and pedagogy at WPU must be
explored.
Concluding Discussion
Three prominent findings that this study uncovers are: a) LGBT students have a surface
level satisfaction for the campus climate, b) the Greek system significantly influences the
campus climate for LGBT students, and c) certain classroom environments create an
uncomfortable climate for LGBT students. WPU provides robust resources and visible support
for the LGBT community, which creates the appearance of an inclusive campus climate. Survey
and interview participants acknowledge and appreciate the University’s commitment to serving
the LGBT community. These students also recognize that this commitment does not permeate
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
75
all environments on campus, as LGBT students choose to conceal their sexual identities and
experience harassment on campus.
The Greek community, and certain classroom environments are cited as spaces where
LGBT students feel unwelcomed or subjugated. The Greek system’s discriminatory practices
create a fissure on campus that extends beyond the LGBT community, but no less impact the
campus climate for LGBT students. LGBT students are the victims of verbal and mental abuse
by members of the Greek community. Though a fraternity welcomes openly gay students into
their houses, and a sorority is cited for supporting a transgendered student’s transition, the
community creates a divided campus. The next chapter will provide recommendations and
identify opportunities for future research grounded in the aforementioned three findings.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
76
Chapter 5: Understanding the Context of This Study and Findings
The purpose of this study was to better understand the campus climate perceptions and
experiences of LGBT-identified students at WPU. Because of its effectiveness in assessing the
campus climate for minority populations, Rankin and Reason’s (2008) Transformational
Tapestry Model was used as a tool to uncover LGBT student perceptions and experiences at the
university. The Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008) consists of four
dimensions that guide research-practitioners through the data collection, analysis, strategy
intervention, and assessment processes. The first dimension requires an evaluation of the
perspectives of students, faculty, and staff that belong to the minatory group in question.
The findings presented in Chapter 4 exclusively discuss the perceptions and experiences
of undergraduate students at WPU, though a subset of graduate students did participate in the
anonymous survey. The inclusion of graduate students, faculty and staff in all aspects of the data
collection process would allow me to more accurately gauge the campus climate for the LGBT
minority population as a whole at WPU. As stated in Chapter 3, this study is therefore intended
to serve as the foundation for future campus climate studies that would focus on the perception
and experiences of LGBT graduate students, faculty, and staff. Because this study is only one
component within the first dimension of Rankin and Reason’s (2008) Transformational Tapestry
Model, it is difficult to move forward to the second and third dimensions of the Model, which
include recommending and implementing specific intervention strategies. Thus, the
recommendations included in this chapter are primarily for further research opportunities, as
recommendations for changes in practice would be arguably premature given the limitations of
the data presented in Chapter 4 relative to what would normally be expected per the
Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin and Reason, 2008). This chapter will a) identify how
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
77
the three salient findings from this study compare to previous research data, b) discuss
implications for both the WPU LGBT Resource Center and the University as a whole, c)
recommend 3 areas for further research opportunities within the undergraduate LGBT student
population specifically, and d) present the need for complementing research within other LGBT
communities at Western Pacific University.
Comparing the Findings to Previous Research Data
This study adds to previous LGBT campus climate research (Eliason, 1996; Longerbeam
et al., 2007; Rankin, 1998; Rankin, 2003; Rankin et al., 2010; Sanlo, 2005), by both utilizing a
queer theoretical approach and intentionally incorporating the experiences and voices of LGBT
students of color. The implementation of a queer theoretical approach enabled me to better
understand the participants and learn that terms such as “Queer” and “Fem” are used by students
in this study to make a sociopolitical statement regarding their sexual or gender identity. For
example, the same student who would commonly use the word “Fem” as a self-descriptor might
instead choose “Lesbian” to circumvent a hostile conversation or environment depending on the
situation. By reporting the students’ identities in their individual terms, this study helps lay the
framework for how participant data can be presented and discussed in future studies that utilize a
queer theoretical approach.
Rankin et al. (2010) found that “the intersection of multiple cultural and social identities
increase the risk for negative perceptions of campus climate” (p. 13). This finding echoed
Rankin’s (2003) results in her national LGBT campus climate study (Rankin et al., 2010).
Students like Beth, Cole, Monica, Rosa, and Sara expand the limited research that addresses the
experiences of LGBT students of color. With the exception of Cole, each of these students spoke
to their ethnicity and tied it to negative perceptions of the campus climate at WPU. Cole did not
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
78
relate his Mexican American ethnicity to his campus experience, but he did acknowledge that he
considers himself White. Cole’s use of the term White to describe himself further exemplifies
the continued need for a queer theoretical approach. If I had simply classified him as “White” in
a data table, I would lose the opportunity to recognize that he does not identify with an aspect of
his ethnic identity: Mexican American. Further, by highlighting this aspect of his ethnic identity,
I provide an opportunity for future research to question whether or not there is any correlation
between his identifying as White, and the positive campus climate that he experiences as a Greek
LGBT student at WPU. An assessment of students, like Cole, could be a springboard for a future
study that advances the understanding of LGBT students of color and how they perceive campus
climate. Finally, unlike recent LGBT campus climate research (Longerbeam et al., 2007; Rankin
et al., 2010), I am unable to draw comparisons between heterosexual and LGBT students’
experiences at the same university because heterosexual students were not included in this study.
I was surprised that all of the interview participants, with the exception of Cole, cited the
influence the Greek community has on the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU. The
previous research does not collectively suggest that the Greek community on university
campuses plays a prominent role in shaping the campus climate for LGBT students. Though all
of the interview participants spoke to the segregation between the Greek and non-Greek LGBT
communities on campus, Cole felt that this segregation transcends the LGBT community at
WPU. He feels disconnected from all non-Greek students, independent of their sexual identity.
It was also surprising that racism permeates the fraternity and sorority organizations at WPU.
Cole not only witnesses the discriminatory nature of the Greek organization, he justifies the need
– and revels in the opportunity – for fraternity and sorority houses to select students based on any
metric they deem appropriate. Thus, the findings in this study advance the previous LGBT
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
79
campus climate research by incorporating a queer theoretical approach and including the voices
of LGBT ethnic-minorities on campus, and shine a new spotlight on the influence the Greek
community has in shaping the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU.
Implications for WPU and the LGBT Resource Center
Considering previous LGBT campus climate research that was conducted at universities
with LGBT Resource Centers (Rankin, 2003; Rankin et al., 2010), coupled with the positive
national media attention that Western Pacific University receives for its dedication to the LGBT
student community, I am not surprised that 95 percent of the survey respondents in this study
strongly agree that WPU provides visible resources on LGBT issues and concerns. Participants
in this study appreciate the Resource Center and value the services that it provides. The campus
climate concerns presented in this study extend beyond the resources available to LGBT students
by the Center. These concerns are produced by a combination of Greek student leadership on
campus and varying classroom environments. Therefore, the LGBT campus climate discussion
exceeds the purview of the LGBT Resource Center – and the Division of Student Affairs – and
places the responsibility and accountability back on the University as a whole.
In making this claim, it is important to recognize that universities are microcosms of
society. It could therefore be argued that the responsibility and accountability for maintaining a
positive climate for LGBT students is that of society. Some LGBT students at WPU may choose
to conceal their sexual or gender identity on campus for the same reasons that LGBT persons
conceal their sexual or gender identity in public. Further, WPU brings in a new and diverse class
each year, with varied perspectives and beliefs relative to the LGBT community as a whole.
Even though the LGBT Resource Center at WPU is a pioneer in terms of services and dedicated
staff, the constantly evolving, diverse student body at WPU will be an omnipresent contributor to
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
80
the campus climate for LGBT students. The Division of Student Affairs and the LGBT Resource
Center have the opportunity to provide leadership moving forward, but collaboration with other
university units and departments is needed for positive change to truly take effect. The specific
units and departments that should partner with the Division of Student Affairs are identified in
the recommendations below.
Undergraduate Student Opportunities for Research
An Overarching Campus Climate Study
Using a queer theoretical approach, an evaluation of the campus climate for all students
at WPU should be conducted. A queer theoretical approach would allow researchers to identify
emerging and potentially invisible minority groups on campus that exist outside of ethnicity,
gender, and sexual orientation. For example, these groups might be students who serve in
leadership roles on campus, students who come from similar socioeconomic statuses, or students
who do not live on campus. The reason why an overall campus climate study is needed is
because racism transcends sexuality and gender identity; and, the theme of racism floated to the
surface at different points throughout my data collection.
Cole very clearly confirmed that the Greek community exercises discriminatory practices
throughout their selection process. But the scope of this study prevented me from adding that
Ryan felt very strongly that most students at WPU are not concerned about diversity, and are not
concerned about the needs of minorities on campus. He described the lack of diversity in the
Undergraduate Student Government (USG), claiming that the Greek community drives the
organization that is intended to represent and advocate for the larger and less homogenous
student body.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
81
Rosa, who sat quietly throughout the focus group and primarily spoke only to agree with
statements made by other participants, added the perspective of a first-generation college student.
She shared how she at times concealed her sexuality, but also her ability to speak Spanish. She
experiences a negative campus climate on two fronts: as a Lesbian and as a Mexican American
who is closely tied to her cultural heritage. Students like Rosa have intersecting identities with
varying social privileges that color their perspective of the campus climate at WPU. I hoped to
analyze and draw connections between those intersections, but was unable to as that context
expanded beyond the parameters of this very specific study. How much does this tolerance of
racism permeate throughout WPU, and what impact does it have on the student body?
A Campus Climate Study for Minority Groups Within the LGBT Community
The survey, interviews, and focus group all support the notion that different types of
LGBT students experience different levels of social privilege. Participants felt that
transgendered students were the most likely to experience a negative campus climate. Monica
discussed the upward battle towards WPU designating gender-neutral housing and restrooms,
and Ryan shared that a transgendered student on his floor was having a very tough time on
campus. No transgendered students participated in the interviews or focus group. A study that
explores their experience, in their words, is missing not only from this study, but also from
greater body of available research, as stated in Chapter 2. Because research on this population is
so grossly needed, it is important that future research initiatives do not tax these students and
further alienate them from the larger campus community.
LGBT student athletes were not included in the interview and focus group portion of this
study. Due to the anonymous nature of the electronic survey, it is unknown if the voices of any
LGBT student athletes are included in this study at all. Independent from one another, both
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
82
Adam and Monica revealed that they know students who serve as student athletes and secretly
belong to the LGBT community. The WPU Athletics Department is highly visible with constant
local and national media coverage. What are the pressures and demands of student athletes at
WPU? Does having a LGBT identity exacerbate these demands in any way? The recent wave of
current professional American athletes openly declaring their sexuality could create a mirroring
trend at the university level, one that WPU could proactively support through resources or
programming targeted to LGBT student athletes. This would involve cooperation with the
Athletics Department, both in research and practice.
This study only included one LGBT student voice from within the Greek community.
Cole shared his experience as an opening Gay student, serving in a leadership position on the
Row. He encountered adversity when joining the Greek system at WPU, and believes that he
was not selected to join the fraternity of his choice because of his sexual orientation. Cole, along
with Sean and Ryan, individually acknowledged that they each know LGBT students within the
Greek community who are not open with their sexuality. If Cole is able to have what he
perceives as a positive experience, then why do these other Greek students stay closeted? Is it
because of the campus climate at WPU? Is due to their current stage of identity development,
like Sean’s roommate who did not want to be interviewed? Hence, more LGBT Greek student
voices, should be considered to complement and triangulate Cole’s perspective.
A Study that Focuses on the Classroom Environment for LGBT Students
As an emerging theme from this study, there is an opportunity to dive deeper into the
classroom experience for LGBT students at WPU. Are there more classroom experiences that
mirror Sean and Monica’s perspective? Similar to the aforementioned inclusion of the Athletics
Department, this recommendation extends beyond the Division of Student Affairs. Faculty
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
83
cooperation and support would be needed in order for this aspect of the LGBT campus climate
experience to be thoroughly explored.
Opportunities for Future Research Within Other LGBT Communities
As already mentioned, more research on LGBT graduate students, faculty, and staff at
WPU is needed before moving into the intervention strategy dimension of the Transformational
Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Surveys, individual interviews, and focus groups
should be utilized to gather and triangulate the campus climate perceptions of these populations.
The Division of Student Affairs has an opportunity to manage this process, but the responsibility
need not fall exclusively on current employees or the Director of LGBT Resource Center.
Rankin (2010) recommends that experienced research-practitioners partner with emerging
Student Affairs professionals to conduct studies in this field. The Division of Student Affairs
can partner with current Master’s and Doctoral students to complete aspects of the
aforementioned campus climate research. Their findings, along with those presented in this
thesis, would allow for a comprehensive analysis of the campus climate for the LGBT population
at WPU.
Further, Rankin and Reason’s (2008) Transformational Tapestry Model calls for
interviews and focus groups to precede and inform the electronic survey. Due to the time
constraints and scope of this thesis, the survey informed the interviews and focus group
discussions. The survey alone illuminated the fact that LGBT students at WPU have a mixed
perception of the campus climate. However, it was the interviews and focus group that cemented
the two subsequent findings, which helped me better understand where this mixed perception
stems from: the Greek community and the varied classroom environments. These themes should
be included in a future survey.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
84
Final Thoughts
Recent media attention on bullying and LGBT student suicides has placed a large
spotlight on the needs of LGBT students. The LGBT Resource Center at WPU is nationally
recognized for its efforts in providing resources to LGBT students. This study identified that
though students acknowledge the hard work of the LGBT Resource Center, and the myriad
benefits it provides, students are not completely satisfied with the campus climate at WPU. Of
their concerns, the most salient were the Greek community’s influence on the campus climate,
and certain classroom environments.
Studies like this are a step forward in truly gauging how WPU measures in terms of
creating an overall inclusive and supportive campus climate. More studies like this thesis are
needed to more accurately assess the experiences of current students, faculty and staff. If the
Division of Student Affairs managed this research project, there would be an opportunity to truly
follow the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2003), and establish a thematic
electronic survey that would tackle salient themes from the interview and focus group data
collection process. These combined efforts would then help the campus climate assessment
transition into the next dimension of the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason,
2008) thus creating informed intervention strategies that would enhance the campus climate for
the LGBT population at WPU, and other minority groups on campus.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
85
References
Angrosino, M. (2008). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publications.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development. Los Angeles, CA: Graduate School of Education,
Univeristy of California, Los Angeles.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4, 219–235.
Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to
qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 496-521). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Corey jackson mourned at oakland university. (2010, October 21). Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/corey-jackson-mourned-at-
_n_771717.html co
Comer, M. (2010, October 1). After string of suicides, lgbt advocates renew push for
federal anti-bullying bill. Generation Progress. Retrieved from
http://genprogress.org/voices/2010/10/01/15797/after-string-of-suicides-lgbt-advocates-
renew-push-for-federal-antibu/
Constantinople, K. A., Cornelius, R., & Gray, J. (1988). The chilly climate: Face or artifact?
Journal of Higher Education, 59, 527-550.
Crawford, M., & McLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the
“chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, A Journal of Research, 23, 101-125.
Datallo, P. (2008). Determining sample size: Balancing power, precision and practicality. New
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
86
York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Ditzian, E. (2010. October 14). President obama says cyberbullying gets out of hand, at
mtv forum. MTV News. Retrieved from
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1650028/president-obama-cyberbullying-gets-out-
hand-at-mtv-forum.jhtml
Egan, N. W. (2011, October 20). Tyler Clementi suicide is not relevant to roommate’s
case, judge rules. People. Retrieved from
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20538195,00.html
Eliason, M. J. (1996). A survey of the campus climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual university
members. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 39-58.
doi:10.1300/J056v08n04_03
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido-‐Dibrito, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K., (2010). Student development
in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-‐Bass.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Friedman, E. (2010, September 29). Victim of secret dorm sex tape posts facebook
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
87
goodbye, jumps to his death. ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/US/victim-secret-dorm-sex-tape-commits-
suicide/story?id=11758716
Friedman, E. (2011, March 1). Tyler clementi suicide prompts Rutgers to offer gender
neutral housing. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-
university-offer-coed-rooms-tyler-clementi-suicide/story?id=13029051
Gibbs, G. R. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Grant, J. (2007). Usc keeps high rankings, U.S. News Says. [University website]
Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14133.html
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworhiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Bloomington: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Harding, S. (2004). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In. S.
Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political
controversies (pp. 127-140). New York: Routledge.
Hall, R., & Sandler, R. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly campus climate for
women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status of Education of Women, Association of
American Colleges.
Hesse-Biber, S. & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2
nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher
Education, 21, 279-302.
Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
88
generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in
Higher Education, 44(4), 433-449.
Katz, N. (2010, October 11). Schools battle suicide surge, anti-gay bullying. CBS News.
Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/schools-battle-suicide-surge-anti-gay-
bullying/
Longerbeam, S. D., Inkelas, K. K., Johnson, D. R., Lee, Z. S. (2007). Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
College Student Experiences: An exploratory study. Journal of College Student
Development. 48(2). 215-230.
Martel, R. (2010, October 1). Johnson & Wales university mourns passing of student
Raymond S. Chase. [University website]. Retrieved from
http://www.jwu.edu/content.aspx?id=54977
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Mayo, C. (2007). Queering foundations: Queer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
educational research. Review of Research in Education, 31, 79–94.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A
new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508-534.
Merriam, S. B. (1997). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Murphy, W. (2010, October 2). Advice for changing the culture that enables cyber-
bullying. Fox News. Retrieved from
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
89
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/02/wendy-murphy-tyler-clementi-rutgers-
cyberbulling-parents-legal/
Obama, B. (2010, October 21). President obama: it gets better [Video file]. Retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geyAFbSDPVk
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college
students: Erratum additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. doi: DOI: 10.1353/jhe.2004.0016
Rankin (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A
national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Rankin, S. R. (1998). “Campus Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Students,
Faculty, and Staff: Assessment and Strategies for Change.” In R. Sanlo (Ed.). Working
with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual College Students: A Guide for Administrators and
Faculty. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Company. pp. 2770284.
Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2008) Transformational tapestry model: A
comprehensive approach to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 1, 262-274. doi:10.1037/a001401
Rankin, S. R., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 state of higher education
for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.
Raymond chase commits suicide, fifth gay youth to take life in three weeks. (2010,
October 1). Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/raymond-chase-suicide_n_746989.html
Reikowski, E. (2011, August 26). First-ever LGBTQA community scholarship awarded to ou
student. [University website]. Retrieved from
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
90
http://www.oakland.edu/view_news.aspx?sid=359&nid=7912&archived=1
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status
of the field. Washington, DC: Educational Researcher, 39, No. 2, 132-141.
doi:10.3102/0013189X10362579
Sanlo, R. (2004-2005). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: Risk, resiliency, and
retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 97-110.
Sanlo, R. L., Rankin, S., & Schoenberg, R. (Eds.). (2002). Our place on campus: Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender services and programs in higher education. Westwood, CT:
Greenwood.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D.
C. Roberts (Ed.) Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (pp. 5-15).
New Directions for student services, No 48. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Seifried, T. J. (2000). The chilly classroom climate revisited: What have we learned, are male
faculty the culprits?. PAACE Journal of lifelong Learning, 9, 25-37.
Shephard, S. (2011, March 10). White house conference tackles bullying. CNN.
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/obama.bullying/index.html
Smith, D. G., Gerbrick, G., Figueroa, M., Watkins, G., Levitan, T., Moor, L., Merhcant, P.,
Beliak, H., & Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students
benefit. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Univeristies.
Soufleris, D. M. (2001, September). Maintain balance, sense of humor, flexibility on path to
success. Student Affairs Today, 4(6), 16.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
91
Talbot, M. (2010, October 25). Pride and prejudice. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/10/25/101025taco_talk_talbot
The view discusses gay bullying. (2010, October 10). ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/the-view-discusses-gay-bullying-11823643
Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (1998). Constructing knowledge: Educational research and
gay and lesbian studies. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 49–72).
New York: Routledge.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Windmeyer, S. L. (2010, October 5). Windmeyer: Enough is enough – Andrew Shirvell
creates climate of harm and hostility. [Web blog post] Retrieved from
http://www.campuspride.org/windmeyer-enough-is-enough-andrew-shirvell-creates-
climate-of-harm-hostility/
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
92
Appendix A
Electronic Questionnaire
The following images are screenshots the questionnaire that was disseminated and
completed electronically.
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
93
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
94
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
95
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
96
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
97
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
98
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
99
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
100
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
101
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Semistructured Interview Protocol: The below protocol will be utilized when interviewing
students who perceive WPU as having a positive or safe campus climate.
I. Introduction
a. Thank participants for interviewing and communicate that this will ideally be
more of a conversation
b. Confidentiality and pseudonym
c. Participants are the experts and the researcher is interested in learning from their
story and experience
II. Strategies
a. Ask questions that allow informants to use terms in more ways
b. Be conscious of vocabulary and use terms that informants use
c. Make notes for follow up questions and clarification
III. Respondent
a. What does the student look, sound, act and talk like?
IV. Ice-breaker
a. How were finals/the fall semester?
b. What is coming up this semester?
c. Why did you choose to apply/attend WPU?
d. Spare time activities?
V. Campus Experiences
a. How would you describe your experience at WPU?
b. Do you feel that your identity play a role in your WPU experience? How so/Why
not?
c. Have you ever attempted to conceal any aspect of his/her identity at WPU? If so,
why?
d. What goes through your mind when you make the choice to conceal an aspect of
your identity? What feelings do you experience? Do the others have a similar or
different experience?
e. How do non-LGBT faculty, staff, and/or students contribute to the campus
climate at WPU?
f. How do LGBT faculty, staff, and/or students contribute to the campus climate at
WPU?
VI. Feelings About Campus Climate
a. How would you describe the campus climate at WPU?
b. What contributes to your description of campus climate at WPU?
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
102
c. Why might others support or disagree with your opinion of the campus climate at
WPU?
VII. Campus Response
a. Is the university proactive in creating a campus climate that is conducive to your
success? How so/How not?
VIII. Demographic Impact
a. Has identity impacted your level of involvement at WPU? How?
b. Has your identity affected your role at WPU? Has it affected your role within the
LGBT community? If so, how?
IX. Closing
a. Were there any questions that you think I should have asked you?
b. Were you surprised by any of the questions I asked?
c. Can I e-mail you for follow up questions?
d. Can I e-mail you for clarification on quotes?
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
103
Appendix C
Focus Group Protocol
Semistructured Focus Group Protocol: The below protocol will be utilized when conducting a
focus group with students who perceive WPU has having both a positive and negative campus
climate.
I. Introduction
a. Thank participants for participating communicate that this will ideally be more of
a conversation
b. Confidentiality and pseudonym
c. Participants are the experts and the researcher is interested in learning from their
story and experience
d. Have students introduce themselves, year, and fun fact
e. Who knows whom?
II. Strategies
a. Ask questions that allow informants to use terms in more ways
b. Be conscious of vocabulary and use terms that informants use
c. Make notes for follow up questions and clarification
d. Continually ask the group who agrees and disagrees with responses to gauge
uniformity of responses and saturation
III. Respondents
a. What do they look, sound, act and talk like?
b. How do they interact?
IV. Ice-breaker
a. How is the semester going?
b. Why did you choose to apply/attend WPU?
c. Spare time activities?
V. Campus Experiences
a. How would you describe your experience at WPU?
b. Do you feel that your identity play a role in your WPU experience? How so/Why
not?
c. Has anyone ever attempted to conceal any aspect of his/her identity at WPU? If
so, why?
d. What goes through your mind when you make the choice to conceal an aspect of
your identity? What feelings do you experience? Do the others have a similar or
different experience?
VI. Feelings About Campus Climate
a. How would you describe the campus climate at WPU?
b. What contributes to your description of campus climate at WPU?
LGBT EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS
104
c. Why might others support or disagree with your opinion of the campus climate at
WPU?
VII. Campus Response
a. Is the university proactive in creating a campus climate that is conducive to your
success? How so/How not?
VIII. Demographic Impact
a. Has identity impacted your level of involvement at WPU? How?
b. Has your identity affected your role at WPU? Has it affected your role within the
LGBT community? If so, how?
IX. Closing
a. Were there any questions that you think I should have asked you?
b. Were you surprised by any of the questions I asked?
c. Can I e-mail you for follow up questions?
d. Can I e-mail you for clarification on quotes?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Though the study of campus climate for minority university students has grown over the last three decades, the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) student perceptions of campus climate into the literature is limited relative to other non‐majority groups such as women and ethnic minorities. The recent national media attention on the bullying and harassment of sexual minority students in the United States provides universities with an opportunity to reprioritize campus climate assessment for LGBT students at their respective institutions. Because anonymity is especially important when researching this population, Western Pacific University (WPU) is used a pseudonym to ensure respondent confidentiality (Hesse‐Biber & Leavy, 2011). This exploratory case study examines the campus climate experiences and perceptions of LGBT students at WPU. The purpose of the study is to better understand the campus climate perceptions of LGBT students at Western Pacific University. Research methods included surveys, interviews and a focus group of university students who self‐identify as LGBT. The analysis included coding of data, triangulation of data, and member checking in order to identify following three themes: a) the respondents have a surface level satisfaction for the campus climate for LGBT students at WPU, b) the Greek system has a direct impact on the campus climate for LGBT students, and c) there are varying classroom environments at WPU that create an uncomfortable climate for LGBT students. These findings serve as a launching pad for future research at WPU, which should include the perspectives of graduate students, staff, and faculty who identify as LGBT.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university
PDF
Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students
PDF
Visibly invisible: the experiences of black queer women on campus
PDF
When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college
PDF
A semester late: a phenomenological study examining the experiences of spring admits in higher education
PDF
Does the colorline still exist in the 21st century: examining racial climate on the campus of a University with a Diverse Student Body (UDSB) as perceived by a group of African American college s...
PDF
Supervising undergraduate student service personnel: a case study of emotional intelligence in the supervision of resident assistants
PDF
The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program
PDF
Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors
PDF
The assessment of Latino affective and behavioral responses to racial campus climate
PDF
The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution
PDF
Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study
PDF
Campus change agents: examining the experiences of cultural center scholar practitioners at a predominantly White institution
PDF
Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students
PDF
Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life
PDF
Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system
PDF
Postsecondary students, well-being, and sources of support
PDF
The relationship between the campus climate and under-represented students’ experiences on campus and the influences on fit, self-efficacy, and performance: a qualitative study
PDF
Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color
PDF
The racialized experiences of Black students in online master’s degree programs at a Predominately White Institution
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rodriguez, Michael Dean H.
(author)
Core Title
Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Master of Education
Degree Program
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs
Publication Date
04/02/2014
Defense Date
01/22/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
campus climate,LGBT,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy Poon (
committee chair
), Corwin, Zoe (
committee member
), Johnson, Amy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mrod1007@gmail.com,rodrigmd@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-371691
Unique identifier
UC11296560
Identifier
etd-RodriguezM-2309.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-371691 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RodriguezM-2309.pdf
Dmrecord
371691
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Rodriguez, Michael Dean H.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
campus climate
LGBT