A Case Study Presentation: Addressing the Needs of the University of Toledo’s LGBT Community

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

2. Methodology: Faculty and Staff Interviewed: Michelle Martinez – Dean of Students Jo Campbell – Director of Residence Life Anthony Kapp – Director of LGBT Initiative Sabina Elizondo-Serratos – Director of Latino Initiative Jeffery Witt – Director of UT Student Recreation Center School Comparison: Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals Eastern Michigan University Colgate University Cleveland State University Theoretical Application: Anthony D’Augelli - Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Development Sullivan’s Synthesis

3. WHAT is currently being done: • Anthony Kapp is the Director of the LGBT Initiative • The LGBT Initiative was instituted at start of 2009 • The LGBT Initiative falls under Dean of Students Office and is located in Multicultural Affairs Suite

4. What is currently being done: • The current budget for the Initiative is $3,000 • Current programs include: Film Series, Speakers, History Month in October, UT Pride week • A recent Open House was held to collect resources • The Initiative works in conjunction with Spectrum

5. UT LGBT InitiativeMission Statement: The Office of LGBT Initiatives develops, delivers, and coordinates programs and services to provide outreach, support, advocacy, and community building for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning (LGBTQ), and other undergraduate and graduate students who self-identify as non-heterosexual, and their allies.  In alignment with the university’s core values, the office collaborates with offices and programs campus-wide to serve LGBTQ students and assess and respond to student and community needs.  

6. What We Know to be True • A sense of connection is integral to persistence and student satisfaction • 54% of gay male college students participate in an institution’s LGBT organization • Three main problems faced by gay students in higher education include: (a) bigotry, (b)ignorance, and (c) silence

7. What Are Other Institutions Doing?

8. Website: http://www.lgbtcampus.org/ Members: The Directory consists over 150 schools across the United States. Mission: The combined vision and mission of the Consortium is to achieve higher education environments in which lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, faculty, staff, administrators, and alumni have equity in every respect. Our goals are to support colleagues and develop curriculum to professionally enhance this work; to seek climate improvement on campuses; and to advocate for policy change, program development, and establishment of LGBT Office/Centers.

10. For inclusion into the Directory, the program must have a head of the program whose position meets the following criteria: • The position must be at least 50% time (20 hours per week). • The position must be filled by a professional staff person OR a graduate assistant. • The position's job description must include primary responsibility for providing LGBT services. • Graduate assistants' job descriptions must be solely dedicated to LGBT services. *Undergraduate student-run and volunteer-run offices are not listed in the Directory.

11. Ideas from other schools: GLBT Host Program for Prospective Students Out @ BGSU Hosts Training and Awareness Programs “Out Write” Newsletter “Big Gay Weekend”

12. PEER INSTITUTION COMPARISON

13. A comparison of UT & EMU

14. The LGBTR at EMUhttp://www.emich.edu/lgbtrc/ • Named one of the top schools in the nation for support of LGBT community • Maintains a blog • Offers employment to students • Signature events including …. • Coming Out/Being Out Support Group • Lavender Spring Celebration

15. THEORIES RELATED TO LGBT IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Anthony D’Augelli’s Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development Vivienne Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Development Patricia Sullivan’s synthesis of Cass and Hardiman & Jackson’s Racial Identity Development Model

16. Anthony D’Augelli’s Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development

17. The 6 Identified Interactive Processes

18. Phase 1: Exiting Heterosexual Identity • One’s awareness that spiritually, emotionally, and physically attraction to the same sex. • Recognition that there feelings are different from the rest of society

19. Phase 2: Developing a personal LGB Identity Status • Creating a sense of personal stability • Challenge myths internally about LGB sexual orientation

20. Phase 3: Developing a LGB Social Identity • Create a social network • Associate with people with similar orientations

21. Phase 4: Becoming a LGB Offspring • Disclosing identity • Parents • Family • Others with that support

22. Phase 5: Developing a LGB Intimacy Status • Establishing intimate relationship • According to D’Augelli most challenging to individuals • Lack of role models/scripts • Cultural discrimination

23. Phase 6: Entering a LGB Community • Making commitments to social change and political action. • Some individuals don't pursue this community because it comes with high personal risk such as • Mental and Physical threats • Losing job • Losing housing

24. Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Development

25. Cass’s 6 Stages • Prior to first stage individuals identify as heterosexual • Progression influenced by social factors and historical setting

26. Stage 1: Identity Confusion • First awareness of homosexual feelings, thoughts or attractions • Positive reactions – pursue more information, move to next stage • Negative reactions – Foreclosure

27. Stage 2: Identity Comparison • Accept possibility of homosexual identity • Seek out other LGBT individuals and other resources • Negative reaction – maintain heterosexual front, explain away homosexual attractions, attempt to change (internalized homophobia)

28. Stage 3: Identity Tolerance • Acknowledge LGBT identity • Seek out other LGBT students/staff • Success of these contacts can influence the way they feel about their orientation

29. Stage 4: Identity Acceptance • Place positive connotation on LGBT identity • Social atmosphere dictates to what extent students can express their LGBT identity • Some only out to friends, some pass at heterosexual, others are more public

30. Stage 5: Identity Pride • Focus primarily on LGBT issues • LGBT identity has foremost importance • Minimize contact with heterosexual individuals • Publicly and vocally out

31. Stage 6: Identity Synthesis • Move away from hetero/homosexual dichotomy • Judge others based on personality and not just sexual orientation • Public and private identities become congruent • Sexual identity seen as just one part of self

32. Defining the Sexual Minority • Patricia Sullivan combines Cass with Hardiman and Jackson’s “Racial Identity Development” model • Provides framework for students from both dominant and target group to see LGBT students as a protection minority • Sullivan provides tips for intervention as well

33. Stage 1: Naïveté • Little or no awareness of sexual orientation • Socialized into heternormativity but not yet afraid of “deviant” behavior

34. Stage 2: Acceptance of dominant ideology • Heterosexuals: take identity for granted; aggression or violence towards LGBT individuals possible • LGBT individuals: Cass Stage 1 & 2; See straight orientation as right and normal; actively reject “gay” things and act straight • Intervention: confront stereotypes; make campus environment safe; include LGBT issues in curriculum, staff trainings, programming, non-discrimination policies, judicial response to prejudice, and counseling support

35. Stage 3: Resistance • Heterosexuals: recognize and challenge heterosexism and homophobia; adopt appreciation of LGBT culture • LGBT individuals: Cass stages 3,4 & 5; need LGBT community; conflict between LGBT identity and dominant culture felt strongly • Intervention: Ally programs; safe zone; encourage students to use energy and anger to challenge and change campus climate; counseling for dominant and target groups; student groups and LGBT resources

36. Stage 4: Redefinition • All students seek self-definition of orientation, rather than submitting to norms • Heterosexuals: need to reclaim their orientation positively, separate from heterosexism • LGBT individuals: self-segregate; may stay at this stage if interaction with the dominant group is negative • Intervention: Continue education plans, programming on gender, sexuality in general, and healthy heterosexuality helpful here for dominant group

37. Stage 5: Internalization • Integration of “newly defined values, beliefs, and behaviors into all aspects of life.” • Heterosexuals: Healthy identity accepted; recognize what can be gained by continuing to dismantle heterosexism • LGBT individuals: Cass’s stage 6; able to integrate w/LGBT and allies; determine (over a life time) how much their orientation plays into their total identity

38. Weaknesses of the theories • Two separate developmental paths • Critical difference from other minorities: LGBT identity is not VISIBLE to self or others • Identity development is a mixture of self-categorizations related to both personal and social identities

39. How to Make the Center More Welcoming • Make An Identification-Free Space • Don't Forget About Students of Color • Avoid Overly Public Spaces • Avoid Physical Spaces Not Equally Welcoming To All Students

40. Recommendations • Survey of student body—confidential needs assessment • Survey faculty and staff • Increase budget (if supported by student body survey) • Community mixers • Bridge transition from high school to college • Be clear about Residence Life accommodations for transgendered students

41. Recommendations • Offer an anonymous support group through Counseling Services • Provide internet-based support and groups (Facebook, Blogs, AIM) • Make students aware of the open-door policy at the LGBT Center • Make website more visible/accessible • Offer LGBT studies as a diversity class option

42. Recommendations • Collaborative programming • First-Year Experience/Orientation inclusive of LGBT issues • LGBT Resource Professionals • Apply for membership in the Consortium of Higher Education

43. Recommendations • Have a clear procedure for reporting LGBT bias, harassment, and hate crimes • Consider offering LGBT student scholarships • Consider attending LGBT National Conferences

44. Questions?

45. Resources • Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-333). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • D’Emillo, J. (1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university. New York: Routledge. • Sanlo, R. Ed. (1998). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. • Tierney, W. G. (1992, March/April). Building academic communities of difference: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus. Change, 41-46. • Wall, V. A. & Evans, N. J. Eds. (2000). Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation issues on campus. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.

46. Judith Herb College of Education, The University of Toledo Spring 2009 Collaborative Initiative between The Higher Education Program and the Division of Student Affairs