Collegiate Closet: A Policy Report

              The Collegiate Closet:
A Policy Report
Prepared by:
Michael Barrett ’07, Lauren DiGiovine ’07 and Michelle Holmberg ’08 with Dr. David
Gudelunas as part of the Student Diversity Grant Project
Fairfield University 1073 North Benson Road Fairfield, CT 06824 www.fairfield.edu Design by: Dr. David Gudelunas
Student Diversity Report
Acknowledgments:
This project would not be possible without the help of individuals who assisted us at various stages.
First, we would like to thank Dr. Betsy Gardner and the entire team behind the Student Diversity Grant project, which
funded this research.
We would also like to thank Dr. Timothy Law Snyder, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences and Dr. Robbin Crabtree, Chair
of the Department of Communication for providing additional funding.
For assistance in our quantitative data, we would like to thank Dr. Qin Zhang for lending help with data analysis and Dr.
Linda Henkel for guiding the construction of our questionnaire.
We would also like to thank Ashley Toombs ’07 for her enthusiasm and dedication to promoting the Fairfield University
Diversity Grant and Dr. Judy Primavera for simply being amazing in everything she does for us.
All of the professors who offered their classes for survey distribution and those who shared their compelling stories
deserve many thanks.
Special thanks to Frank Fraioli ’08 who assisted with early parts of this project and Dr. Sally O’Driscoll for being a
constant source of support.
Finally, we would like to thank Danielle Hawthorne and her partner, Robin, who were our inspiration to pursue justice and
reminded us to always, even in adversity, remain “proud.”
The Collegiate Closet i
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Institutional History
3
Literature Review
5
Methods
7
Findings
8
Quantitative Data
8
Figure 1: Comfort living with someone of a different race/sexual orientation?
9
Figure 2: Comfort being taught by a racial/sexual minority?
9
Figure 3: Is Fairfield a racially/LGBT friendly campus?
10
Figure 4: Comfort with public displays of affection
10
Qualitative Data
11
Visibility
11
Education
12
Experiential Learning
13
Language
14
Coming Out and Being Out at Fairfield & the Necessity of Support Mechanisms
15
Institutionalized Homophobia and its Perceived Connection to Fairfield’s Jesuit Identity
17
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
1
Policy Recommendations
18
Alleviate
18
Integrate
19
Educate
20
Conclusions
21
References
22
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
2
Introduction
“Men and women for others”
This phrase describes how Fairfield University, a private Catholic University in the Jesuit tradition, hopes to build the
intellectual, moral, and spiritual character of its students. This message embodies the mission to serve others and offer a
voice to those who cannot speak due to varied social injustices. We witness this ideal in action whenever a student
participates in community service and campus ministry, works to understand the plight of others, and engages in learning
that aims to not only change the student, but also change the world. While this is unquestionably an honorable
University mission, one must ask, “do we recognize the voiceless within our own community?” This policy report focuses
on doing just that. In the pages that follow we use the Ignatian ideals of justice and solidarity, a compassion for others,
and constant reflection on the human experience to guide our survey and policy recommendations concerning the lives
of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students, staff, and faculty in the Fairfield community. This report is
divided into several parts in the pages that follow: a look back at institutional history, a review of academic literature
relevant to our topic, a few words on methodology, quantitative and qualitative data presentation, and finally policy
recommendations.
Institutional History
Within the past 20 years there have been two significant, public incidents that have flared accusations that Fairfield
University offers a hostile environment for LGBT individuals. It was only 18 years ago when two seniors, Thomas Fay and
Peter Bolger, began the first Gay-Lesbian-Straight Coalition on March 30, 1989 (Gooding 1989, p. 1). Not surprisingly,
the first LGBT group on campus made front page news in The Mirror, evoking many different reactions. The twenty
attendees of that first meeting believed that this club would encourage dialogue and social progress on campus. This
sense of support immediately was diffused; however, when attendees of the meeting were greeted by protesters outside
of Canisus Hall.
Some twenty years after the Stonewall riots that marked the beginning of the modern homosexual rights movement in
New York City, Fairfield had its very own conflict over sexuality, same-sex relationships, and moral authority. These
protesters labeled themselves as “Students Together Against Gays” – or STAGs, in an attempt to use the University
mascot as a symbol of hate. Attendees did not receive greetings of support or accolade, but rather the hostile chants of
“Stags, not fags!” This outright display of homophobia continued in the following weeks in several editorials in the
student newspaper. While there were messages of support for the G-L-S coalition, there were others who abused and
misinterpreted Catholic ideology to attack LGBT students (and their heterosexual allies). In the April 13, 1989 issue, a
student who organized the “Students Together Against Gays” said, “I can state that not one of the banners was rude or
offensive…accept my beliefs and my right to freedom of speech.”
This argument for hate speech continued when the student claimed if the G-L-S coalition received FUSA (the Fairfield
student government body) funding, less money would be awarded to other clubs. His sub-human view of the LGBT
individuals reached a climax when he adopts a slippery slope argument:
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
3
“What is to stop other controversial associations from becoming clubs if we do not stop the problem at its
beginning? [...] what will stop me from starting a heterosexual club? [...] It will be a sad day when a portion of a
Fairfield student’s money goes to the G-L-S coalition. Maybe I should feel lucky that I am graduating in
May.” (April, 13, 1989, p. 6)
To add insult to injury, in the following academic year, the Gay-Lesbian-Straight Coalition did not appeal for club status
because members of FUSA “did not think they would succeed at this point in time.” (September 21, 1989, p. 2). They
appeased the club by allowing them to meet; however, the G-L-S never met club status due to institutional
discrimination. Eventually, of course, the Fairfield University Alliance did gain approval and remains today an active
student organization supported by a variety of faculty, staff and administrators.
By 2005 the increasing numbers of students self-identifying as LGBT, out faculty, courses that incorporate topics of
sexuality, an active student organization and a seemingly more tolerant student body when it came to matters of
homosexuality made it feel like the Fairfield of 1989 was relegated to the pages of the Mirror. However, only two days
before a forum organized in part by Alliance on same-sex marriage was scheduled to take place, the University
administration cancelled the forum because they, “learned invitations had been sent to state legislators” (Hill 2005, p. 1).
Hoping to avoid appearing political, despite hosting such speakers such as Barbara Ehrenreich and Sr. Helen Prejean
(who spoke a week prior on April 6 about her passionate stance against the death penalty), the administration cancelled
the forum. Bill Schimpf, then-Vice President of Student Services, stated, “this made it appear as if we were taking a
position one way or another.” While it cannot be denied this was during a time when the state of Connecticut was in the
midst of legalizing civil unions, this sudden concern of “taking sides” seemed ironic at best or hypocritical at worst for an
institution that was known to be one of the first to create a
Peace and Social Justice Studies minor.
In reaction to this institutional discrimination approximately 250
students and faculty protested at an open forum to criticize the
actions of the administration. Though the marriage forum
cancellation was undoubtedly a black mark on the institutional
history of the University, many positive outcomes did come from
this April 2005 non-event. Not only did Alliance emerge as an
energized organization, but the turnout for the protest was
probably ten times as large as the would-be turnout for the
actual marriage forum. Homophobia, academic freedom, the rights of LGBT students, the nature of public events on
campus and what it means to be truly engaged in social justice were suddenly, and thankfully, hot topics on campus.
Moreover, after a series of failed communications within the University administration (that ultimately resulted in the forum
cancellation), many administrators, including University President Fr. Jeffrey Von Arx, personally reached out to the LGBT
community in attempt to build understanding.
While various initiatives to promote a more diverse environment at Fairfield University are currently underway, the LGBT
community, at least anecdotally, still faces much discrimination in the classroom, social scene, and dormitory. This is
perhaps best exemplified in a Fairfield student-constructed movie on YouTube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
jIJ6yASnu4). The video displays, almost accidentally, the hostility that gay men and lesbians face daily on campus. In a
video labeled, “Super Smashed,” two first-year students are playing a video game while labeling each other and
characters in the video game as “fucking gay” and lamenting “that is so queer.” They continue to mock each other
stating, “that was so gay.” The most disturbing aspect of this video is its description: “A completely candid portrayal of
college freshmen.”
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
4
Homophobia, academic freedom, the
rights of LGBT students, the nature of
public events on campus and what it
means to be truly engaged in social
justice were suddenly, and thankfully, hot
topics on campus.
This use of “gay” as synonymous with “stupid” or “bad” is a common refrain on campus. We have all heard “fag”
shouted across the quad, in the classroom, and in the residence halls. This outright homophobia also appears on The
Facebook, an online network community for college students. If one types “gay” in the Boolean search for Fairfield
University (student-constructed) groups, 14 out of the 15 groups mock gays and lesbians.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of anecdotal examples where LGBT members of the University community face
routine discrimination. Of course, anecdotal examples are just that. This project began immediately after the cancellation
of the marriage forum when gay students, faculty, and their allies began discussing a comprehensive “campus climate”
report. At that time we wanted to use our academic training to systematically examine the environment that LGBT
individuals face at Fairfield and prepare a list of recommendations that would change not only what emerges when you
enter a series of words into an online search operator, but what happens when we search within ourselves.
Literature Review
The college experience is widely regarded as a time of personal growth, academic achievement, and identity formation.
For many college students, one’s acceptance into the academic and social community facilitates one’s sense of purpose.
While the “college years” are known to be a time of social acceptance and finding one’s sense of self, greater social
issues permeate the social environment. Several forms of discrimination and prejudice have affected the treatment of
students that self-identify as a minority group. Among modern minority groups, it is widely regarded that the LGBT
community is comparatively the least protected and still faces routine discrimination from government, educational and
other social institutions.
To understand the social injustices that the LGBT community faces, there needs to be a definition of what it means to
encounter discrimination. According to Plous (2003), discrimination is defined as “putting group members at a
disadvantage or treating them unfairly as a result of their group membership” (p. 4). Some modern examples of
discrimination include the disproportionate pay men receive over women in corporate America; racial profiling of
minorities by law enforcement; or the outlawing of gay marriage in federal and state law. In an academic institution, one
needs to evaluate how individual discrimination affects the members within the community (i.e. students and faculty).
Plous (2003) argues that due to social labels that define an in-group (i.e. Caucasian, Christian, male, heterosexual, upper
class, and able minded) and out-groups (i.e. women, LGBT individuals, handicapped, racial, and religious minorities),
society attributes a “good” and “bad” label to these groups. These labels become ingrained in one’s thinking, leaving one
to express anxiety, fear, and hatred against members of an “out-group.” While there are several forms and levels for one
to exercise his or her prejudice towards a particular group, it is crucial to understand that these hostile behaviors and
ideas formulate discriminatory acts toward the target group (in this case, the LGBT community).
These deep prejudices (whether acknowledged by the individual or not) and beliefs come with one when he or she enters
college. Luckily, higher education challenges the individual to question his or her preconceived notions about society’s
values and beliefs. According to Arnold and King (1997), a college student’s development encourages self-growth due to
their interaction with diverse peoples, encouragement to think analytically, and one’s departure from the comfort of his or
her family home. While much learning occurs in the classroom, it is the social scene that fosters much social growth;
however, those who are labeled as the “out group” still face prejudice and discrimination during a time in their life when
much identity consolidation occurs.
The academic study of gay men and lesbians as a minority group is a relatively new field of inquiry. According to Evans
(2001), documentation of homophobia and heterosexism began to be explored on college campuses only during the
early 1990’s. Despite this, gay and lesbian issues are still under-represented topics in academic research, and in the case
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
5
of LGBT youth, there is even less data available. One research summary demonstrated that many empirical examinations
of campus discrimination do not recognize the prejudices faced by LGBT students as the “invisible” minority on college
campuses (Miceli, 2002). This particular collection of qualitative data suggests that this lack of visibility influences over
1,500 gay and lesbian youth suicides each year. The lack of social support leads many LGBT individuals to feel isolated
and hesitant to “come out” in the college environment.
This sense of being the invisible minority challenges those who are members of the LGBT community to decide if
“coming out” is safe to disclose. This past fall, The New York Times published an article describing a new guide to
assisting those whom wish to live “out” on welcoming campuses. According to Rosenbloom (2006), a recent guide called
The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students offers the 100 most “gay-friendly” universities. The criteria of being “gay
friendly” consisted of rating “school policies, programs, and practices affecting lesbians and gays.”
This sense of comfort and lack of fear in a gay student being “out” on campus is crucial. A recent study examined the
three components to forming a positive LGBT identity within the campus environment: physical, social, and institutional
(Stevens, 2004). LGBT students are more likely to disclose to others when their college environment included symbols of
gay acceptance within campus such as “Safe Space” cards on professors’ office doors (Stevens, 2004). Results also
highlighted LGBT students’ self-acceptance, disclosure to others student and faculty, and sense of empowerment as
varied depending on the social climate in classrooms and dormitories. This demonstrates the importance of social
support provided by professors, administrators, and RAs (resident assistants) in making LGBT students feel welcomed
and supported.
Exactly how tolerant a particular campus is depends a lot on
perspective. According to a recent study, “out” and “closeted”
students reported differences in perceptions of anti-LGBT issues
on campus, involvement and knowledge of LGBT issues, and the
need to not disclose their sexual orientation (Gortmaker & Brown,
2005). Results showed “out” gay and lesbian students felt more
unfair treatment by other students, perceived the college
environment as more negative, and were more active and aware of LGBT issues. “Closeted” students reported higher
levels of the need to hide and provided more justifications for the lack of involvement in LGBT on-campus organizations.
However, both “closeted” and “out” students reported high levels of anti-LGBT language, threats made by other
students, and lack of LGBT related courses on the campus.
The nature of language is critical to explore on a college campus. Many people are unaware that vernacular terminology
amongst youth such as “that’s so gay” can negatively impact LGBT students’ self-perceptions. A recent article in the San
Francisco Chronicle reported up to two-thirds of LGBT students in the nation encountered verbal harassment (Buchanan,
2006). If these slang terms are brought to the attention of the speaker, he or she is more likely to be conscious of their
language in the future. This can be achieved through what researchers label as the contact hypothesis (or the frequent
associations with members from different groups to reduce negative attitudes towards that target group) (Liang & Alimo,
2005). Liang and Alimo (2005) asked first year students at one university to report their level of contact with LGBT
individuals prior to college. Results suggested those students who had more contact with LGBT students displayed
higher levels of positive attitudes towards the target group. Results also showed prior contact with LGBT individuals
before college predicted higher positive attitudes towards LGBT students and less anti-gay language.
This concept of contact with LGBT students allows one to personally examine his or her behaviors toward “out groups.”
According to Evans and Herriott (2004), the general awareness of LGBT issues facilitated in social interactions (i.e.
classes or college social scene) prompts both gay and straight students to be more likely to engage in social justice
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
6
Put simply, feeling accepted at the crucial
stage of development leads not only to
positive self-identity, but prevents
negative outcomes as serious as suicide.
issues, advocate for LGBT equality, and become active members in LGBT-related organizations. LGBT students became
more self-aware through discussion and developed a more positive self-identity through evaluating their identities in
relation to LGBT issues. Heterosexual students adopted a more positive attitude toward LGBT individuals through this
increased awareness as well. This use of conscious motivation to eliminate discriminatory behavior (both non-verbally
and verbally) illustrates the importance of students, especially heterosexual males (this group displays the most
homophobic behavior), to be in contact with LGBT population to bring about awareness of their automatic anti-gay
prejudices and behaviors.
Despite these factors, the college campus may dictate how and when one may (or may not) support fellow LGBT
students. One recent study showed public pressure on college campuses affected heterosexual allies’ expression of
LGBT issues within individual versus group settings (Jurgens, Schwitzer, & Middleton, 2004). The research found that
participants were more accepting of LGBT individuals and less likely to adopt LGBT stereotypes in individual settings as
opposed to group settings. Results also showed that those individuals with strong religious or faith based beliefs were
most likely to be the most expressive against LGBT individuals in both individual and group settings.
This “faith” variable raises interesting questions when it comes to sexuality, self-identity, and campus climate. Catholic
universities institute religion as a core curriculum requirement, thus instituting an examination of one’s values, beliefs, and
spirituality. The level of religious beliefs has an impact on attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, which is obviously
relevant in the context of Fairfield University. According to Love and his colleagues (2005), LGBT students who embrace
their sexuality and religion express much cognitive dissonance in relation to being “religious.” Findings suggest that
institutions (i.e. universities, churches) play an important role in facilitating more positive LGBT identities. Those who were
non-reconciled or underdeveloped in their religious identities reported a lack of social support from institutions. Results
interestingly found that participants believed “coming out” was a component to his or her own spiritual development.
The socio-cultural environment on college campuses can facilitate students’ awareness of the social and structural
inequalities LGBT individuals face (Evans & Hetero, 2004). With this notion in mind, there is a need to question if LGBT
students face a high level of prejudice and discrimination in the classroom, the dormitory, the cafeteria, and on the
college social scene.
Methods
This project utilized a multi-modal research design that draws on institutional history, quantitative data gathered by a
campus-wide attitude survey and qualitative long-form interviews with members of the campus community.
Students participating in the attitude survey included 908 Fairfield University students. All participants were volunteers
and had the option not to participate or to have their data removed from the study once completing the survey. The large
majority of participants listed themselves as Caucasian/White and their religion as Roman Catholic. The number of
participants from each class was around 25% of the overall participants. There were 12 participants in the interview/
narrative section of the study. Participants included current students, former students, and faculty. All participants being
interviewed were ensured of their confidentiality with the option of not remaining anonymous if they wished. Both the
qualitative and quantitative components of the research design were approved by the Fairfield University Institutional
Review Board (IRB).
Our quantitative data was collected through surveys (both electronic and paper format) which examined the attitudes
towards LGBT issues on campus. We made the survey available on a laptop in the campus center for a period of time. It
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
7
was also distributed to students during classes. Faculty members allowed us to come in the first or last ten minutes of
certain classes to distribute the survey. Students were asked not to start the survey until instructions had been read. The
instructions informed the students to take their time, finish every question, and that the survey would be confidential. As
previously mentioned, students were also informed that they could ask not to have their data used after the debriefing if
they wished. Data collected via paper surveys was merged with data collected through the online surveys into one
common data set.
The qualitative data was collected through narrative, long-form interviews. All participants were volunteers and collected
through snowball sampling methods. These participants were also assured of their anonymity unless they explicitly
wished to have their names attached to the interviews. They could ask for the interview to end at any time and for the
data not to be used in the study once the interview was over. Interviews were conducted face-to-face with one of the
grant members acting as interviewer or via email. General guides for topics of conversation were used, but answers and
topics were not restricted to those general guidelines. All face-to-face interviews were recorded and then transcribed by
the aforementioned grant member. All interviews conducted through email followed the same idea: general guidelines
with open responses.
Findings
Quantitative Data
A total of 907 surveys (N=908) were completed though the no response rate varied from question to question. The
maximum no response rate on any single question was 9. The survey was equally distributed among class years with
each graduation year from 2007-2010 comprising about 25% of the total sample. White students comprised 87% of the
total sample followed by Other (3.8%), Hispanic/Latino (3.5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (3.1%) and African American (2.4%).
In line with available comprehensive data on the student body, 73.4% of students identified as Catholic, followed by “no
religion” (9.4%), Other (8.1%), and Protestant (7.1%). Other religions accounted for less than 1% of the total sample.
Despite the vast majority of the sample being Catholic, a majority of respondents (77%) disagreed that homosexuality
was sin. Also breaking from official Church teaching, just over 45% of respondents felt homosexuality was biologically
determined and less than 15% felt homosexuality was something an individual chooses. Just under 94% of respondents
said they had a friend of different race of their own and 71% said they had a friend who was gay or lesbian. While 62.4%
of students said they “strongly” believed in equality for racial and ethnic minorities, 52.6% said they cared “strongly”
about equality for LGBT individuals.
Race/Ethnicity was used as a comparison variable throughout the survey (note that in figures below “race/ethnicity” is
listed simply as “race”). Participants were told they were completing a survey on attitudes and initially race/ethnicity was
included as a deceptive variable. One of the more interesting findings to emerge from the survey data was that
acceptance of racial/ethnic “others” was not as high as initially hypothesized. As an example, Figure 1 shows that just
over 50% of students said they would be “very comfortable” living with someone of a different racial or ethnic
background than their own. Though this figure is more than twice as many respondents who said that they would be
“very comfortable living with a sexual minority,” over 14% of students would be “slightly” or “very” uncomfortable living
with someone of a different racial or ethnic background.
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
8
Figure 1: Comfort living with someone of a different race/sexual orientation?
Figure 2 shows how comfortable respondents are being taught by racial/ethnic minority members versus gay and lesbian
faculty. Again, though students are more comfortable with racial minority members as faculty, only 7.1% of students said
they would be “slightly” or “very” uncomfortable with a LGBT faculty member.
Figure 2: Comfort being taught by a racial/sexual minority?
Interestingly, respondents said they were more likely to hear negative generalizations about racial/ethnic minorities on
campus “everyday” or “at least once a week” (51.6%) more often than they were to hear negative generalizations about
sexual minorities (47.7%). However, respondents also indicated that while they “never” hear positive generalizations
about sexual minorities on campus 43.5% of the time, only 11.7% reported that they “never” hear positive generalizations
about racial or ethnic minorities. This lack of positive generalizations about LGBT individuals partially helps explain
findings that show that students more strongly disagree that Fairfield is a gay friendly campus than a racially friendly
Race Sexual Orientation
Not Sure
Very Uncomfortable
Slightly Uncomfortable
Neutral
Slightly Comfortable
Very Comfortable
0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 60%
Race Sexual Orientation
Not Sure
Very Uncomfortable
Slightly Uncomfortable
Neutral
Slightly Comfortable
Very Comfortable
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
9
campus (Figure 3). Figure 4 below contrasts how students feel about public displays of affection between heterosexual
couples of the same race, heterosexual couples of different races, and homosexual couples on campus. Not
surprisingly ,students were more comfortable seeing hand holding or kissing when the participating parties were
heterosexual and of the same race and the least comfortable with homosexual couples displaying these same signs of
affection on campus.
Figure 3: Is Fairfield a racially/LGBT friendly campus?
Figure 4: Comfort with public displays of affection
While this report is designed for a general readership and therefore does not contain correlational data, statistical analysis
does find reliability that knowing someone of a different race or sexual orientation is a significant predictor in determining
accepting attitudes in terms of variables such as comfort living with someone of a different sexual orientation or being
taught by an LGBT faculty member.
Race Sexual Orientation
Not Sure
Strongly Disagree
Slightly Disagree
Neutral
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Hetero/Same Race
Hetero/Diff Race
Homosexual
Not Sure
Very Uncomfortable
Slightly Uncomfortable
Neutral
Slightly Comfortable
Very Comfortable
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
10
Qualitative Data
Similar responses were seen among faculty, students, and alumni alike, varying very little on the basis of sexual
orientation with regard to the status of Fairfield University in its relationship with LGBT issues. All respondents perceived
homophobia to be an issue at the university, only varying on the intensity and pervasiveness of that homophobia, ranging
from outright hostility to slight discomfort toward LGBT issues.
There were a number of recurring themes throughout the interviews, displaying commonalities in perception of the
campus climate for LGBT issues and individuals at Fairfield University. Many of these themes overlapped and all
supported the hypothesis – that there exists a perceived sense of homophobia at Fairfield University. These themes
include visibility, education, experiential learning, language, coming out and being out at Fairfield and the necessity of
support mechanisms, and institutionalized homophobia and its perceived connection to Fairfield’s Jesuit identity.
Visibility
Many respondents referenced the low level of LGBT visibility on the Fairfield University campus as an indicator and
perpetuator of the homophobia. There was disagreement over whether the lack of visibility indicates an insignificant
presence or if the minimal visibility is merely the result of people choosing not to come out due to a perceived hostility.
A male freshman undergraduate who self-identified as gay observed the lack of a visible LGBT population: “…in terms of
raw numbers…I don’t really know more than two or three people in my class who are openly gay. So that’s totally
disproportionate compared to even like an average college that has much higher levels of people who are openly gay; I
don’t know whether that means that people here aren’t gay or they’re afraid to come out.”
This lack of visibility has negative implications for members of the
LGBT community on campus. The above freshman continued:
“…if I’d been able to know more people who were gay, I don’t
think I would have been more scared to be myself. I wouldn’t
have thought it was so strange, that I was alone…”. The lack of
visibility is thus an emotionally segregating factor as well, as
feelings of marginalization are exacerbated by minimal LGBT
presence, whereby LGBT individuals could seek common ground
with those of similar sexual identities. It similarly hampers the
coming out process by causing one to view one’s sexual inclinations as abnormal.
The minimal visible presence of LGBT individuals on campus likewise enables homophobic attitudes and behaviors to
thrive. One straight sophomore female posited: “I think a lot of students don’t think we have a lot of issues because they
don’t think we have any sort of LGBT community on campus.”
According to the student, if there were to be more LGBT visibility at Fairfield, there may be more of an impetus for
change on the part of the students. If students feel as if their behaviors are going unchecked due to the absence of the
subject of their homophobia, then it may continue. Additionally, fears of being deemed LGBT, falsely or otherwise,
similarly allow for homophobia to thrive – nobody wishes to be demonized as the ‘other.’
Minimal LGBT visibility likewise inhibits institutional response. A straight, male sophomore commented: “…the LGBT
community here, it’s very small which I think is part of the reason that the university doesn’t do as good of a job
addressing it as you might see at other universities; like sort of a proportional response thing.” The same student
“…if I’d been able to know more people
who were gay, I don’t think I would have
been more scared to be myself. I
wouldn’t have thought it was so strange,
that I was alone…”
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
11
continues on to observe that his above statement is ironic, considering the steps taken by the university to mitigate the
challenges faced by other minority groups on campus.
Also in terms of visibility, only fleeting references were made to transgender people in the narrative interviews,
emphasizing the problems of presence faced by individuals at the forefront of the conflict over gender identity. The fact
that only a distinct minority of respondents discussed transgender issues (despite the repeated references made by the
interviewer) illustrates that individuals who identify as a gender in contrast with their sex are even maligned in discourse.
A member of the Fairfield class of 2006 (male, gay) observed: “…where the transgender community is nonexistent at
Fairfield and I feel like we don’t even make the attempt to approach or acknowledge that there might be any student that
might be questioning themselves or any incoming student that requires that space for them to feel comfortable.” Thus,
where GLB visibility is minimal, transgender visibility is nonexistent.
One gay male senior commented on the lack of visibility of issues pertaining to LGBT individuals at the University: “I think
that they’re doing a good job with that compared with what they’ve done in the past with other diversity issues such as
race and things like that. I think they’re getting more exposure, which is good, but I think that’s lacking for gay and
lesbian students, transgender students.” Essentially, the student does not see population visibility as the sole factor in
issue visibility, but rather values the importance of recognition of LGBT issues on the institutional level as an imperative.
He argues that LGBT issues must be presented as legitimate diversity concerns in keeping with Fairfield’s recent efforts
to foster a more inclusive atmosphere for minority students and faculty.
Education
Education was a recurring theme throughout the narrative interviews with varied opinions on its value in addressing
homophobia. While incarnations of educational initiatives varied, ultimately all of the respondents saw ignorance as at
the root of homophobia and perceived the necessity of some sort of learning experience in ameliorating epistemic
ignorance.
Of damages incurred by lack of education, one gay male undergraduate observed: “It just allows the beasts to continue
to roam untamed – that’s what I feel and that they just need to literally…it’s an educational institution – they need to
educate their students about one another.” Essentially, failure to
address homophobia on an educational level allows for the
continuation of LGBT-based discrimination.
Many respondents felt as if a substantial inclusion of LGBT issues
in the academic arena would enable acceptance. Of the
connection between academia and the amelioration of ignorance,
a gay, male senior observed: “When people see that there’s black
studies and women’s studies they acknowledge those programs are important because of how unequal society is in
terms of race and sex, but if they don’t have programs, LGBT programs, that are similar to them, then people will be less
likely to acknowledge inequality than if they had programs like that because…people learn about the absurd inequality
that exists…” In essence, by bringing LGBT issues into academia, the plight of LGBT people is recognized and they
become legitimized as a minority group.
Two of the professors interviewed, one straight and one openly gay, identified the educational approach to LGBT issues
as pivotal on an academic level due to the influx of research done on the aforementioned issues in recent years. The
openly gay professor observed: “…these are really crucial issues and an enormous amount of work is being done…
They’re really good also because they’re interdisciplinary and interdisciplinarity is the future of academia….It’s interesting
work that hits students where they live in a certain way, that we could empower students to think more critically about
Essent ial ly, fai lure to address
homophobia on an educational level
allows for the continuation of LGBT-based
discrimination.
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
12
the ways that popular culture defines attitudes and how they take for granted something that they should think about.”
As such, the inclusion of LGBT issues would enable the University to remain on the cutting edge of academia.
According to the respondents, the lack of academic inclusion of LGBT issues reflects upon underlying homophobia. The
professor states: “I think there sometimes is a tendency to marginalize, to marginalize that body of scholarship and by
marginalizing it, then you don’t have to integrate it into a curriculum.” On a macrocosmic level, LGBT issues as legitimate
areas of academic inquiry are oft maligned – a reality which may be observed at Fairfield.
The presence of LGBT issues in the academic life of the University may be effective in the subject matter appearing in
peer to peer interactions. One gay, male senior recognized the vitality of the “trickle down effect:” “…even if they don’t
take the courses, some friends of theirs may take the courses and bring up conversation topics…it could be a ten minute
conversation that might change a couple people’s attitudes… if you get a few leaders to have a change of mind, a
change of heart, or even a change of thought process about certain subjects, one kid could get four of his friends to
think similarly…” Thus, the availability of academic offerings dealing with LGBT issues may allow for a chain effect of
acceptance by recognizing the influence of interpersonal relationships between students.
The vast majority of interviewees cited F.Y.E. as a viable means by which to educate Fairfield students on LGBT issues.
A gay, male senior commented: “FYE needs to go into more, I think, of adjusting to helping students adjust with other
students and just bringing up the level of tolerance for everything on the whole.” Here, mitigation of homophobia may be
achieved by addressing incoming freshman at the very beginning of their college career. F.Y.E., otherwise known as ‘First
Year Experience,’ aims to prepare freshman for the many aspects of the college experience. Respondents indicated that
individuals would benefit from preparations for the social aspect of their years at Fairfield, which includes interactions with
a diverse population of people. The student mentioned above posited that F.Y.E. would be the ideal opportunity in which
to establish the University’s proposed acceptance of diversity and iterate a zero tolerance policy for discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and identity.
Experiential Learning
More so than formal education in the form of courses, workshops, and the like, respondents cited experiential learning as
influential in ameliorating ignorance. In this context, experiential learning is meant as the transformative influence of first
hand exposure to LGBT individuals and interpersonal relations between members of differing sexual orientations and
identities. This was a recurring theme throughout the narrative interviews, with both straight and LGBT individuals citing
it as an invaluable in diminishing misconceptions about LGBT people.
Respondents cited “fear of the unknown” as a guiding principle in homophobia. One straight, male senior commented
on homophobia: “It’s massive fear of the unknown and…fear of what they might discover about themselves.” Thus,
homophobia is partly rooted in fears surrounding sexual self-discovery. Nevertheless, the same respondent cited living
with two out roommates as an integral component of his own sense of self, saying that it “…just opened me and made
me a bit more accepting of who I am. It’s actually, ironically enough, made me more comfortable with my sexuality in
being straight.” As such, experiential learning is two-fold: in learning about LGBT people by establishing relationships
with them, heterosexuals become less threatened by their own sexuality; in normalizing ‘non-normative’ sexualities, the
threat of one’s own is diminished.
One straight, female senior discussed the shift in her own perceptions of LGBT people following the coming out of a
close friend as bisexual. Throughout the interview, the respondent acknowledged that while she had never espoused
especially homophobic beliefs, she perceived stereotypes about bisexuals to be accurate prior to her friend’s coming out.
Of the experience, she observes:
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
13
“And while it is an important part of who this person is, I don’t think that it is something that is out there constantly, that
has to be a point of discussion or…I mean, I certainly don’t think that those rules apply to my friend…and I think that’s
something that’s been eye opening and changing my views of it because this is somebody that I love, that I respect
dearly and I would hate to use such words that I thought previously about bisexuality to apply to this friend.”
Several respondents inferred that homophobia thrives on one-dimensional perceptions of LGBT people that cause the
sexual orientation of people who identify as such to be their dominant characteristic. One straight, male sophomore
discussed the impact of living with a gay roommate freshman year on his own homophobia: “…the person’s sexuality is
not necessarily their first defining feature in my mind anymore; so even though I still have opinions regarding whether it
might be the right or wrong thing to do, or whether it might be something I’d necessarily approve of, at the same time
there are certainly so many other things people are judged for and so many other things I would rather judge about you
or someone on…” While the undergraduate frequently used the terms ‘choice’ and ‘lifestyle’ throughout the interview,
his above statement nevertheless is indicative of a shift away from homophobia; his attitude may not be one of
acceptance, but it may be accurately deemed as one of tolerance. Thus, through experiential learning, the young man
ceased to be the respondent’s ‘gay roommate’ and became simply his ‘roommate,’ emphasizing his humanity over his
sexual orientation.
Language
While respondents referenced a few scattered incidents of vandalized property, instances of overt homophobia were
dominant in language. Homophobic slurs and the use of the term
‘gay’ to denote something as qualitatively negative indicate the
insidiousness of homophobia at Fairfield University. While
language is not as dramatic as an act of violence, it is damaging
in that it establishes a hostile climate for LGBT individuals.
A professor recognized the role of language in homophobia: “I
think language is certainly…the discourse of our everyday lives,
how things are talked about, says certainly much about
homophobia.” As such, the use of homophobic language is
indicative of an underlying problem; that LGBT may be debased in
casual conversation displays how permissive the climate is of
homophobia. It similarly establishes that while LGBT people may
be tolerated, they are certainly not accepted by the general
populace of the University and that is reflected in speech. The same professor observes: “It puts us in a position that we
fail to truly interrogate how we’re privileged, so we say ‘we’re kind to those who are not privileged’ and somehow we
think that gets us off the hook from seeing how in fact, we have constructed that system of privilege, that we’ve
constructed this system of for example, compulsory heterosexuality.”
A straight, male senior observes: “Some people are incredibly sensitive about it and if anybody even thinks the word
‘faggot,’ they will get incredibly and totally offended. It’s just different ways of dealing with it…it comes down to intent
and it’s the misperception of intent that I think is the real issue.” Thus, many are not even aware of the implications of
homophobic language and use it in casual interactions without giving much thought to its effect on others. Even those
who support LGBT individuals may not provide a safe, comfortable atmosphere in which to grow emotionally,
intellectually, and spiritually.
Social limitations impede the possibility of LGBT individuals effectively educating their peers on the problematic nature of
homophobic speech, regardless of intent. A gay, male senior and friend of the respondent mentioned above lamented:
Homophobic slurs and the use of the
term ‘gay’ to denote something as
qualitatively negative indicate the
insidiousness of homophobia at Fairfield
University. While language is not as
dramatic as an act of violence, it is
damaging in that it establishes a hostile
climate for LGBT individuals.
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
14
“… certain terms like just goofing with your friends and just being like ‘oh such and such is gay,’ ‘don’t be a fag.’ Just
stuff that’s meant to cause no derogatory harm. It’s like the same way as the ‘n word’ – people throw it around far too
easily and it becomes offensive because of the fact that, yes, it’s just language but it’s still meant to be a derogatory term
a lot of times the way they’re saying it, or they’re saying it about something being negative, which adds to it. Also, I
think, as being out, it’s been showing more and more how people will say something like that and then realize that I’m in
the room and they’ll almost point out the fact that I’m in the room. Like “oh, sorry – I didn’t mean to offend you,” which
can be uncomfortable in certain settings because you might be out, but it still singles you out in the corner…”
Thus, the intent of the language’s usage is ultimately irrelevant because of its inherently homophobic nature. The
negative effects of homophobic language remain, regardless of its use in one particular scenario due in large part to its
original intent. The respondent argued that his status as LGBT makes him especially vulnerable; in singling him out, even
in an apology of sorts, he becomes the target on the grounds of his sexual orientation. Such instances are indicative of
the prevalence of homophobia at Fairfield in normalizing hate speech in everyday conversation.
A few out respondents discussed verbal harassment on the basis of their sexual orientation. One out, male junior stated:
“I’ve been called ‘faggot’ to my face, point blank…I’ve had it
maliciously said to me.” Here, there is a clear movement away
from its usage in casual conversation and toward a
confrontational scenario with a potential for violence.
Given the potential for violence, the prevalence of homophobic
language fosters a climate of fear for LGBT individuals. A gay,
male alumnusi of the class of 2000 observes: “…there was an incident where somebody has scrawled the word "gay" on
my nametag on my dorm room door. Looking back, it's kind of stupid, but at the time, it did generate a great deal of fear
for me, and made me believe that there was a need to reinstate some sort of institutional "safety" to ensure that there
was a means to respond and prevent such occurrences in the future.” The alumnus’ fears were not unwarranted – the
Matthew Shepard murder happened during his junior year. The hate crime legitimized the student’s fears; him being
targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation made him vulnerable to a similar hate crime, especially given his level of
visibility because of his involvement with SAYSO (Students for the Acceptance of Your Sexual Orientation). If one does
not perceive one’s safety as ensured, then the result is a diminished drive to pursue social justice and work toward a
more inclusive University.
Coming Out and Being Out at Fairfield & the Necessity of Support Mechanisms
Respondents have established the difficulty in coming out and being out at Fairfield University. A number of LGBT
respondents and allies spoke about their own experiences as well as those of friends in addressing the issue. The
homophobic climate at the University coupled with a lack of vital support mechanisms has resulted in a
disproportionately trying coming out process and obvious sanctions for living an ‘out’ life.
The coming out process is rarely a simple one for most LGBT individuals; it is exacerbated by an unreceptive or
homophobic response on the part of those to whom the LGBT person is coming out. A gay, male senior reports that
freshman year was difficult due to him being “outcast” by friends following his coming out: “Then once it got around that I
was gay, it was just like I didn’t feel, not even welcome – I didn’t feel safe there.” A straight, female senior reported on
her bisexual friend’s coming out at Fairfield: “My one friend came out to other people and received very unsupportive and
negative feedback from people I don’t necessarily think it was expected from and it was hurtful and in trying to share
more of her feelings, it sort of blew up into something where this person just became stubborn and they were not
necessarily accepting of who my friend was and how my friend was coming out.” Thus, the coming out process at
Fairfield University is complicated by homophobic attitudes overwhelming the obligatory support of on-campus
“I’ve been called ‘faggot’ to my face,
point blank…I’ve had it maliciously said
to me.”
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
15
friendships. It is especially problematic that those who are meant to be the greatest sources of support, allow their
bonds to be severed by the culture of fear.
Given this culture of fear, it is understandable why two of the respondents cited coming out senior year or immediately
following graduation is a common occurrence at Fairfield. The alumni of the class of 2000 observed: “Many of even my
closest friends were people that I didn't find out about until years later, or just before or after graduation. What this reality
seems to point to is the fact that there is a bit of a culture of fear within the University. LGBT people on campus tend to
be afraid to be publicly recognized as being LGB or T.”
The disinclination of many LGBT students to come out until after graduation has negative implications for the existing out
population at Fairfield, in that diminished visibility leads to perpetuated homophobia and widespread ignorance. A gay,
male senior states: “…I just felt like if it wasn’t such a late blooming thing that happens all the time, it would show that it
was more accepted, so why are so many people waiting til the end of senior year to come out? It just shows that it’s not
a welcoming arms thing.” Therefore, people choosing not to be
out while at Fairfield both illustrates and exacerbates homophobia.
Homophobia is illustrated in the fear of coming out on the part of
LGBT individuals; it is exacerbated in the sense that visibility often
begets equality and diminished ignorance. A gay, male senior
lamented: “…being out at this campus is hard and it’s hard to
meet people so I often go to a gay bar over in Westport – that’s
like the only thing they have in this area, so it is hard in terms of…the amount of people on campus that are gay.” The
lack of a presence hinders a major component of the college experience, which is to meet people and perhaps develop a
romantic relationship with them.
The lack of an institutionalized support system was repeatedly cited by respondents as worsening the plight of LGBT
students, making it difficult to come out and be out at Fairfield University. Several respondents specifically discussed the
necessity of a ‘safe space,’ drawing on examples from University of Connecticut and University of Rhode Island.
Respondents maintained that a ‘safe space’ or an ‘intolerance free zone’ allowed for a heightened sense of comfort as
well as increased faith in the desire and ability of the administration to protect LGBT students and faculty.
One gay, male junior discussed his own efforts to implement an official support system for LGBT students that would
recognize the loneliness, isolation, and confusion experienced by those in the process of coming out. He explained that
it would be:
“…a kind of known network from orientation that LGBT students know exists of professors, of faculty and students who
are kind of a help network, or a these are the go-to guys, the go-to people if there’s an issue, if you’re having trouble with
something, if you need to rant to someone, things like that, that would be something. Kind of like the ‘cura personalis
mentoring program’ only include LGBT students into that…I think for…LGBT students to know that there are people that
are going through the same thing, that may be facing the same kind of difficulties, to know that they’re not alone. Like I
know I was closeted my freshman year and I know when I started coming out, it would have been nice to have some
established program, some kind of mentoring, something along the lines of that to talk to, to be a part of, to say this is
what happened to me, this is what I faced...”
Such a support system recognizes the difficulties faced by LGBT individuals during the coming out process. To establish
such a network mitigates the isolation felt when coming out. This is also in accordance with the observations made by
several straight allies, who expressed a desire to have had somewhere to send friends who were in the process of
“Then once it got around that I was gay, it
was just like I didn’t feel, not even
welcome – I didn’t feel safe there.”
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
16
coming out. These allies recognize their own shortcomings in terms of the difficulties faced in being heterosexual and
attempting to adequately relate to one coming to terms with one’s LGBT identity.
However, many argue that such a support system must be accomplished via official channels in order to effectively
address the issues. Of the difficulties faced by students coming out at Fairfield, a professor observes:
“There are students who we’ve had who’ve been bullied all the way through high school and come into college already in
a fragile psychological state, who are not necessarily out to their parents, who are financially dependent on their parents,
who don’t feel safe talking to their parents, and who come into a hostile campus environment….I have talked to some of
these students over the years and to tell you the truth, it breaks your heart because what are we providing? They’re
falling through the cracks; there is not even a public acknowledgment of their difficulties and there is certainly not any
kind of institutional support system for them. …that person needs a lot and this university is not providing it. And that, I
think, is a shame and a scandal. We are allowing people to continue to be hurt psychologically and to not reach their full
potential academically or personally. Some people drop out,
some people face severe problems with their families and then
have to drop out for financial reasons. I’ve had students who’ve
had to leave because once they came out to their parents, their
parents would no longer pay their tuition.”
While many of the hardships described above are common to the
coming out process, many of the factors mentioned are unique to
Fairfield University and institutions like it. Fairfield’s culture of fear
intensifies the stresses of coming out and the university, as an
institution, has failed to adequately address the needs of LGBT
students. Many respondents have indicated that it is the
responsibility of the University to determine the needs of LGBT
students and to act accordingly. However, the failure of the
University to act in the best interest of LGBT students is indicative
of underlying homophobia, intensifying feeling of marginalization, and demonization experienced by LGBT members of
the Fairfield University community.
Institutionalized Homophobia and its Perceived Connection to Fairfield’s Jesuit Identity
All but one respondent cited the prevalence of homophobia at Fairfield as the result of its Jesuit, and ultimately Roman
Catholic, identity. Respondents perceived this factor to have resulted in the presence of homophobia on an interpersonal
level, but on an institutional one as well. They perceived the institutionalized homophobia to be reflected in the policies,
actions, and inactions of the University.
Most respondents referenced the cancellation of the same-sex marriage forum of 2005 as indicative of a potentially
homophobic administration. A straight, female sophomore comments:
“…I think that’s very much disrespectful to the students who wanted that group to speak, not just members of the LGBT
community, but any student interested in the issue…I remember the Gender Bender Ball last year. It was scheduled…
the school had a legitimate excuse for postponing it…but you also kind of think to yourself, why didn’t any other events
that night get postponed or canceled? There’s a lot of things the administration does that are not outwardly supportive
of LGBT students and so can easily be construed as unsupportive of those students.”
The observations of the sophomore are important on a number of levels. First, the fact that the student was not even yet
enrolled at Fairfield at the time of the forum cancellation is telling because it means that the action is still a controversial
“There are students who we’ve had
who’ve been bullied all the way through
high school and come into college
already in a fragile psychological state,
who are not necessarily out to their
parents, who are financially dependent on
their parents, who don’t feel safe talking
to their parents, and who come into a
hostile campus environment…”
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
17
topic of conversation amongst students. Second, that the student was skeptical of the rescheduling of the Gender
Bender Ball last year illustrates a level of mistrust between the administration and the students with regard to its level of
support for LGBT issues. While there was a legitimate reason for rescheduling the event on the part of Alliance, it is
ultimately unimportant given the implications of student skepticism. A number of respondents, LGBT and non-LGBT
alike, perceived the cancellation of the forum to be a highly visible exercise of institutionalized homophobia and anticipate
similar recurrences in the near future.
A number of respondents cited Fairfield’s religious affiliation as reasoning for its Conservatism, in both the student body
and the administration. A professor observes: “It…is becoming more problematic partly because the University is
consciously developing its Catholic mission and the more it does that, the more that makes the supporting of gay faculty
more difficult because of the statements the Vatican has made in the past couple of years. I think that’s becoming more
overtly problematic.” The University’s religious affiliation enables institutionalized homophobia in the University’s Jesuit
identity dominating its status as an institution of higher learning, defined by openness and the free exchange of ideas. A
gay, male alum of the class of 2006 maintains: “…we definitely could address some of these issues and it’s definitely
highly sensitive in terms of a Catholic university, but it’s also out there – we can’t really ignore it.”
Yet many argue that ‘Catholic’ and ‘accepting’ need not be mutually exclusive terms. The above professor argues: “…
the disdain for LGBT students that this university has allowed itself to show, that that disdain is not consistent with any
Catholic teaching I know of and that somehow this has to be faced.”
Respondents frequently discussed the inaction of the administration as indicative of institutionalized homophobia. One
professor stated: “…if you’re going to have an inclusive atmosphere, it has to come from the top in the sense that the
president and the administration have to openly and repeatedly declare that they want an inclusive environment where
people are comfortable and they will not tolerate any name calling, or any rude behavior, or any epithets…” In other
words, the administration is obligated to take action if any significant change is to occur. Nevertheless, the University, as
an institution has failed to take any considerable steps in fostering a more inclusive atmosphere for LGBT students and
faculty, as well as the discussion of LGBT issues.
Policy Recommendations
Based on our year long study of LGBT issues at Fairfield University, we recommend a three-pronged approach to
address and diminish the existence of homophobia on both institutional and interpersonal levels. The proposals aim to
alleviate the stresses on LGBT students and faculty, educate the population, and integrate LGBT issues into existing
institutional structures. A common theme in many of these recommendations is the need to utilize existing resources in a
way that does not call for significant outlays of capital. Many of these recommendations, notably, also call for both
horizontal and vertical collaboration across various institutional bodies. While many of the following recommendations
are long-term objectives, others are more immediate.
It is not uncommon to hear individuals across campus say that while they may support equality for LGBT students, staff
and faculty, “this is Fairfield and you have to be careful. People will get very upset.” Interestingly, exactly who will get
upset has never been clearly articulated. In other words this fear may be largely imagined or simply generalized and
extrapolated to University donors, trustees or Catholic Church superiors. This fear of the “unnamed other” should not
deter decisive actions to make the Fairfield campus more inclusive. We should, in short, do the right thing and not simply
talk about “diversity” and “social justice,” but rather put these theories into practice.
Alleviate
One recommendation would be to alleviate the stresses on LGBT students and faculty through the establishment of a
number of support mechanisms on the institutional level.
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
18
✓ A Safe Space Program
The first means of achieving this end would be through the availability of a ‘safe space’ which may be defined as a
consistent location where LGBT students and allies may gather comfortably without fear of discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation and gender identity. The ‘safe space’ would be an intolerance free zone where the response to any
bigotry in language, behavior, or action would be the ejection of the offending party or parties. Individual faculty or staff
who volunteer to host a safe space must be trained in LGBT issues. Simply placing a rainbow sticker on an office door is
not effective. It is also recommended that a ‘safe space’ be located in the campus center, as it is an environment defined
by an emphasis on community amongst the students. Current offices including the Center for Multicultural Relations, the
Women’s Studies offices or other existing programs might initially host such a safe space.
✓ An LGBT Resource Center
A second means of achieving the aforementioned end would be the establishment of an LGBT resource center modeled
after that of DePaul University. The center may function as the safe space and would provide LGBT and questioning
individuals with a number of resources to alleviate the hardships posed by an LGB or T identity at Fairfield University.
These resources would include literature, psychological, and social support concerning issues of sexual orientation and
gender identity. A trained psychological professional will oversee the center with the assistance of students, either allied
or LGBT. Counseling services might be an appropriate initial location for this resource center again assuming that current
staff are trained adequately.
✓ Make LGBT Issues a Part of The University’s Multicultural Movement
Third, the power of simply using the phrase “LGBT” or “sexual minority” in conjunction with other, more traditional
minority groups (such as AHANA) during routine presentations, admissions material, and official University
communications (including speeches) should not be underestimated. As Fairfield continues to aggressively address
making our campus more diverse, we must focus broadly on what diversity means and include sexual minorities in these
programs and objectives. Language is important and euphemisms are not enough. Using direct and effective language
that makes it clear that sexual minorities are a respected part of the University community to internal and external
audiences sets a tone of tolerance among the student body.
Integrate
A second recommendation would be the integration of LGBT issues and considerations into existing institutional
structures.
✓ Housing Options for LGBT Students
The first means of achieving this end would be the recognition of LGBT individuals in housing. Currently, housing options
are defined by heterosexist policies that fail to account for the special needs of LGBT students. That is to say that
policies are structures with heterosexual dynamics in mind through the prohibition of co-habitation of members of the
opposite sex. This falls short on two levels. First, a lesbian or gay person may be more comfortable with a roommate of
the opposite sex, considering that same sex housing requirements presuppose heterosexuality, reinforcing notions of
compulsory heterosexuality. Second, current housing policies fail to provide the necessary flexibility for students who
may be or become transgender. In order to ensure abuses of the proposed system it is recommended that an
application and screening process to be implemented for LGBT students interested in alternative housing options. The
implementation of new housing policies would recognize the presence of LGBT students and account for their needs.
✓ Unisex Restrooms on Campus
A second means would be the addition of unisex restroom facilities to common areas including the campus center and
academic buildings. This would account for transgender and questioning students and faculty. Restroom facilities are
particularly sensitive areas for transgender individuals and by recognizing the necessity of flexibility while in the transitional
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
19
or questioning phase, the university would allow for a more inclusive atmosphere, even on the simplest level. While there
may not be a visible transgender community currently, preemptive action allows for a more inclusive atmosphere by
demonstrating the institution’s commitment to diversity.
✓ LGBT Programming
A third means would be the inclusion of LGBT and allies programming in student life events. While there is an existing
Alliance that sponsors campus-wide events, these events appeal to a minority of the student population, attended
primarily by Alliance members and acquaintances of those involved. It is recommended that FUSA (Fairfield University
Student Association) sponsors events concerning LGBT issues, appealing to the greater Fairfield University community,
LGBT, allied, and predominantly disinterested. In bridging the gap between individuals of all sexual-political affiliations,
the university enables students to seek common ground and achieve mutual understanding, thus diminishing
homophobia and allowing for a more inclusive campus climate.
Educate
A third recommendation is based upon the principle of ignorance as the root of homophobia; as such, education is an
invaluable tool to ameliorating epistemic ignorance.
✓ F.Y.E. Training
The first means of achieving this end would be the inclusion of LGBT issues in F.Y.E. (First-Year Experience). F.Y.E. is
required for incoming students and is typically taken by undergraduate students during the first semester of their
freshman year; it aims to ease freshmen in their transition to college. One of the subjects currently discussed by F.Y.E.
facilitators is that of diversity; however, issues surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity have been inadequately
addressed. It is recommended that F.Y.E. debunk myths surrounding LGBT people including that of ‘choice’ and
establish a zero tolerance policy for homophobia. In doing so, students will become better acquainted with the realities
of residing in a community of living and learning which includes sexual diversity in addition to racial, ethnic, socio-economic,
and religious diversity, operating in conjunction with the University’s diversity initiative.
✓ Sexuality Studies Academic Minor
The second means of realizing the education initiative would be the implementation of an independent academic
program in sexuality studies. The academic program would consist of an interdisciplinary minor and a number of course
offerings concerning LGBT issues and would require two new faculty lines in addition to other resources (funding, space,
etc.). This would allow for those interested in LGBT issues to enrich existing knowledge and for others to learn about the
implications of LGBT identity. Furthermore, the addition of a sexuality studies minor would recognize LGBT identities as a
legitimate form of diversity by granting them equality in the academic sector, similar to racial, ethnic, and religious
academic minors. The program may be modeled after a number of related programs, especially those of the Catholic
DePaul University and Jesuit institutions Santa Clara University and the University of San Francisco. The implementation
of a program studying sexuality and gender would augment Jesuit pedagogy in its pursuit of social justice and emphasis
upon educating the whole person. It is similarly in line with the mission statement of Fairfield University which “…invites
students of all traditions to a maturing of faith, self knowledge, respect for the dignity of themselves and others, a
devotion to justice, a commitment to serving the poor, and a passion for truth, reflection, and lifelong learning.”
✓ Education Across University Offices/Divisions
Third, sensitivity training must be conducted in order to better educate University staff and faculty in better understanding
the unique challenges faced by LGBT individuals. From Public Safety to Public Relations, we simply must do a better job
communicating the essence of the University’s mission. Following the marriage forum cancellation it was unacceptable
that no press release issued by the University stated: “Fairfield University does not discriminate based on sexual
orientation and values individuals of all sexual orientations.” No gay or lesbian faculty were contacted by the Office of
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
20
Media Relations and two years later no stories have emerged from this office that would help change widespread
perception in the greater academic community that Fairfield is a homophobic campus. This is bad PR. We believe with
proper opportunities for education such blatant mis-steps could be avoided. Other opportunities exist as well. As an
example, would the University’s advancement office not benefit from cultivating an LGBT alumni group as many other
Universities have?
Conclusions
This report has provided significant data about the climate on the Fairfield University campus for LGBT individuals.
Despite these findings, it is important to note that every study possesses its weaknesses. First, participants could have
misunderstood the nature of the questions within our questionnaire. Also, participants may not have given their full
attention to the study, thus leading to inaccurate self-reports. Finally, the questionnaire was based upon the measures of
self-report. As mentioned earlier in the report, society advocates political correctness. Acts of overt prejudice and
discrimination are deemed socially unacceptable. When people describe their beliefs, biases, and preferences through
self-report explicitly, they usually do not truly recognize their subconscious, immediate attitudes toward a particular group
(i.e. racial minorities, women, religious minorities, LGBT individuals).
To examine whether people were influenced by social pressures, we are currently measuring an individual’s implicit
attitudes toward LGBT individuals through psychological tests. According to one study, explicit measurements of one’s
attitude toward lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals do not necessarily reflect one’s unconscious
associations (Steffens, 2003). These subconscious attitudes will be measured through a word/image association test
called the IAT, or the Implicit Association Test. This test measures one’s preference for groups of people through his or
her reaction times of associating “gay” with “good” or “bad” OR “straight” with “good” or “bad.” Other parts of this
project are also extending the scope of the qualitative data. Like any interesting research question there is more work to
be done in understanding and addressing the questions that initially sparked our interest in this topic
In many ways our narrative about sexual minorities at Fairfield is unremarkable. Many communities, nations, cultures and
certainly campuses struggle over questions of equality for LGBT individuals. This study is the first in our institutional
history to explore the nature of the campus climate for LGBT individuals. We strongly suggest that further research be
conducted on this topic and that Fairfield acts in a proactive way. The pursuit of further research reflects St. Ignatius of
Loyola’s ideal of “the magi” or “searching for the more” within our lives. Some suggestions include measuring attitudes of
faculty, staff, administration, and other key figures in the Fairfield University community. There is an opportunity here for
Fairfield University to be a leader in advocating equality and we sincerely hope that administrators, faculty and students
alike heed this call for justice.
As members of the Fairfield University community, we represent a small microcosm of what the larger society deems as
valuable and invaluable. While society is slowly recognizing LGBT people as an “invisible minority,” it is the responsibility
of this community to instigate social change. The Jesuit principle of “men and women for others” beseeches that the
Fairfield University community advocate for social reform. Jesuit teaching encourages the whole community to adopt an
“agree contra” (or “to go against”) approach to examine what is “normal” versus “deviant.” Once we as a community
examine our institutional history, our academic integrity, and most of all, our personal behaviors – we can fully engage in
“cura personalis” and “care for the whole person” including the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender student. This is
when Fairfield as an institution can truly execute full intellectual, emotional, growth for all its students.
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
21
References
Arnold, K., & King, I. C. (Eds.). (1997). College student development and academic life: Psychological, intellectual, social,
and moral issues. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Buchanan, W. (2006, April 27). Most gay students report verbal harassment: 17 percent physically persecuted at school,
rights group finds. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/27/ BAG4UIFVF01.DTL
Evans, N. J. (2001). The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in university communities. In A. R. D’Augelli &
C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 181-
196). New York: Oxford University Press.
Evans, N. J. and Herriott, T. K. (2004). Freshmen impressions: How investigating the campus climate for LGBT students
affected four freshmen students. Journal of College Student Development 45(3), 316-332.
Gortmaker, V. J. & Brown, R. D. (2005). Out of the college closet: Differences in perceptions and experiences among out
and closeted lesbian and gay students. College Student Journal, 606-619.
Jurgens, J. C., Schwitzer, A. M., & Middleton, T. (2004). Examining attitudes toward college students with minority sexual
orientations: Findings and suggestions. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 19(1), 57-75.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, Calif
ornia.
Liang, C. T. H., & Alimo, C. (2005). The impact of white heterosexual students’ interactions on attitudes toward lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people: A longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development 46(3), 237-250.
Love, P. G., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring the spiritual experiences of
lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student Development 46(2), 193-209.
Miceli, M.S. (2002). Gay, lesbian, bisexual youth. In D. Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Lesbian and Gay
Studies (pp. 199-213). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Plous, S. (Ed.). (2003). Understanding prejudice and discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenbloom, S. (2006, September 14). Is this campus gay-friendly? The New York Times. Retrieved September 15,
2006, from http://nytimes.com/2006/09/14/fashion/14 guide.html
Steffens, M. C., & Buchner, A. (2003). Implicit association test: Separating transsituationally stable and variable
components of attitudes toward gay men. Experimental Psychology 50(1), 33-48.
Stevens, R. A. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college environment. Journal of College Stu-dent
Development 45(2), 185-206.
Fairfield University
The Collegiate Closet
22