The Influence Of Religiosity On The Attitudes Towards Homosexuality Among

College Students
Anastasiia Kuptsevych

Minnesota State University – Mankato

May 2014

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERAURE AND THEORY

Factors Influencing Attitudes towards Homosexuality

Olson, Cadge and Harrison (2006) argued that homosexuality is a major component of the ‘moral
values’ discourse in America. According to this review of literature in order to better understand the
issue of homosexuality researchers focused mostly on what people think of homosexuality and what
affects the way they view homosexuality. Multiple factors influence attitudes towards homosexuality
according to past and current literature. Factors such as economic growth and the increase of inequality
bring intolerance towards homosexuality (Anderson and Fetner 2008). A person with politically liberal
orientation holds more positive attitudes towards homosexuality, whereas a person with politically
conservative orientation more negative attitudes (Lottes and Kuriloff 1992). Gender and gender roles
(Furnham and Saito 2009; Whitley 2001), race and ethnicity (Louis and Porter 1990; Schulte and Battle
2004) and interaction with a homosexual person (Adolfsen, Iedema and Keuzenkamp 2010; Hans, Kasey
and Kimberley 2012) are other substantial factors that have an impact on attitudes towards
homosexuality. Age and education are also considered by researchers to be important factors
influencing attitudes towards homosexuality (Herek 1988; Olson et. al. 2006). Researcher as well looked
at micro and macro effects of religion and a survival vs. selfexpressive cultural orientation on the
attitudes towards homosexuality (Adamczyk and Pitt 2009).

https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=etds
LESBIANISM IN SPORT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FEMALE TEAM SPORT
COLLEGE ATHLETE AND THE FEMALE TEAM SPORT RECREATIONAL PLAYER
TRACY LAURA JAYNES

1984

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

To date there has been little or no research investigating the issues of homophobia and sexual preference
behavior among female athletes. A pioneering study dealing with homophobia and lesbians was completed in 1982
by Sharon Guthrie, a Master's degree student in physical education at Long Beach State University. Her study
attempted to determine the degree of homophobia among female college athletes, physical education majors, and
non-physical education majors, and to examine the effects of this phenonmenon on women in sports and physical
education. However, it did not make any reference to the percentage of lesbian behavior among the populations.
Guthrie's study is the only one of its kind that measures homophobia pertaining specifically to lesbians. Also, it is
the sole investigation employing the female college athlete as a studied population in this realm. Prior to this study
all homophobic inquiries (Berry & Marks, 1969; Brown & Amoroso, 1975; Churchill, 1976; Hood, 1973; Hudson &
Ricketts, 1980; Lehne, 1976; Levitt & Klassen, 1974; lumbys 1976; & Morin & Garfinkle, 1978) were directed
towards homosexuals in general, specifically the male population. To get a truer scale pertaining specifically to
lesbians, Guthrie created the Index of Attitudes Towar~ lesbians (IAL). The IAL is a 26-item summated category
partition scale which is a modified version of the original instrument developed by Hudson & Ricketts (1980) and
measures homophobia.

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4344&context=open_access_etds
IDEALIZED PARTNER PREFERENCE IN HOMOSEXUAL MALES
Tom Boyden

December 1980

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Factors Influencing Homosexual Attraction A common belief is that gay men are attracted to those who
are young. Observers have commented that the gay world is largely youth-oriented (e.g., Hoffman,
1968, p. 52; Simon & Gagnon, 1967; Weinberg, 1970). Harry and DeVall (1978a) note that the gay
subculture is made up mostly of single men, and as such reflects the emphasis on youthfulness and
attractiveness that is found in singles groups. However, the data that Harry and DeVall present suggest a
modification of the idea that youthfulness is invariably a determinant of homosexual attraction. The
largest proportion of their gay male subjects (44%) reported a preference for a sexual partner their own
age, while roughly equal numbers preferred someone younger (26%), or older (23%). Further analysis
showed that the youngest age group (18-24) most often wanted someone older, while the older groups
(starting at age 35) were the most likely to prefer a younger partner. A survey of a thousand gay men
(Spada, 1979) produced a very similar finding in the area of age preference. 2 3 About 40% of the
respondents preferred a partner their own age, 27% someone younger, and 28% someone older. Again,
it was the youngest age group that indicated the greatest interest in older partners, and vice versa. Of
course this does not imply that the extreme age groups are attracted to one another. Westwood (1960,
p. 117) notes that sexual attraction did not seem to extend very far outside his respondents' own age
group. A second approach to the question of age preference has considered the subject's personality
pattern, in terms of masculinity and femininity. Two studies (Freund, Langevin, Laws, & Serber, 1974;
Freund & Langevin, 1976) have shown that males who are attracted to adult males score higher in
feminine gender identity than those who are attracted to immature males. When age was considered in
relative terms, Haist and Hewitt (1974) found that the more feminine gay men preferred partners older
than themselves. They also report a corresponding but weaker tendency for their more masculine
subjects to prefer partners younger than themselves. Besides relative age, a second characteristic
important in homosexual attraction is masculinity of the partner. Men with a high degree of masculinity
are generally seen as desirable, and effeminate men are very undesirable to the majority of gay men.
This effect has been 4 reported in the United States (Bell & Weinberg, 1978, p. 92; Harry & DeVall,
1978b, p. 3) and in Great Britain (Westwood, 1960, p. 119). Masculinity also occupies a prominent place
in a theory of homosexual attraction proposed by Tripp (1975) . His theory of the establishment of either
the heterosexual preference or the homosexual preference relies heavily on the notion of
complementarity. A person is presumed to be attracted to one sex or the other because of a need for
the qualities which that sex possesses. In Tripp's economically-oriented terms, a pre-homosexual boy
feels a deficit of masculinity in his own personality, and seeks to "import" masculinity ir. closeness with
other males (pp. 80-87). Such a person may turn out to be quite masculine himself, but in the process of
acquiring a sexual preference, male qualities take on an erotic significance. (See Appendix A for a further
discussion of the relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity.) The critical issue, then, is
not the level of masculinity in one's personality, but the level of masculinity desired in one's personality.
Apart from Tripp's theory, the studies cited above have posed the question of attractiveness in sexual
terms. The implication is that sex is the sole basis of homo- 5 sexual attraction, to the exclusion of other
factors that go into building a relationship. As Simon and Gagnon (1967) suggest, researchers as well as
~he general public tend to think of gays as people whose motives are primarily sexual. In contrast, the
present study investigates the factors that attract gay men to one another in the context of an on-going
relationship.

https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4203&context=luc_theses
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HETEROSEXUAL BIAS AMONG COUNSELOR-TRAINEES

Audrey A. Glenn, M. A.

The Ohio State University 1982

Review of Related Literature

The intent of the following review is to put into historical context the psychological study of homosexuality, as
well as to elaborate upon and document more thoroughly the rationale offered for the current investigation. In
summary, these rationale include: 1) the need for further research focused on psychotherapists' and counselor
trainees' attitudes toward homosexuality (i.e., heterosexual bias); and 2) the effect which heterosexual bias in
counselors may have on clients. Support for this second rationale will include a discussion of values in
counseling/psychotherapy and interpersonal attractiveness as they relate to counselor-client interactions. Study of
Homosexuality: An Historical Perspective Psychoanalysis and Behavior Therapy Because of the powerful influence
of both psychoanalysis and behavior therapy on current psychological theory and practice, it is revealing to trace
the stance of these two forces on homosexuality. 14 Despite the fact that 19th century psychiatric theorists
regarded homosexuals as "perverted", prone to moral insanity, and victims of psychopathological or neuropathic
conditions (Westpahl, cited in Bullough, 1974), Freud did not hold such views. Freud postulated that all people are
originally bi-sexual, i.e., all people are capable of responding sexually to both members of their own and of the
opposite sex. In a 1935 letter to a despairing American mother of a gay son, Freud wrote: Homosexuality is
assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as
illness; consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.
(Freud, 1951, p.786) Although Freud's attitude was a departure from that of his times, he still postulated a view of
homosexuality as less mature and perhaps as less healthy than heterosexuality. Freud's followers highlighted that
aspect of his thinking which considered homosexuality an arrest of normal development. Thus, psychoanalytic
thinking continued to develop in the direction of exploring the pathology of the homosexual person. For example,
Thompson (1947) viewed homosexuality as a "developmental mistake". Blanck and Blanck (1974), contemporary
psychoanalysts, have defined homosexuality as a "perversion" which is 15 properly classified within the range of
borderline personality structure. It is important to note that although a few writers theorized specifically about
lesbianism, most of the post-Freudian literature equated homosexualilty with "male homosexuality". Thus
differences between gay men and lesbians have been obscured and this assumption is recognized as a major flaw
in past theory and research. Behavior therapists have aimed primarily at reducing or eliminating homosexual
behavior via aversive procedures (Davison and Wilson, 1973) and have, as a result, been the target of protests
regarding the psychological treatment of gay men and lesbians. Use of aversive therapy has been based on the
theory that the expectancy of punishment from opposite-sex stimulus figures is the dynamic which underlies
homosexuality (Clark and Epstein, 1972). While the traditional model of behavior therapy for homosexuality has
been one of repression, some contemporary behavior therapists are becoming more aware of the "undue and
unjustifiable" reliance on aversion therapy and the behaviorists' goal of exclusive heterosexual behavior (Davison
and Wilson, 1973).

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1487172943427338&disposition=inline
Career Dynamics of Counselor Trainee Stereotyping: Bias Toward Physical Ability,
Social Class, Gender, and Race of Clients
J. Stephen Neynaber

Western Michigan University

June 1992

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

History of Research in Counselor Stereotyping

Tagiuri and Petrullo (1958) introduced a collection of writings by 26 psychologists, sociologists, and
anthropologists who were engaged in experimental research, since the end of World War II, within an
emerging division of psychology referenced as "person perception." The authors had collectively
researched and documented the existence of interpersonal stereotyping behavior, social attitudes and
attitude adjustment, and cognitive patterns of relational selection and preference. Two decades later,
members of the American Psychological Association sparked expanded research in person perception
psychology when they addressed ethical implications and challenges associated with cross-cultural
counseling. Allen E. Ivey (Sue, 1981) referenced the guidelines established at the 1973 Vail Conference
of the American Psychological Association, That the provision of professional services to persons of
culturally diverse backgrounds not competent in understanding and providing professional services to
such groups shall be considered unethical. It shall be equally unethical to deny such persons professional
services because the present staff is inadequately prepared. It shall therefore be the obligation of all
service agencies to employ competent persons or to provide continuing education for the present staff
to meet the service needs of the culturally diverse population it serves, (p. vii) For two decades since the
publishing of the Vail Conference guidelines, counselor education researchers have continued to refine
counselor education models which correct cross-cultural bias. A special issue of the Journal of
Counseling & Development. 1991, September-October, 2Q (1), which focused on multiculturalism,
featured 37 articles which were selected from more than 60 submitted proposals (p. 16 Reproduced
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4). This
journal issue affirms that contemporary counselor educators have continued to expand the theoretical
frameworks of earlier researchers by focusing attention on the development of methodologies which
will improve counselor competence in neutralizing the effects of cross-cultural bias. Following are a few
examples of writings in this collection. Dobbins and Skillings (1991) rate professional competence in
terms of a counselor's world view, and they assimilate cultural groups in terms of power status as
compared with a reference group of a dominant culture (e.g., White males). Midgette and Meggert
(1991) espouse the abandonment of Anglo-conformity type of instruction which is traditionally taught in
a separate course-only model. They propose a more programmatic model which includes, "a deliberate
attempt to infuse multicultural research into all course work, counseling practica and internships" (p.
140). Paul Pedersen (1991) defines multiculturalism in terms of a generic, "4th force" in counseling,
complementary to three other forces of human behavior which he identifies as psychodynamic,
behavioral, and humanistic (p. 11). These expanded definitions of multiculturalism have provided
additional examples of cross-cultural counseling which include, but are not limited to, counselor-client
differences in religion, gender, personality, physical ability, and social-class. They also open the door to
more complex exploration of multidimensional identities and oppressions of clients. Reynolds and Pope
(1991) note, Nature does not create discrete categories of human traits or identities. People create
these categories to simplify the complexity of multiple identities and multiple realities. There are many
women who are also people of color, many people of color who are also lesbian, gay, or bisexual; many
lesbian, gay, or bisexual people who may also have physical disabilities; and so on. (p. 175) Worell (1986)
warns that when therapeutic strategies for single-mother client populations, represented by never
married, previously married, and Lesbians, are not expanded beyond the psychological processes of the
single mother, the failure to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission. address the larger context of her social situations of the abject poverty,
societal oppression, and victimization will further contribute to her despair. According to Stillson, O'Neil,
and Owen, Most research on gender-role conflict has been conducted on White, middleclass men who
have a college education. Race and class rarely have been incorporated into research designs. Tolson
(1977) proposed that onedimensional masculinity (i.e., White middle class) is too simplistic, (p. 459)
Finally, Newman, Fuqua, and Seaworth (1989) note that, "when clinicians have more complex and varied
frameworks for conceptualizing individual cases, clients are more likely to receive differentiated and
more appropriate treatment (p. 228).

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2980&context=dissertations
College Students’ Attitudes towards Homosexuality

Meghan Lehman & Megan Thornwall

Literature Review
The search engine Ebscohost was used to review the literature on differing factors contributing to
college students’ attitudes towards homosexuality. The literature found on this topic mainly focused on
traditional aged college students with the average sampling age ranging from 18 to 25. In one previous
study, religious affiliations were examined in a nationally represented survey of 1,610 legal adult citizens
that resulted in a gap representing college students. In one study, pairs of twins, ages ranging from 18 to
25 were surveyed studying the influence of genetics on homophobic tendencies. This study was
conducted in Australia, however; the information provided by this study was crucial to our research on
family and the connection to attitudes towards homosexuality. The studies focused on similar variables
such as gender, sexual orientation, age, family and peer influences, religion, and mass media (Calzo &
Ward, 2009; Verweij, Shekar, Zietsch, Eaves, Bailey, Boomsma, & Martin, 2008; Olson, Cadge, &
Harrison, 2006; Raiz, 2006). Calzo and Ward (2009) examined the effects that the media had upon an
individual’s attitude towards homosexuality. This included looking at what types of television shows and
movies one watched, the types of magazines one read, and how much exposure one had to the media.
They found that specific genres of media, such as prime time television shows or magazines one prefers,
such as teen magazines, may have the strongest influence upon a person’s perception of homosexuality.
The more a person consumed a specific type of media genre, the more the person’s perception may be
influenced. However, even when one consumed large amounts of media it did not imply that one would
become more or less accepting of homosexuality. The study also found that the more media exposure
males had, the more they moved toward flexible gender roles, which reflected a more accepting
attitude toward homosexuality. Exposure to media appeared to 121 lessen the gap between male and
female a 122 Journal of Student Research less accepting of homosexuality. Traditionally, homosexuality
is opposed by most religious affiliations and there tends to be a clear message from the congregational
leader that homosexual behavior is not accepted. When congregations express concern about moral
values, individuals are much more likely to oppose gay marriage. All American religion is not entirely
opposed to homosexuality and peoples’ opinions toward homosexuality do tend to vary according to
one’s degree of religiosity. This article demonstrated that one’s religiosity influences a person’s opinion
but is not the only factor in forming attitudes towards homosexuality. Another piece of literature by Raiz
(2006), examined the effects of gender role beliefs, peer support, and exposure to the gay community
on the formation of college students’ development for support of homosexuality. Results showed that
contact with a homosexual acquaintance was associated with increased support for rights, while having
a roommate that was openly gay was associated with decreased support for rights. Students who
believed their family and friends to be more accepting were also more supportive. Students that viewed
homosexuality as being a life style choice or students who considered themselves to be highly religious
were less likely to be supportive of rights for homosexual people. The findings suggested that there is a
relationship between family and friends attitudes towards homosexuality and a student’s understanding
and acceptance of what their religion has taught them. Also, how students perceive gender roles and
the amount of contact students have had with the gay community played a part in the development of
overall attitudes towards homosexuality. The literature has established that religion, peers, family, mass
media, and interaction with homosexual individuals contributed to the formation of attitudes towards
homosexuality. Although the articles supported that all of these factors affected ones’ attitudes, none of
the studies have taken a comprehensive look at which factors had the greatest 123 influence. Since
college is an influential period in many individuals’ lives, it is important to examine what aspects people
are introduced to that ultimately shape their opinions on controversial issues such as homosexuality.
Through this study, researchers hope to advance the current literature by analyzing if there are
significant gender differences regarding which of these variables or combination of variables is most
influential upon the development of these attitudes among college students.

file:///C:/Users/2/Downloads/CollegeStudentsAttitudes.pdf
Popular Pedagogy in Canadian Television: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis of
Trailer Park Boys
Andrew Haddow, B.A. (Hons.)

2017

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In preparing this literature review, what became the
most apparent theme was the lack of sources that combined television, gender, national identity, and
discourse analysis from an educational standpoint. This problem is a compounded one, since television
studies, as a field, is often not given as much attention as that of film or literature, and that, more
specifically, Canadian television studies is not given as much attention as that of the United States. I
have previously written about the ways in which Canadian viewers are overwhelmed by American
content (Haddow, 2015), and therefore, analyses dealing with American television can and should be
considered relevant to Canadian studies. However, this should not lead to a neglect of analysis of
Canadian sources. These issues, coupled with the specific type of intersectional analysis with which I
would like to engage Trailer Park Boys (Clattenburg, 2001), and Canadian television as a whole,
represent the significant gap in the reviewed literature – and therefore, the justification for the present
educational research. Created by series director Mike Clattenburg (2001), Trailer Park Boys is a
mockumentary-style comedy that follows the daily lives and musings of the residents of an Atlantic-
Canadian trailer park. The criminal recidivism of male leads Julian, Ricky, and Bubbles, is interspersed
with confessional segments in which the characters speak directly to the camera (Clattenburg, 2001).
Running for an initial seven seasons and two feature films before a hiatus, Trailer Park Boys
(Clattenburg, 2001) was revived when lead actors Tremblay, Wells, and Smith purchased the show’s
rights from producers Clattenburg, Dunn, and Volpe in 2013 (CNW, 2013). It was later announced that
seasons eight and nine of Trailer Park Boys POPULAR PEDAGOGY IN CANADIAN TELEVISION 13
(Clattenburg, 2001) would be available exclusively for the digital television provider Netflix, where the
show has remained since (CNW, 2014). This review of the relevant literature is organized from broad to
narrow. First, I will establish some background knowledge regarding public pedagogy, efforts to teach
media literacy within the classroom, and some examples of recent educational studies that use popular
culture to critique dominant discourses. The section following this deals with Canadian television studies
in general and the history of television in Canada, as establishing both the academic and material
precedents in regards to Canadian television is crucial to my final analysis. Next, several sources which
analyze specific artefacts within the Canadian television canon will be presented and discussed to show
how scholars before me have approached the analysis of Canadian television programs. The penultimate
section will be dedicated to the work that deals specifically with the program Trailer Park Boys
(Clattenburg, 2001). Despite the apparent renewed interest in the series, with new episodes currently
being produced, at the time of writing, there are very few academic sources that engage with Trailer
Park Boys (Clattenburg, 2001). As this research will ultimately deal with representations of Canadian
masculinity within the aforementioned television series, a final section of this literature review will be
dedicated to the work of R.W. Connell (1992, 1997, 2005), whose work on masculinity theory has been
very influential in the world of gender studies.

http://dr.library.brocku.ca/bitstream/handle/10464/10920/Brock_Haddow_Andrew_2017.pdf?sequenc
e=1&isAllowed=y
Accepting Homosexuality Measuring and Explaining Levels of Perceived
Discrimination among Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in the European Union
Author: Jeroen Romeijn

19-05-2015

Chapter 2: Previous research and theory This chapter presents and discusses the existing literature on perceived
discrimination - both of LGB people and other groups. It starts with a discussion of the well researched negative
mental and physical effects of experiencing discrimination. The chapter then moves on to present the relatively
small literature that seeks to explain (variation in) levels of perceived discrimination. It should be noted that the
discussion of previous research does not include academic work on the transformation of sexual norms, nor on
other parts of the literature that focus on explaining the introduction of policies like same-sex marriage, or the
decriminalization of homosexuality. Whilst these are interesting research fields, they are less relevant for
answering the main question(s) in this thesis. Especially in cases where there were no studies on perceived
discrimination among LGB people, this chapter does draw on studies of the (perceived) discrimination of ethnic
minorities, where these provide relevant insights. Moving on from a discussion of the literature to the formulation
of a theoretical model, country-level explanations that take into account the underlying social structures that
shape experiences of discrimination among LGB people, are presented in a theoretical section. From this model,
several hypotheses are derived. At the end of the chapter, an overview of the theoretical model and a note on why
TQI individuals were not included in this thesis are presented. Previous research on (perceived) discrimination
Combating discrimination has been an important issue for many social movements that have strived for the
emancipation or increased acceptance of different social groups. Groups that have often been treated by
academics as possible targets of discrimination are (immigrant) ethnic minorities, women, the elderly and to a
lesser extent LGB(T) individuals. Many studies choose to focus on perceived discrimination, rather than actual
discrimination (for an overview, see: Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). The main reason for this is methodological –
11 it is less complicated to measure perceived discrimination than actual instances of discrimination. The effects of
perceived discrimination The vast majority of academic work done on perceived discrimination comes from
psychological studies and uses perceived discrimination as an explanatory variable that impacts health outcomes
(i.e. Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). A meta-analysis of 134 of such studies
found that perceived discrimination among ethnic minorities and women increases stress levels. This in turn
directly leads to a wide range of both mental and physical health problems (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009).
Additionally, the study finds that as a consequence of perceived discrimination, individuals are more likely to
engage in unhealthy behavior and at the same time less likely to engage in healthy behavior (ibid). The impact of
perceived discrimination on both mental and psychical health is thus a very well established one. Moreover, a
number of studies finds that this effect also holds for LGB people (Almeida et al., 2009; Birt & Dion, 2001; Mays &
Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003). A considerable amount of academic attention has also been paid to factors that
mediate this relationship: scholars have suggested that individuals that come from more privileged social
backgrounds, who stand up for themselves, and who have friends and family they can discuss their perceived
discrimination with, are able to limit the amount of stress caused by perceived discrimination and are thus able to
reduce its effects on their health or depressive symptoms (Noh & Kaspar, 2003; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009).
However, the evidence on this is not as clear as that of the negative impact of perceived discrimination (ibid). The
effect of these mediators is thus disputed, both among LGB people (Almeida et al., 2009) and other groups (Pascoe
& Smart Richman, 2009). Apart from an impact on health, scholars have also studied whether different levels of
perceived discrimination affect levels of income. The argument behind this is that discriminated individuals will
have fewer opportunities on the job market - which should 12 decrease their levels of income relative to the rest
of the population. Most studies have so far failed to clearly demonstrate such an effect of levels of perceived
discrimination on levels of income among LGB people (Arabsheibani et al., 2005 ; Plug & Berkhout, 2004). A meta
review of studies on earnings of lesbian women and gay men, does find that gay men tend to earn somewhat less
than their straight counterparts, where a similar effect cannot, conclusively, be established for lesbian women
(Klawitter, 2015). If this link does not exist or is not very strong, then changing levels of perceived discrimination
will probably not have an effect on earnings – even if they may still affect health outcomes among LGB people. A
possible explanation of this dynamic could be that LGB individuals – unlike women or ethnic minorities – are
relatively well placed to hide their minority status and may thus protect themselves by not disclosing their sexual
orientation, if they feel this will impact their career opportunities. Even in a relatively accepting country like the
Netherlands, many LGB respondents are not open about their sexual orientation – even if being afraid of negative
reactions is not the most-mentioned reason for not being open (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, 2012, p. 50). Even if
this strategy would allow LGBT people to limit the impact of discrimination on their income, it does not allow them
to also reduce stress levels in the same way. With so much attention for the effects of perceived discrimination, it
is surprising that few studies have analyzed what causes perceived discrimination. In addition to the inherent
problem that discrimination constitutes unfair treatment, the detrimental health effects of perceived
discrimination make understanding its causes a pressing academic issue. The scant research that does address this
is discussed in the section below. Causes of perceived discrimination Due to the low number of peer-reviewed
studies on the subject, this section also refers to reports by (academics working for) government institutions and
LGB(TQI)-rights organizations, since they often produce the most comprehensive analysis of perceived
discrimination among LGB people. A problem in the literature is that studies of what causes 13 discrimination do
not constitute a coherent research field. Most studies either do not move beyond the empirical analysis of
collected data, or only test partial theoretical frameworks that focus on a specific claim or element. In order to
create a more coherent overview and identify ways in which the research field should be extended, this section
first discusses the concept of perceived discrimination and then orders the literature along the lines of different
‘kinds’ of causes. It should be noted that in most cases, this division of the literature is made by the author of this
thesis and not by the authors of the articles themselves. As such the structure is a hermeneutical device to
structure the literature and set a research agenda. This structure follows a multilevel perception of individuals, to
some extent following a study by Rose Ragins and Cornwell (2001). Scholars have often rather simplistically used
perceived discrimination as a proxy for actual instances of discrimination. This is probably because the effects of
perceived discrimination and the ways in which these can be mitigated, were the main concern of most previous
studies. The fact that perceiving discrimination is a cause of bad health outcomes, is the problem at the heart of
such studies. This means that whether perceived discrimination is conflated with actual discrimination is less of a
problem. When explaining its causes, however, it becomes important to conceptually separate actual
discrimination from perceived discrimination. That is why this study defines the actual discrimination of LGB
people as an event in which an individual is treated differently on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. Perceived
discrimination – in turn – occurs when an individual considers her/himself to have been treated differently on the
basis of their sexual orientation. Of course the two are closely related: an individual who experiences
discrimination, is also more likely to perceive discrimination. In some cases, like not being invited for a job
interview, it is much less clear whether discrimination played a role and perceptions may vary across individuals.
The separation allows for a separate discussion of, on the one hand, factors that shape the ways in which different
individuals may experience the same event as discriminatory (or not) and, on the other, the different factors that
determine whether individuals actually experience discrimination. 14 Individual characteristics that may lead an
individual to perceive more discrimination There are some studies that discuss why individuals attribute certain
negative lifeexperiences to discrimination. One study by Phinney et al. (1998), has looked whether ‘mastery’ – the
extent to which an individual has the sense of being in control over his/her own life - influences levels of perceived
ethnic discrimination, but only found an indirect effect on perceived discrimination. The same authors also argued
that self-esteem and intergroup competence (being able to socially engage with individuals from other ethnic
groups), were important in predicting levels of perceived ethnic discrimination (ibid). As the authors noticed
themselves, however, they did not look at the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem. This makes their
findings much weaker, especially given the overwhelming evidence that perceived discrimination impacts a hoist
of different psychological factors, including self-esteem (for an overview: Pascoe & Smart-Richman, 2009). In a
similar but more convincing vein, a study by Maxwell (2014) found that levels of perceived discrimination are
different across different institutional settings. Ethnic minorities in Britain are found to more quickly ‘blame’
discrimination as a cause of inequality in areas of life that they have little individual control over (like the
representation of ethnic minorities in parliament), than in areas that they have more individual control over (like
education or job applications). Individual characteristics that may lead an individual to experience more
discrimination In addition to the above mechanisms, there are several individual level characteristics that could
influence the extent to which individuals experience discrimination. This is a different line of argument than that in
the previous section, which looked at (psychological) differences among individuals that may lead them to
interpret events in a given way. This section discusses elements that may render individuals more exposed to
discrimination. An example of this are studies by both Maxwell (2014) and Phinney et al. (1998), which looked
whether different ethnic minority groups reported different levels of perceived 15 discrimination. Such a finding
may indicate that some ethnic minorities are discriminated against more than others. Neither study found
evidence that such background characteristics mattered, however. Similarly, another study (Johnson et al., 2005),
found that age and gender did not impact levels of perceived discrimination among retired LGB people. Even if the
general evidence that such background characteristics influence levels of perceived discrimination is mixed, there
are some LGB-specific characteristics that do seem to matter. Both are related to the fact that - in contrast to
women or ethnic minorities - LGB people are often able to hide their minority status when they fear
discrimination. The extent to which LGB individuals are open about their sexuality thus becomes important.
Individuals who are `out’, may be more likely to be identified as LGB and thus also more likely to experience and
subsequently perceive discrimination. For example, Polish LGB individuals were least likely to perceive
discrimination when they were not or less out about their sexuality (Makuchowska & Pawlega, 2012, p 46).
Similarly, LGB individuals who indicate that they are less ‘genderconform’ (in the sense that they adhere less to
traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity), have also been found to report higher levels of perceived
discrimination (Gordon & Meyer, 2008). In the Netherlands, it was found that LGB people who were less
genederconform experienced more negative reactions to their sexuality in sports, from their parents, in public
spaces and in school (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau,, 2012). This could be caused by the fact that less gender
conform individuals do not follow traditional norms and are less accepted, and/or because they are less able than
other parts of the LGB population to hide their sexual identity when they fear discrimination. A fieldexperiment in
which a large number of job applications was sent out (Patacchini et al. 2014), found that people in Italy who
looked less gender conform received less responses to their job applications, than other (LGB) people. Another
study using an experimental setup (Ahmed et al, 2011) in Sweden, found that lesbian women were more
discriminated against (received lower response rates to applications) in traditionally feminine sectors, whereas gay
men were mainly discriminated against in traditionally masculine sectors. Somewhat contrary to these findings,
Weischelbaumer (2003) found that transgender people are 16 discriminated against less than LGB people in an
experiment in Austria. Whether any of the above findings can be generalized across European countries, however,
is unclear. Contextual factors that may influence levels of perceived discrimination Even less common than studies
that consider individual characteristics as explanations of perceived discrimination, are studies that look at the
extent which the immediate (social) contexts in which people live their lives influence levels of perceived
discrimination. One report on perceived discrimination in the Netherlands found that individuals who live in cities
generally experienced more negative reactions in the public space, than those living in rural areas (Sociaal
Cultureel Planbureau, 2012, p 124). One area of life that has received a bit more academic attention is the working
environment. As was argued above, there is at least one experimental study that argued that there are different
patterns of discrimination of LGB people in different economic sectors in Sweden (Ahmed et al, 2011). Other
experimental studies that sent out job applications, found very different levels of discrimination in different
countries (ibid; Patacchini et al., 2014; Weischelbaumer, 2004; Drydakis, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2015). Rose Ragins and
Cornwell (2001) also found that LGB individuals who have a larger proportion of openly LGB co-workers, a manager
who is LGB, or who work in a company with active anti-discrimination policies, perceive lower levels of
discrimination. Generally, however, very little is known about the extent to which LGB people’s direct environment
impacts the levels of discrimination they perceive and experience. Apart from the areas of work or the differences
between rural and urban areas, there may also be variation across countries (or US states) that can explain
differences in perceived discrimination. It seems that only three studies have studied the impact of the larger
social and legal context in which LGB people live - and all three consider American states or counties. One such
study found that bans of discrimination did not have a significant impact on earnings among LGB people (Klawitter
& Flatt, 1998). The authors indicate that this 17 somewhat surprising finding may be explained by several
methodological issues. However, the same author recently published a meta-analysis that indicated that there is
no impact of levels of perceived discrimination on income among LGB people (Klawitter, 2015) - even if perceived
discrimination does have a strong impact on both mental and physical health (Pascoe & Smart Richmann, 2009). A
second study by Day and Schoenrade (2000) did not directly look at perceived discrimination, but rather focused
on the effects of discrimination bans (and company-level policies), and found that both increased the job
satisfaction of LGB employees. Finally, only one other study has so far taken into account the multi-layered nature
of the different causes of levels of perceived discrimination among LGB people. Rose-Ragins and Cornwell (2001)
did a multi level analysis among LGB employees in different US states and found that having LGB co-workers, a LGB
manager, and living in a state with a discrimination ban, all reduced levels of perceived discrimination. Their study
should be commended for being the first to move beyond the usual empirically-driven analysis and present a
theoretical model that sought to explain levels of perceived discrimination. In spite of this, their study does not pay
a lot of attention to the impact of its measurement methods on the results. Concluding, the literature on the
effects of perceived discrimination is both large and well established. This makes it surprising that studies of its
causes are relatively rare - especially where the (perceived) discrimination of LGB people is concerned. With some
exceptions (Rose Ragins & Cornwell, 2001) most of these studies are relatively light on theory. This means that the
existing studies tend to not build upon one another’s work. As a consequence at least three problems can be
identified in the literature. The first is that studies of the causes perceived of discrimination usually make no
theoretical separation of perceived and actual discrimination. The second is that this lack of theory does not allow
for separating the different (both country and smaller level) contexts in which individuals live their lives and which
may impact levels of perceived discrimination. Thirdly, very little attention is paid to 18 the different ways in which
perceived discrimination is measured and the extent to which this impacts the results of different studies. Given
the large variation in ways that scholars have sought to measure (perceived) discrimination, this is a problem. In
order to address these issues, the next section will present a (multi-level) theoretical model for explaining
perceived discrimination. Limits in available data mean that this study will only test country-level variables, but
since these have so far never been tested in studies of perceived discrimination among LGB people, this should in
itself fill one of the many gaps in this body of research.

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/41197/1/gupea_2077_41197_1.pdf
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice in regards to sexual health of Transgender
male to female in Kathmandu, Nepal
Spring 2012

Author: Dalia Nori

II. Literature review

2.1 Introduction to the exploratory study The literature on subjects relating to transgender people is increasing
and different variables are being discussed. This chapter on literature review will discuss and touch on the subjects
applicable to the different research findings relevant to the knowledge, attitudes, practice and behaviour of
transgender male to female. This review of the literature will also be possible to relate to the finding in the result
chapter in regards to decision to enter sex work, experienced harassments and the decision of coming out about
ones sexual identity. First, I strive to review how sexual health is promoted and experienced in Nepal. The focus
will then be on transgender people and sexual health in previous studies regarding access to available services,
knowledge, behaviour and attitudes. Intertwined with the review I also aim to clarify the relationship between
economic reasons and the decision to engage in sex 10 the media portrays an acceptable view on sexual
relationships between unmarried people. In cultures with conservative attitudes towards sexual practice and
young’s expected sexual active life the suggestion is that schools and other educational channels in order to
increase the awareness on family planning and prevention. Stone et al (2003) tell that the Ministry of Health in
Nepal once promoted abstinence for unmarried people, this is argued to be the delay of research, campaigns and
services that provide for the young people in regards to sexual health. This is a strong argument for the reason that
there is limited research on sexuality Nepal. Barbro Forsberg (2008) states that the tool for prevention work is to
consider “the social factors that shape ideas about gender, sexuality and relationships” (2008:33). Forsberg argue
that the aspects of the culture and the social norms affect how people behave in the sexual contexts they find
themselves in. The information and education should be present where the target group actively visits; in the case
of young people one of the place to target are the schools. 2.3 Transgender and Sexual Reproductive Health All
people have individual sexual desires and needs that need to be met. Transgender people’s needs from sexual
reproductive health services can range and include check ups, testing, prevention, treatment, counselling and also
hormone treatment, which need supervision and advice. Some transgender people also want to have a sexual
reassignment surgery in order to change their biological sex; this in turn demand a different field of medical
attention. There is statements made by BDS in their yearly reposts that low knowledge on family planning and
sexual reproductive health was found among transgender people. The reason can be that transgender people who
do not have supportive families are asked to leave the home and this could also leads to force the person to have
to support themselves and this results in leave school. Since it is during the teenage years when people get to learn
about their sexual attractions and also seek to explore and verify that ones sexuality can be known many
transgender who are not accepted by the family are in school age (BDS yearly report:2010). Forsberg (2008:26)
report similar facts as BDS does regarding prevention work; the findings are that prevention work will have a larger
impact if there are condoms and other sexual reproductive care provided at the same time. Other services can be
testing for HIV or STIs or counselling and recommending services that fit the needs presented. There are materials
available to be handed out; the challenge is to get people to use it. In a study put forward by the European and
Asian collaboration under the name EurAisa Net (2009) found that when talking about prevention and risks with
target groups the informants have to keep in mind that it is valued to consider the lust and wellbeing of sexual
activities. Prevention workers are not present in order to discourage sexual activity; that is an individual choice,
however they are there to inform on the risks to ones health if one who has many sexual partners. 11 Transgender
male to female can act both as the penetrator or the recipient during a sexual act therefore information on how to
protect oneself and still be able to enjoy their sexual desires as they would like to. The families who are not able to
enrol their children in school, either it being because of economic reasons or that the school is situated far from
their house risk their children to grow up illiterate; which will result in loss of access to much information.
Transgender people are also in a position to be engaging in sex work; the reasons being economics or other factors
can vary. With the involvement of sex work there are great risk of STIs and HIV and violence and also substance
abuse. If one who is involved in sex work is not able to read or have access to the information might fall as a victim
for these risks. Therefore education is the standard answer to all things that need more awareness and
implementation. 2.3.1 Coming out process To have to be worried about being accepted for ones sexuality is not
something heterosexual people need to be concerned about. There is a understanding that as an LGBT one goes
thought a process referred to coming out. This is an acknowledgment to oneself and also to the outside, if one
wishes to disclose, about their sexuality and sexual attraction. Don Kulick (1998) write on the matter of the
expectation of transgender people to gain approval and acceptance as a male or female form the community. It is
almost presented as if it is not possible for a LGBT person to enjoy their sexuality openly if they do not come out as
a LGBT person. Kulick further argues that this is a not the case for the heterosexual, sexuality and the convincing of
ones gender comes naturally (1998:10). As social workers we have learned that there are positive and negative
effects to a process that involves disclosure and the fear of rejection and acceptance. Coming out is a choice and if
one choses to come out, there are many discrimination factors to face but there are also much that follows people
who have to keep oppressing their desires and live in constant denial and fear. 2.3.2 The concept of Karma: Karma
is defined by the Oxford Reference Online as: karma (Sanskrit, deed) In Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, the
universal law of cause and effect, as applied to the deeds of people. A (deliberate) good or bad deed leads a
person's destiny in the appropriate direction. The ripening of the deed may take more than one lifetime, tying the
agent to the cycle of rebirth, or samsara; only deeds free from desire and delusion have no consequences for
karma. 2 2 The definition is from the source "karma" The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn.
Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Goteborg University Library. 22
May 2012 12 Karma has a central role in Nepal and is much due to that the big faiths Hinduism and Buddhist are
present in the culture and lifestyle of the people. The Karma of ones actions can be visible in several lives’ ahead;
therefore the belief of contracting an infection is not an exception. Karma entails that one creates the occurrences
in their own life; all that happens is a result or outcome. Therefore it is assumed that being a member of the LGBT
community as a form of consequence of their previous action. If being transgender and contracting STIs is coined
as something unnatural and undesirable and explained with the concept of Karma it could be used to justify
negative treatment of the members of LGBT community. It is made clear that being a LGBT person is neither a
punishment nor a reward for actions in previous life. BDS want to highlight that it is a persons present being and
desire that determines the belonging. And contacting an infection is mealy based on the fact that one committed a
poor choice in not using protection during sexual intercourse. 2.3.3 Harassments and discriminations When one is
different from what is considered normal in a society or challenges the norms and order of a structure there is
oppression to be met and risk of discrimination, this being in regards to sexuality. The transgender people are not
unaccustomed to harassments and discriminations. LGBT was seen as a behaviour that was stated as a criminal
and unnatural act in Nepal. Sherry Joseph (2005) state that because of its criminalized status in the law the
discrimination against LGBT people was to a point justifiable and being a LGBT person was considered to be
something bad. A strong argument that is being discussed and presented in research is that people are either born
heterosexual or LGBT and this is a claim to be used against the discrimination LGBT people are facing (Jagose,
1996:9). Blame also falls on societies with hierarchy levels, which leave room for discrimination; and LGBT fall
under the heterosexuality in this system therefore at a position of discrimination. Susan Stryker (2008) refers to
transgender people to be more likely to be visible; due to clothing and physical figure, the voice or even other
characteristics that brings attention to them. And because of the visible appearance they are targeted to
discrimination and harassment. When faced with discrimination and harassment, Myers and Milner (2007:42)
argue people then hold to the behaviour that is expected from them to avoid discrimination. Stryker also found
that among transgender in America in the late 1950’s there was much harassment from the police because the
transgender people did not resemble their ID cards when they presented them. Searching for housing and
employment was also filled with discriminations and options were imitated; Stryker argues that this treatment can
still be found in many parts of America today (2008:60). 2.3.4 Sex Work/Prostitution A central and repetitive
subject that has been present throughout the thesis has been the engagement in sex work. The risk that follow
multiple sex partners have also been presented 13 and as well as the other risks to a persons safety; not only the
risks on the health if someone contracts a STI or HIV but also the risks of violence and substance abuse. Other risks
are the stigmatisation that follows those who are involved in sex work, which may result in being closed out from
family, friends or other groups. There is extensive research on the risks and what prevention work and services are
needed for people who are engaged in sex work; Ditmore, Levy and William (2010) state that it more safe to
assume that people are not engaged in sex work because of the sex. The three authors continue with presenting
that one reason that there is a constant and increasing spread of HIV and STIs is due to the practice of sex work
and that the people selling and people who buy are constantly moving around which contribute to the spread.
There is also research that point to a different aspect of the involvement in sex work by those who sell sexual
favours. The wide range research express sex work from the workers perspective, situation, demands and causes
and also from the community, culture and religious perspectives and the buyers demands. We could profile who
the sellers are and who the buys are in a certain setting. In a Swedish study conducted by Niklas Eriksson and Hans
Knutagård at RFSL Skåne (2005) in order to explore the sex work industry among men who sell sex. The
researchers explored the reasons why their respondents got involved in sex work and found that many of them
expressed that they do it because they enjoy the sexual intercourse and would like to have frequent sex (2005:39).
This supports the answer from some of the respondents in their research who also answered that they enjoy being
able to have sex with men and if they are able to make money from it they do accept it. The sex work industry can
also be viewed to some extend as a field of expressing sexuality and sexual desires and when the sex worker is able
to decide themselves who they would like to have sex with the industry does not appear in its traditional
oppressed and negative nature. The results might not be significant to a research and can be generalize because of
the common trends found among respondents of the reasoning and decision to join the sex industry. 2.4 Summary
There is not a broad research field in regards to sexuality or sexual reproductive health conducted in Nepal. Much
research, as presented in this study are conducted from a small sample in Kathmandu of the youth’s sexual
experience and knowledge. This research can be of great importance to the shaping and aim of services and care
but also to spread awareness and acceptance. It could help to shape a more accepting attitude towards sexual
activity outside of the frames of marriage because as evident shows it does occur. On issues relating to LGBT
community there is research conducted by organizations such as FHC and UNAIDS with the assistance of BDS,
because BDS is the leading and only organization working for sexual minorities both in service providing and
politically. BDS has also published case works on the harassment and discrimination that LGBT people have
reported they have experienced. They also provide statics on their work which gives an overview on where their
assistance is reached out and how many people they do serve. The chapter also include the 14 concept of Karma,
which is a central belief in the culture of Nepal and also a belief system hat BDS also approach to explain in relation
to being a LGBT person. When there is information available on the sexual reproductive health and safe practice of
sex it will encourage awareness among people and it could have an impact on their choices; however people will
always be responsible for how they implement the information they are aware of in their own actions. Therefore
there are services that are needed for treatment, testing and advice on sexual reproductive health. As evident in
this literature review much of the presented work relating to Nepal and sexual reproductive health, that was not
presented by BDS, was dated with an older date. Therefore there is a need for more current research to be
conducted in their field. BDS present work that they do conduct together with different statistics and legal
documents, however there is a need for research that is not bound to the objectives of one organization.
Literatures on sexuality in relation to cultural and social context are available in extended amount; also with
literature that argue against the sexual minorities and sexual practice liberties. Much of the available studies can
be argued to be applicable to the subject and the respondents in this thesis for compatible and to provide a better
understanding of the explorative study executed; however the thesis is within the frames of Kathmandu, Nepal
and the amount of literature is the limiting factors for the extensive quantity that could be included.

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/33386/1/gupea_2077_33386_1.pdf
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER STUDENTS: NEEDS
AND RETENTION ASSESSMENT
Sarah B. Driver
SPRING 2010

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

There has been substantial research on attitudes towards Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT)

students on campuses of higher education. The campus climate and general feelings about LGBT students have

begun to be documented with more regularity. Sexual minority students face specific challenges of identity

development that the researcher believes impacts their educational experiences and possibilities of academic

success. While much of the research thus far has focused on attitudes and experiences of heterosexual individuals

toward sexual minority college students, very little focuses on LGBT students’ personal and academic experiences

in higher education (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997; Herek, 1984; Kurdek, 1988; Clift, 1988; Brown et al., 2004).

There is even less data and review of LGBT students’ resiliency and academic persistence. This literature review

elaborates on a number of these issues. First, the history of the Gay rights movement as well as the history of LGBT

students in higher education is explored. Secondly, attitudes towards LGBT individuals in the United States are

addressed. Then more specifically attitudes towards sexual minorities and homosexuality in higher education are

investigated along with the effects of homophobia on sexual minority students. Finally, current retention strategies

being utilized in the field of higher education are examined as well as the lack of information about academic

persistence among sexual minority populations at institutions of higher education.

The Gay Rights Movement

Issues of discrimination against homosexuals were brought forward in society over one hundred years go

by Magnus Hirschfeld (Fone, 2000). Hirschfield, considered the father of the Gay rights movement abroad,

established The Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897, whose main purpose was advocating for the rights of

LGBT individuals. The organization successfully supported and campaigned for the rights of LGBT persons for

over three decades until it was forced to end its advocacy activities as a result of Nazi Germany’s policies against

homosexuals and those who supported them. Harry Hay is recognized as the father of the contemporary Gay rights

movement in the United States (Abcarian, 1990; Fone, 2000). At the beginning of the 1950s, Hay and his fellow
advocates began a discussion about homosexuality and the need for a community that LGBT individuals could claim

as their own. Hay and friends subsequently founded the Mattachine Society in 1951. The Mattachine’s mission

statement illustrated the need for community as well as the desire to educate the greater society about the needs of

homosexuals. The mission statement elaborated this need:

“To Unify” homosexuals “isolated from their own kind and unable to adjust to the dominant culture…”;

“To Educate” and improve the “woefully meager and inconclusive” information about homosexuality…;

and “To Lead”…the whole mass of social deviates” to achieve the missions of unification and education.

(Timmons, 1990, p. 154)

While Hay and his friends worked tirelessly to create the group, and consequently, a sense of community,

the threat of legal persecution was high and the society’s meetings were forced to be held in secret. Persecution of

LGBT individuals was not uncommon during the 1950s and into the 1960s. Homosexuals were targeted by law

enforcement officials for a litany of acts that were considered illegal during this time period. An article published in

the LA Times, The Consenting Adult Homosexual and the Law: An Empirical Study of Enforcement and

Administration in Los Angeles County (1966), provided comprehensive descriptions of illegal practices that an

individual could be cited and/or arrested for at that time. Timmons (1990) suggested that laws, as well as social

customs, were highly anti-homosexual during this time – most states held any sexual act except the missionary

position between a heterosexual couple as a crime punishable with a prison sentence of up to twenty years.

Despite the continual fear of persecution, Hay and his society members refused to assimilate into dominate

culture. The Mattachine society members, including Hay, carried the modern Gay rights movement forward,

allowing it to gain momentum through future decades. The Mattachine Society, however, supported one of the first

victories of the Gay rights movement. When a member of the society was involved in a legal suit over entrapment,

the Mattachine Society stood behind the individual, Gale Jennings, and raised funds to support him as he challenged

his arrests in court. Although the jury eventually deadlocked and in the end the case was dropped, this event was

recorded as a victory for Jennings as well as the Gay rights movement as a whole (Abcarian, 1990; Fone, 2000).

This legal case, which intended to persecute an individual for sexual orientation, although not won, provided a

stepping stone for future legal battles involving homosexual individuals and a stepping stone for future advances in

Gay rights in general.

 Friends Frank Kameny and Jack Nichols also founded the Washington, DC Chapter of the Mattachine

Society (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998; Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999). Kameny, Nichols and fellow society

members in DC vehemently and publicly opposed the American Psychological Association’s (APA) stance on

homosexuality (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998; Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999). The two spearheaded a campaign

against the medical model that labeled homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998;

Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999). The group of activists’ main goal was to enlighten the APA about the non-

pathological nature of homosexuality. It would take almost a decade, and the efforts of both members of the

Mattachine Society, and members of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), as well as a sympathetic psychiatrist by the

name of Kent Robinson, for homosexuality to be officially removed as a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998; Clendinen & Nagourney,

1999).

Meanwhile, a younger, more radical, group of Gay rights advocates was forming. The Gay Liberation

Front (GLF) was formed in July of 1969 – a group of passionate, more aggressive individuals facing a conservative

nation (McGarry & Wasserman 1998). The GLF was established during a time when civil rights injustices were

being fought on several fronts in the United States. The GLF modeled its activities after many of these other civil

rights movements. The GLF operated similarly to movements such as the New Left, the anti-Vietnam War

movement, the counterculture, the Black Panthers, and other liberation movements. They utilized their energy and

followings aggressively, organizing rallies, protests and engaging in fights in the political arenas as well – including

the American Psychological Association’s annual conventions from 1970-1973 (McGarry & Wasserman 1998).

As various Mattachine Societies were forming around the country, similar movements were taking place on

campuses of higher education throughout the United States. The first Gay rights organization on a campus of higher

education was the brain child of Stephen Donaldson (ne Robert Martin) (Beemyn, 2003). Donaldson, an openly

Bisexual student previously involved in the New York chapter of the Mattachine Society, found after his first year at

Columbia that he had not met any other Gay students and was later forced to move out of the residence halls when

one of his suitemates lodged a complaint about having to live with an individual who identified as Bisexual

(Beemyn, 2003). Following this experience, and after having finally met other Gay students on campus, Donaldson

suggested beginning a “Mattachine-like organization” on the Columbia campus (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). Donaldson

and friends faced tremendous challenges in establishing the Student Homophile League (SHL), an organization
whose roots were in creating a community for LGBT students on Columbia’s campus (Beemyn, 2003). Students,

fearing for their safety both on and off campus, wanted to remain anonymous within the organization, yet

administration at that time at Columbia would not grant recognition to any student group without a membership list.

Eventually, Donaldson was able to recruit student campus leaders to become “proforma” members of the

organization – submitting prominent student leaders’ names on the roster, allowing other student members to remain

anonymous within the group (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). Successfully satisfying the administration, while still

maintaining the safety and anonymity of the group members, “Columbia officially chartered the country’s first

student Gay rights group on April 19, 1967” (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207).

Unfortunately, receiving University recognition did not create a smooth transition for the first student-run

Gay rights group. Following their official charter, the New York Times ran an article detailing the groups inception

which caused a “national controversy and nearly cost the students involved in the SHL their careers at Columbia”

(Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). The University received intense scrutiny leading campus administration to question the

merit of the existence of the SHL, including the dean of the college who called the SHL “quite unnecessary” and the

director of counseling services who suggested that the SHL would “promote deviant behavior amongst the students”

(Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). The media attraction, however, had one positive effect for the SHL; it lead to great student

interest in the group and assisted immensely with student recruitment. The media coverage also led students at other

institutions to contact Donaldson about starting their own chapters of SHL at their respective campuses. Cornell was

the next major institution to begin the process of creating a student homophile league chapter. While the students at

Cornell faced similar challenges to those the student organizers faced at Columbia, the Cornell SHL chapter was

eventually realized on May 14, 1968 (Beemyn, 2003).

The Cornell SHL chapter faced a variety of challenges but also served as an active ally for LGBT students

not only within the confines of the academic institution but also within the greater community. The students in the

Cornell SHL attempted to create publicly Gay spaces by mobilizing LGBT students as well as sponsoring campus

events and movements. In an attempt to become a more legitimately recognized group and to create greater social

change the students of the Cornell, SHL eventually aligned themselves with another liberal student group, Students

for a Democratic Society (SDS) (Beemyn, 2003). SDS was one of the largest and most well-recognized student

organizations on the Cornell campus at the time. By aligning themselves with the SDS the members of the Cornell,
SHL gained access “to a local leftist printing company for its newsletter and flyers,” as well as procuring greater

student support (Beemyn, 2003, p 218).

Through various activities and events, including inviting a banned radical leader to the league’s first

meeting of the year and staging a public protest campaign, the Cornell SHL eventually became more radical and

changed its name to the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) (Beemyn, 2003). While the GLF still served the needs and

rights of LGBT students on campus, the group took on a much greater militant presence in hopes of attracting more

students and greater social mobilization. Participating in a few influential activities greatly increased the groups’

visibility and made an impact on the national arena of the Gay rights movement. The first visible protest activity was

inviting a banned radical leader to a campus event as a guest speaker. The second, and most widely recognized

occurrence, was a public protest demonstration at a local bar that had been previously known as a popular “Gay

hangout” which had began discriminating against homosexual patrons. Beemyn (2008) illustrated the profundity of

this single act, stating “as perhaps the first Gay student sit-in, the demonstration at Morrie’s [Bar] received

widespread attention in the nation’s Gay news media and was cited as one of the important early Gay liberation

events” (p. 221).

Needless to say, the GLF had a great effect not only on the Gay rights movement at institutions of higher

education but also on the nation’s Gay rights movement as a whole. The nationally-recognized Gay student sit-in

greatly strengthened the GLF’s power on campuses. The GLF also created an arena where sexual identity could be

aligned with other political movements, convincing non-Gay activists to support Gay rights which helped to develop

a “progressive coalition” which continues today (Beemyn, 2003).

Arguably most importantly, however, the development of Student Homophile Leagues and the Gay

Liberation Front, created a space for LGBT individuals to be more open within and outside of the context of higher

education to be more open. In the beginning of the movement in the 1950s and 1960s, most LGBT groups were

extremely discreet due to the members’ fears of being revealed as Gay and persecuted socially and legally. The

dropping of pseudonyms in progressing student groups, openly held meetings and dances, and publicly speaking out

about their pride in being Gay created an arena for many more Gay individuals to become more self accepting and

come out throughout the nation. It also allowed LGBT individuals to discuss their lives in front of various

populations which greatly helped counter deeply entrenched stereotypes and create an even greater sense of security
for LGBT students and outside community members to accept themselves and find pride in their identities (Beemyn,

2003).

Contemporary Gay rights advocates continue to try to gain equality for LGBT individuals in the United

States in all social and political arenas as well as for LGBT students at all levels of education. While it appears that

there have been improvements in some arenas for LGBT individuals, research shows that there continue to be new

legal and social issues concerning Gay rights in the United States (Cuomo, 2007). “Although there are

approximately 30 or so state laws and around 300 municipal and county ordinances that ban discrimination based on

sexual orientation in the United States, there are still many legal and social barriers facing sexual minorities in the

United States” (Cuomo, 2007, p. 76).

While Gay rights advocates continue to work toward gaining equal rights in many professional and

institutional environments much of the recent focus of the movement has been in personal arenas. The struggle

concerning Gay marriage has been a hot topic in the Gay rights movement in the past decade (Green, 2006).

Marriage continues to be regarded as a paramount achievement in American culture, yet same sex couples are still

unable to enter into legally binding, formally recognized relationships with their partners in many states and same

sex partnerships remain unrecognized by any federal institution (Green, 2006; Kurdek, 2004). In addition to

providing homosexual couples with the social recognition of their relationships that they crave, sexual minority

couples are arguing that they are entitled to the privileges associated with having a legally recognized relationship,

including but not limited to Social Security spousal benefits, hospital visitation rights and the ability to make

medical decisions concerning their partners, and access to veteran’s life insurance and health programs (Kurdek,

2004, p. 880).

Along with the fight to create equal legal and institutional opportunities for sexual minority individuals,

Gay rights advocates still endeavor to fight homophobia and violence in everyday society including in schools. Gay

students are still the subject of violent verbal and physical attacks (Smith, 1998). Unfortunately, many educational

institutions and instructors continue to ignore ostracized Gay students and the verbal and physical abuse of sexual

minorities (Smith, 1998). Violence against LGBT individuals due to their sexual identity continues to be pervasive

in the United States (Swigonski et al., 2001). Hate crimes, by their very nature, are based primarily on the victim’s

membership to a specific group, which is often negatively stereotyped; in this case the group is a perceived sexual

identity (Craig & Waldo, 1996). In 2001, only twenty-one states had laws covering crimes based on sexual
orientation yet hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third highest category reported annually to the FBI

(Swigonski et al., 2001). Crimes committed against sexual minorities because of perceived sexual identity are

characterized as the “most violent bias crimes” (Swigonski et al., 2001, p. 2). One of the most brutal anti-LGBT

crimes in the past several years was the case of Matthew Shepard. In 1998, a young man named Matthew Shepard,

who identified as homosexual, left a bar in Laramie, Wyoming with two other young men (Swigonski et al., 2001).

Shepard was kidnapped, brutally beaten, and left tied to a fence in a remote rural area. He was found more than

twelve hours later and admitted to the hospital where he was later pronounced dead due to his extensive injuries

(Swigonski et al., 2001). Despite the greater sense of freedom and comfort that sexual minorities may enjoy today

(Cuomo, 2007), violence and homophobia continue to be grave issues for many LGBT individuals, including youth

and students in their academic environments.

Attitudes toward LGBT Individuals in the United States

Oppression of LGBT individuals has a long history and prevalence in North America. The oppression of

LGBT individuals in the colonial period in North America is well documented – choking, drowning, burning and

execution were only a few of the ways in which colonial societies dealt with homosexual individuals (Katz, 1976).

With the progression of the Gay rights movement, the LGBT population in the United States today enjoys many

rights that were previously unheard of. While great strides have been made to restore rights to this disenfranchised

population, there are still immense barriers that hinder civil rights of LGBT individuals.

Institutionalized homophobia is one of the largest barriers still facing LGBT individuals in today’s society.

As a historically Judeo-Christian nation, many obstacles stem from entrenched religiosity in government and

educational institutions in the United States. Religious institutions alone however play a critical role in the forward

movement of LGBT individuals gaining civil rights. In her book, Virtual Equality, Urvashi Vaid (1995) illuminated

the effect of the conservative Christian anti-Gay movement stating, “The CR [Christian Right] mobilized grassroots

opposition to homosexuality, and Gay rights were dealt setbacks locally and nationally. Local Gay rights ordinances

were repealed, and in some cases banned permanently” (Vaid, 1995, p. 5). Vaid clearly illustrated how the Christian

Right has created anti-Gay themes that are central to their political and social activity.

Heteronormativity and homophobia are also entrenched in employment practices in the contemporary

United States. Discrimination of LGBT employees has been an issue in the United States for years. The United
States government removed many LGBT individuals and innumerable suspected homosexuals from government

positions assuming they were involved in communist activity (Fone, 2000). It was not until 1970 that a group of Gay

activists in New York City drafted the first bill challenging discrimination against LGBT employees (Fone, 2000).

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals are still affected in today’s places of business. LGBT employees can become the

targets of colleagues as well as homophobic and/or heteronormative working conditions. Badgett (1996) explained

“Gay and Bisexual people have no explicit protection from employment discrimination at the federal level in the

private sector” (p. 32), placing LGBT employees in inherently vulnerable positions at their places of work should

they chose to disclose their sexual orientation. This lack of protection also creates an intrinsically heteronormative

environment where sexual minorities do not feel safe at their places of employment. Employers, with a lack of

federal legal implications or a collective bargaining agreement, are essentially able to hire or fire employees on a

whim (Badgett, 1996). While the practice has come under attack recently in various court settings the results have

been mixed, leaving LGBT employees continually at risk (Badgett, 1996).

Homosexual individuals in the workplace are often negatively affected psychologically by heterosexism

and should an LGBT individual disclose his/her sexual orientation at the workplace s/he is more likely to be targeted

by homophobic attitudes and heterosexist actions (Waldo, 1999). Even more damaging is the fact that LGBT

individuals who are victims of workplace discrimination have very few legal options with which to defend

themselves. Badgett (1996) also found there to be a connection between individuals who chose to disclose their

sexual orientation and issues such as monetary rewards, advancement, and discomfort within the workplace social

climate; so not only do LGBT individuals face discrimination and homophobia from their colleagues it also affects

their ability to be equally compensated in their professional positions.

Attitudes toward Sexual Minorities and Homosexuality in Higher Education

In addition to work place discomfort and often outright discrimination, LGBT persons face

heterosexist/homophobic attitudes and issues of oppression in their daily lives. Homophobia and heterosexist

attitudes create a social climate that is often detrimental to sexual minorities. Many LGBT individuals’

psychological health suffers due to the significant amount of stress they feel because of heterosexist/homophobic

attitudes and environmental climates. Living with great stress often causes LGBT individuals to experience “greater

vulnerability to depressive distress and anxiety” (Mays & Cochran, 2001, p. 1870).
 Adolescents and young adults are possibly the most vulnerable to homophobia and heterosexism and are

generally regarded at high risk for psychological health problems (Garofalo & Wolf, 1998; Hershberger &

Pilkington, 1997; Morrison & L’ Heureux, 2001). Many LGBT individuals find themselves surrounded by and

exposed to homophobic/heterosexist remarks and/or derogatory statements and actions throughout the course of

their education. Sadly, many of these remarks and discriminatory acts are ignored by educational administrators and

educators. Without direct counter to these oppressive acts and damaging remarks, LGBT individuals find themselves

isolated and feeling at risk with no safe space or support system to turn to should they become the target of anti-Gay

activity (Morrison & L’ Heureux, 2001).

Regrettably, as youth advance in age and move into institutions of higher education, circumstances often do

not improve. Clift (1988) stated, “the educational establishment, in general, has conspicuously ignored the position

of Lesbian and Gay people in education” (p. 32). Many institutions of higher education not only ignore sexual

minorities, they also do not provide the safe environment that young LGBT individuals are searching for and sadly

many institutions perpetuate the oppression and disenfranchisement of sexual minority populations. Sexual minority

students are still found to “suffer the consequences of intolerance” (Sanlo, 2004, p. 97) and Rankin (2003) found

that out of over 1000 LGBT college students interviewed, one-third had experienced some form of harassment on

campus. Brown et al. (2004) found that different populations at institutions of higher education reported differing

perceptions of the campus climate toward LGBT individuals and that “personal characteristics (such as sex,

academic class for students, and academic discipline for faculty members) were related to the respondents’

perceptions of the campus climate and their attitudes, experiences, and behaviors [towards LGBT individuals]” (p.

20). LGBT students perceived the campus climate more negatively than other students, faculty and student affairs

members and also reported being more interested and participatory in LGBT events and topics than their

heterosexual peers, faculty and administrators (Brown et al., 2004). Previous research has found lower educational

levels to also be correlated with increased negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Herek, 1984; Kurdek, 1988).

While young LGBT individuals may assume institutions of higher education to provide a safer environment due to

the presence of more highly educated individuals, Kurdek (1988) found that even within a sample of college

students those with “poor academic performance tend to endorse negative attitudes toward homosexuals” (p. 736).

Higher levels of negative attitudes toward homosexuals also tend to be found in males, younger students, and those
with less personal experiences with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender individuals (Clift, 1988; Kurdek, 1988;

Brown et al., 2004).

Sexual minority students will not necessarily find a support system from faculty, staff or an institution of

higher education as a whole either. Sanlo (2004) noted that “fewer than 10% of the nation’s 3500 colleges and

universities have sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies, and only about 40 institutions have

professionally staffed centers that provide services to, for, and about sexual minority students, faculty and staff” (p.

98). In Eliason’s (1996) survey of 1,287 permanent university employees at one institution, 25 percent of the sample

held homophobic attitudes. Faculty and staff are also often unwilling or seemingly unable to include sexual minority

points of view and/or inclusive language within their teaching, however some disciplines appear to be more sensitive

to sexual minority students than others. Brown et al. (2004) also found that sexual minority students could find a

greater support base amongst student affairs staff members rather than faculty and that amongst faculty, those in the

“soft sciences” appeared to be more willing to serve as allies to LGBT students and staff. Brown et al. (2004)

discovered that faculty members in the “soft sciences” “reported more positive Attitudes toward GLBT [Gay

Lesbian Bisexual Transgender] issues than those in hard sciences and also reported greater interest in GLBT

workshops and relevance of GLBT topics than did faculty in the hard sciences” (p. 19).

In addition to finding campus climates, peers, faculty and administrative staff less than supportive, LGBT

students also often find their higher educational experience to be less fulfilling than their heterosexual peers. Besides

being distracted from their academic endeavors due to worry about unsupportive environments and harassment

(Sanlo, 2004), sexual minority students suffer from a lack of representation amongst faculty and staff as well as

within the curriculum they engage with. In her 1995 article, Opening the Classroom Closet: Sexual Orientation and

Self-Disclosure, Katherine Allen, an associate professor noted the great enrichment that both sexual minorities and

heterosexual individuals garner when individuals in positions of power in academics disclose their sexual

orientations. She also suggested that incorporating a more holistic view of sexual minorities within academic topics

will create a more well-rounded educational experience for all students (Allen, 1995). LGBT individuals often find

that sexual minority issues, histories, and points of view are barely mentioned or are missing entirely from the

curriculums they engage with. A study of the discussions of homosexuality in secondary education in Britain found

that “the discussion of homosexuality (in terms of ‘mentions’) had significantly increased since 1984 and the

number who regarded this as helpful had also significantly increased” (Ellis & High, 2004, p. 223). Despite this
increase, many of the young people in the study noted that the way in which homosexuality was addressed was still

generally unhelpful (Ellis & High, 2004). Researchers understand the need to incorporate homosexual points of

views, histories and issues into the curriculum in an attempt to create contexts where students can establish more

meaningful identities and educational experiences. Abes and Jones (2004) suggested, “in the classroom, course

material should be included that presets diversity within and among sexual orientations, and teaching strategies

ought to allow students to reflect on their own life experiences and identities in relationship to the course content”

(p. 628). Unfortunately, despite the research suggesting that incorporating issues of homosexuality into educational

curriculum will create a more hospitable environment for sexual minority students, little has been done to put these

theories into practice. LGBT students continue to find themselves, the history of the sexual minority population, and

LGBT points of views missing from their higher educational experience.

Effects of Homophobia on Sexual Minority Students

There is a clear relationship between students’ ability to feel connected to their educational experience and

their ability to succeed academically (Tinto, 1975, 1982, 1988). The literature also suggested that there is a

connection between students’ relationships with their teachers and their academic success (Cornelius-White, 2007;

McCombs, 2004). It could be argued that sexual minority students have a greater need to feel engaged with and

recognized by academic faculty as there are few places on university campuses where they feel connected and safe.

Studies have shown that personal development and feelings of safety and involvement in an academic setting are

imperative to a student’s ability to succeed (Maslow, 1943; Cornelius-White, 2007). If a sexual minority student is

fearful of self-disclosing in an academic environment or to a faculty or staff member because of possible adverse

consequences then there is little chance of that individual feeling connected to or engaged in their academic

experiences or specifically with their instructors.

In addition to feeling connected to their academic experience as a whole students need to have productive,

nurturing, or at the very least respectful, relationships with their instructors and other academic staff (Cornelius-

White, 2007; McCombs, 2004; McCombs & Whisler, 2007). McCombs (2004) illustrated the need for not only a

comfortable academic environment but also for supportive relationships with instructors stating, “Learning is

enhanced in contexts where learners have supportive relationships, have a sense of ownership and control over the

learning process, and can learn with and from each other in safe and trusting learning environments” (p. 7). In an
environment where a student feels that they have less than optimal relationships with their instructors or feel that

they are not in a safe learning environment, what are their chances of academic success? Cornelius-White (2007)

echoed this need for positive relationships with instructors stating “Secure and reciprocal attachments are important

for students to engage in their relationships with teachers, peers, and subject matter and develop healthy self

concepts and senses of well-being” (p. 115). Sexual minority students who may feel uncomfortable in the campus

climate need to find some way to engage in their academic experience, one way may be through relationships with

their instructors. While LGBT students may be able to succeed academically without this feeling of engagement or

connection, most likely not at the level they could if they were able to achieve feelings of integration and attachment

with their instructors, their campus community, and their academic experiences as a whole.

Current Retention Strategies in Higher Education

With a multitude of barriers affecting their educational and personal identity development experiences,

LGBT students at institutions of higher education are at a much higher risk for psychological health issues. Sexual

minority students, facing often heterosexist/homophobic campus climates, institutionalized homophobia, less

impactful educational experiences, and a lack of support from fellow students, faculty and staff, face great obstacles

in academic persistence and success. Yet, retention and academic persistence are some of the most highly researched

topics in higher education. Various minority populations have been identified and studied at the level of higher

education including racial/ethnic minorities, students facing socioeconomic challenges, populations of non-typical

age groups, gender minorities and so on (Tinto, 2006). However, after an exhaustive review, literature pertaining to

the retention of LGBT students specifically is scarce, if at all existent. Concrete quantitative data about the retention

levels of sexual minority students is even more difficult to come by (Waldo, 1998).

Literature abounds on the topic of retention of various other student populations. Tinto’s (1975, 1982,

1988) continuous famous work on student retention has been applied to multitudes of student populations, including

various student minority populations. Tinto’s (1975) theory of social integration, essentially suggesting that students

who are more involved and engaged in all aspects of their educational experience are more likely to be retained,

seems to apply to all students regardless of minority status. The literature suggests that students who become

engaged in their educational experience, both academically and socially, early in their academic careers persist to

graduation at higher rates (Tinto, 1975). It seems that the best place in which to begin the process of student
integration is early in a student’s academic career. Warren (1997) suggested that the best place for engagement and

integration to begin are at student orientation sessions. The research thus far suggests that the more quickly and

more thoroughly an individual is engaged with the educational institution that they are attending the higher their

chances of being retained to graduation.

Students entering higher education face extensive personal and academic transition issues. The more

quickly and extensively an individual student is able to connect with the campus within various spheres,

academically and socially etc., the higher the chance that that student will persist until graduation. Students in higher

education who are able to connect not only with their peers, but also with the material they engage with, and also

with the faculty and staff that they interact with on a regular basis are more likely to feel that they belong to the

educational community. A failure to connect to others “may lead to the absence of integration and its associated

sense of isolation. These in turn may lead to departure from the institution [of higher education]” (Tinto, 1988). An

inability to create a sense of community has been found to lead directly to an inability of students to persist to

graduation. A sense of belonging and safety are amongst the basic needs that individuals require in order to move

toward any kind of personal, academic, or professional success (Maslow, 1943). All students must move through

their own personal identity development, separation, and integration states in order to feel included and engaged;

unfortunately sexual minority students face greater challenges in these areas than their heterosexual peers.

While experts in higher education now recognize the great need to integrate and engage with students early

on in their educational careers and especially via the classroom, putting the theory of social and academic

integration into practice has proven a greater challenge (Braxton, Milem & Sullivan, 2000; Tinto, 2006). While

many institutions of higher education have made it a priority to try to increase retention numbers for various

populations “substantial gains in student retention have been hard to come by” (Tinto, 2006, p. 2). Academic

persistence amongst all student populations has been slow to increase, despite a multitude of research about the topic

area. Tinto (2006) states in his contemporary work that the idea of social and academic integration still stands yet

putting the theory into practice has proven challenging for institutions of higher education on a whole. Tinto (2006)

stressed the importance of involving individuals early in their academic career, stating “involvement, or what is

increasingly being referred to as engagement, matters and it matters most during the critical first year of college” (p.

4). What appears to be paramount to student success is the student’s ability to engage with the institution of higher

education that they are a part of early on in their academic career.

 Unfortunately, sexual minority students often have a difficult time finding their niche within the higher

educational setting; they often lack a visible community of peers, supportive faculty and staff, and an accepting

educational and community climate. For sexual minorities, the task of integrating within the higher educational

context provides even larger challenges than their heterosexual peers face. Waldo (1998) found that “LBG [Lesbian,

Bisexual and Gay] students indicated that they feel less accepted and respected on campus than their heterosexual

counterparts” (p. 767) and suggested therefore “that encountering hostility on campus may lead to decrements in

academic satisfaction” (p. 767). One would assume, therefore, that LGBT students in higher education would face

lower rates of academic persistence. There is great difficulty in obtaining data about sexual minority populations and

retention due to a myriad of factors including, but not limited to, the fact that the population is self identified and

therefore incredibly difficult to track. The lack of visibility of the sexual minority population at many institutions of

higher education in combination with the outright prejudice that sexual minorities face within the larger community

has left many LGBT students anonymous and lacking in proper academic and personal services. Sadly, this leaves

many sexual minorities with a less than fulfilling educational experience, and potentially a failure to be academically

retained.

Rationale for the Study

Following a review of the literature concerning sexual minority students’ experiences, successes, and

retention in higher education the researcher recognized that there is a deficiency of research about the LGBT student

population on campuses of higher education. As LGBT students are a rich portion of the student population on

university campuses it is imperative that academic leaders endeavor to create environments where LGBT students,

and all minority populations, feel comfortable and are able to succeed both personally and academically.

It is the researcher’s belief that it is the mission and obligation of higher educational leaders to advocate for

traditionally oppressed populations who have historically lacked opportunity and support in higher education. As

institutions of higher education are further embedded in society there are a myriad of communities and populations

making demands on the higher educational system (Brennan, 2008). As institutions guided by public funding and

stakeholders, university systems must endeavor to create systems that are publically responsible to society and its’

diverse populations (Brennan, 2008). The researcher also believes that it is the obligation of all higher educational

leaders to educate all current students to function, and excel, in the contemporary global community. In order to do
this it is imperative that students are educated in a rich environment that mirrors the current society in which they

will work and live, which includes diverse individuals from different ethnic and racial groups, of different abilities,

who participate in a variety of religious practices, and individuals who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and/or

Transgender.

http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.9/499/SDriver_Thesis.doc.
Tying the Knot: Determining the Legality of Same-Sex Marriage and the Courts’

Responsibilities in Defining the Right

By: Eva Cerreta

(2012)

Literature Review

The issue of legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States is highly controversial due to the American

public’s varying moral, religious and political views. Aside from these personal views, the legalization of same-sex

marriage is a vastly contested legal issue in academia. Among legal and political scholars, there exist varying

theories about whether there is a constitutional right to gay and lesbian marriages and whether the legislatures or

the courts should be responsible for determining and developing the right. For the first question, most existing

literature argues that a right to same-sex marriage exists through the Equal Protection Clause (see Gerstmann,

Hiller, Schaff, Schmidtke and Strasser). Although authors also focus on the right to privacy, there is greater support

among scholars for using the Equal Protection Clause as the pathway to legalization. There are two common

arguments made by the existing literature concerning the Equal Protection Clause. The first of these arguments

claims that the Supreme Court’s should abolish its classification system for determining discrimination and instead,

all minority groups should receive the same protection across the board. Currently, the Supreme Court has not

held sexual orientation as a “suspect class” which would afford this minority group the greatest amount of

protection from government discrimination (Strasser 24). Authors like Evan Gerstmann and Eric Sch Cerreta 9 be

given the same level of protection against government legislation under the Equal Protection Clause. Gerstmann

comments on this when he writes, “The Court has failed to give any rational justification for treating the rights of

different groups differently, and the explanations it has put forward are incoherent” (7). These authors argue that

if sexual orientation received the same protection as all other minority groups, including race and religion, the

government’s arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage would not be sufficient enough to justify the

inequitable treatment that gay and lesbian couples receive (Schmidtke 227). Therefore, much of the existing

literature is dedicated to the idea that the Equal Protection Clause needs to be revised to give all minorities the

same protection from discrimination under the law. The second argument that is made concerning the Equal
Protection Clause is not that the classification system should be done away with, but that sexual orientation should

be moved to a class that entails stricter review of discriminating government legislation. This is the argument

Strasser makes when he writes, “The class of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, although not yet recognized as suspect

or quasi-suspect, deserves to be so recognized because it already meets the relevant standards” (30). The

standards that he provides are that the minority group must be unable to control the characteristic that makes

them a minority, they must have experienced prolonged discrimination and unequal treatment and they must

have been unable to protect their interests due to majoritarian politics (Strasser 26). He uses these criteria to

suggest that gay and lesbian couples meet the characteristics of a suspect class. This argument is also made by

Kory Schaff when he writes, “While sexual orientation is neither a suspect classification like race, nor a quasi

classification like gender, there are strong reasons why it should trigger heightened scrutiny of legislation” (133).

Cerreta 10 Like Strasser, Schaff goes on to explain criteria for determining if a minority falls under the classification

of suspect class and comes to the conclusion that sexual orientation meets the criteria. Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller

also makes the argument that the Court has not given significant consideration to the level of protection that

sexual minorities should receive. Referring to the Equal Protection Clause he writes, “Indeed nearly commensurate

with the creation of the doctrine was a judicial unwillingness to expand suspect or quasi-suspect class status…to

other groups demanding protection” (Hiller 20). Similarly to Gerstmann and Schmidtke, these authors claim that if

the proper amount of scrutiny were applied to legislation involving discrimination against sexual orientation, it

would not be possible for the government to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Therefore, existing

literature argues for the use of the Equal Protection Clause to establish the right to same-sex marriage in two

different ways. However, these authors all arrive at the conclusion that if sexual orientation was given a proper

classification, there would be no way that the government could justify prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although

these arguments appear correct, existing literature does not greatly examine if the government’s interest in

prohibiting same-sex marriage is justified based on the lowest level of scrutiny, which is the level in which sexual

orientation is currently classified. My thesis argues that even under sexual orientation’s current classification, the

government does not pass the lowest level of scrutiny for prohibiting same-sex marriage. I examine the common

reasons given for barring same-sex marriage including the state’s interest in promoting procreation, childrearing

and stable family life. I argue that these are not sufficient reasons for prohibiting same-sex marriage due to
scientific and social data collected from several respected scholars and organizations. Cerreta 11 Most authors

advocate the use of the Equal Protection Clause to establish a right to samesex marriage. However, due to past

Supreme Court cases that have involved the right to privacy and gay rights or marriage rights, some authors

believe the right of privacy establishes a right to gay marriage. These authors argue that the Court has recognized

that marriage is a fundamental right and that certain aspects of marriage are protected under the constitutional

right to privacy (see Feigen and Hohengarten). William Hohengarten comments on this idea when he writes: “The

right of privacy prevents the state from taking over the lives of individual citizens by making basic familial decisions

for them” (1523). He argues that the familial decision of whether or not a couple should get married should be left

to the couple, not the state (Hohengarten 1523). Therefore, he finds that the state should not discriminate based

on the gender or sex of a couple that wants to get married. He writes that the state has “the obligation to create a

legal framework for marriage and to open it equally to adult couples regardless of gender” (Hohengarten 1523).

Brenda Feigen uses past legal decisions to argue that the right to privacy creates a right to samesex marriage. She

cites Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and argues that since the Court found a personal right for same-sex couples to

engage in private sexual conduct, it is the next logical step for the Court to recognize that same-sex couples are

entitled to make private decisions about who they wish to marry. Feigen writes, “Since intimate conduct is, indeed,

but one element in an enduring personal bond, it certainly seems as though the state's sanctioning that bond

through marriage would be a next step, as was taken in Goodridge” (350). Feign and Hohengarten argue that the

right to privacy includes the right to make certain family decisions without the direct interference or judgment of

the government, including the decision of marriage. Although there is existing literature that argues that the right

to same-sex marriage exists through the right to privacy, there are scholars who oppose this view. Authors like

Jonathan Cerreta 12 Rauch and Charles Mauney Jr. contend that marriage is a public institution, and therefore, the

right to privacy does not apply to same-sex marriage. Rauch specifically examines the Supreme Court ruling of

Lawrence v. Texas (2003). He states that the Lawrence decision upheld same-sex couples’ right to engage in private

consensual sexual relations because sex is private conduct (Rauch 2003). He maintains that since marriage is a

public institution, the state has an interest in it and therefore, the right to privacy does not establish a right to

same-sex marriage (Rauch 2003). Charles Mauney Jr. makes a similar argument about Lawrence. Like Rauch, he

claims that marriage is part of public society and therefore, Lawrence does not apply to same-sex marriage. He
also notes that the Supreme Court’s written decision in Lawrence stressed that the government could make certain

restrictions in the private realm (Mauney 158). Therefore, these authors claim that the right to privacy cannot be

used to justify a right to same-sex marriage because marriage is public, not private. Clearly, there are differing

views on whether the right to privacy establishes a right to same-sex marriage. The argument that appears more

convincing is Rauch and Mauney’s argument that the right to privacy does not apply to same-sex marriage.

Particularly, the wording in the decision for Lawrence suggests that the Court does not want to extend the right to

privacy to include the right for same-sex couples to marry. In my thesis, I analyze the written decision for Lawrence

and I suggest that the better route for supporters of same-sex marriage to take for legalization is through the use

of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides sound legal reasoning. Assuming that there is a Constitutional right

to same-sex marriage, authors of existing literature disagree over which branch of the government should be

responsible for developing the right. The two competing ideologies are that the courts should develop

constitutional rights and Cerreta 13 that the legislatures should develop these rights. The Executive is rarely

considered in this argument because it is not responsible for interpreting constitutional laws. Several authors

believe that the courts should determine right because they are not easily influenced by the political majority and

are more likely to recognize the rights guaranteed to minorities through the Constitution (see Dworkin, Hiller,

Schmidtke and Nussbaum). The second school of thought argues that the legislatures should develop rights

because the courts are ineffective and their decisions are only enforced with the help of outside factors such as the

support of legislatures, economic support or approval through public opinion (see Rosenberg and Scheingold).

Unlike the argument of whether the Equal Protection Clause or the right to privacy establishes a right to same-sex

marriage, there is greater disagreement among existing literature over which of these two schools of thought is

correct. The first argument in support of the courts is made by several authors who take a more positive view of

the courts’ abilities to instigate social and political change. Ronald Dworkin argues that the courts are more suited

to recognize rights because they are insulated from the political majority, which historically has been unwilling to

recognize the rights of minorities (130). Dworkin expands on this idea when he writes, “The Constitution, and

particularly the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect individual citizens and groups against certain decisions that a

majority of citizens might want to make” (133). He argues that the majority of American citizens do not encourage

the legislatures to recognize minority rights because of their own personal prejudices. He believes that because
many judges on courts are not elected by American citizens; they will be less influenced by the desires of the

majority and more willing to recognize minority rights (Dworkin 133). He writes that “to make the majority judge in

its own cause seems inconsistent and unjust” (Dworkin 142). Therefore, he believes that to ensure a fair

recognition Cerreta 14 of rights, the courts must be responsible for defining them. Since he wrote his book in the

1970s, he does not directly address the issue of same-sex marriage. However, I plan to test Dworkin’s theory to

suggest that his ideas still apply over thirty years later to the contemporary issue of same-sex marriage. Other

authors have agreed with Dworkin and believe that the right to same-sex marriage must be determined by the

courts. Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller writes, “Equal Protection law has one of its justifications in ‘representational

reinforcement,’ or the constitutional imperative to protect minorities who would otherwise remain at the mercy of

political majorities” (20). Here, Hiller argues that the courts have always been responsible for protecting minority

rights from majoritarian politics. Additionally, Eric Schmidtke makes the argument that state legislatures have

already greatly limited the right to same-sex marriage (219). He believes that the actions of these legislatures have

been incorrect and that the Supreme Court is the only avenue to correct this injustice (Schmidtke 236). Martha

Nussbaum makes a very similar argument that minorities’ right to marriage has historically not been protected by

the states and that these rights must be recognized by the courts. She argues that the Supreme Court was

responsible for recognizing the right to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), and therefore, it is the

Court’s duty to extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples (Nussbaum 48). The general agreement among

these authors is that courts should be responsible for determining the right to same-sex marriage because they are

more likely to identify rights of minorities than the legislatures. The other argument that is often made in existing

literature is that the legislatures should develop rights. This argument is made by Gerald Rosenberg in his book,

The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, and a law review article, “Saul Alinsky and the Litigation

Campaign to Win the Right to Same-Sex Marriage.” He claims that the courts are generally Cerreta 15 ineffective

unless certain constraints are overcome through the support of the legislatures, the market economy or public

support. In his book, he argues that the courts have had an impact on the legalization of same-sex marriage in

certain ways. However, he points to the massive backlash by sates against court rulings as evidence that the courts

are ineffective at implementing real social change (Rosenberg Hollow Hope 361).Unlike Dworkin, Rosenberg

directly addresses the issue of same-sex marriage in his book. However, his book is even somewhat outdated since
several states have legalized same-sex marriage since its publication. In an article he published after his book, he

addresses some of the changes that have occurred over time. Despite some progress, he still sees the courts as

ineffective and does not believe that nationwide legalization will happen anytime soon (Rosenberg “Sal Alinsky”

662). He believes that the litigation movement acted too quickly, ignoring that public support and political support

for same-sex marriage was lacking (Rosenberg “Saul Alinsky” 667). When these factors of support are missing, he

believes that litigation cannot be successful. Stuart Scheingold makes a similar argument to Rosenberg by claiming

that there is a “myth of rights.” He defines this myth as “the assumption that litigation can evoke a declaration of

rights from courts; that it can, further, be used to assure the realization of these rights; and finally, that realization

is tantamount to meaningful change” (5). He provides the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) as an

example of the Court’s ineffectiveness when he writes, “There is no need to look further than school

desegregation problems to realize that the declaration of rights does not purge political conflict of its power

dimensions” (Scheingold 85). Therefore, he argues that the only redeeming quality of judicial decisions is their

ability to spark a certain amount of political mobilization (Scheingold 136). The argument made by Scheingold

Cerreta 16 and Rosenberg suggests that the courts are ineffective and those seeking change should look elsewhere

in government for results. In my thesis, I test Dworkin’s theory to see if the courts truly are more likely to recognize

minority rights than legislatures. I use case studies of how same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, New

York and California. I look at public opinion polls to see if states that legalized through their state supreme courts

recognized the minority right despite a lack of public opinion support. I also analyze whether states that legalized

through their state legislatures were more likely to do so because of public opinion support for same-sex marriage.

Overall, existing literature on the issue of same-sex marriage suggests that a constitutional right to same-sex

marriage exists and can be found in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, there

are differences in opinion on whether a classification system should exist or whether sexual orientation should

merely be classified in a different group. Once a right to same-sex marriage is established, existing literature argues

that either the courts or the legislatures should be responsible for developing the right. Overall, there is greater

amount of disagreement between authors writing about the second question than the first. This leaves room for

my thesis to determine which of the two theories applies more realistically to the issue of same-sex marriage.

https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1222&context=srhonors_theses
Same-Sex Scrutiny: Should There Be Equality for LGBT or Why Equality for LGBT?

Marilyn F Ashworth

Literature Review

I. Religious Controversial and Public Opinions The Supreme Court of the United States (US) recently

issued a ruling to legalized gay marriages universally. Requiring every state to permit licensing same-

sex unions. However in light of this decision many American societal views are intertwined with their

religious preferences. Flooding the U.S. Supreme Court with court cases questioning if it

unconstitutional for states to forbid same-sex marriage and whether states may refuse to recognize

LGBT marriages lawfully (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender (LGBT) legislature regulations is a political matter that needs to be address withclear

legislative language. As noted by Blackstone (2012), Congress can overrule the Supreme Court

decisions if they feel it is a violation of one’s Constitutional rights by initiating the Constitutional

Amendment process (p. 199). The Constitutional Amendment process is initiated when a proposal is

received via the House of Representatives or Congress. Approximately two-thirds of votes must be

received by the majority of both parties according to the Constitution. However, an amendment

could be by two-thirds of State Governmental officials as well as the Senate or House of

Representatives. The Commander-in-Chief does not have a legislative role in the amendment process.

However, he may be part of the ceremonial process (Lutz, 1994 p. 355). The District of Columbia and

at least thirty-seven states had already adopted legislation as a result of elector action or the reversal

of a court rulings. However, in spite of the Court’s decision, there have been inferences made that

suggests those opposed to same-sex equality are dedicated to supporting legislation that provide

balance. Many enthusiasts take the stance that the constitutional legalities give LGBT partners the

right to have similar benefits and legal prominence as straight unions Support for LGBT marriages and

public sentiment censuses demonstrate that more Americans are in favor or evenly split The equal

protections clause of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that every legal resident be afforded similar
protection. Many supporters advocate that these constitutional rights should include same-sex

marriages as demonstrated in the case of Loving vs. Virginia. According to several media outlets,

there have been several new rulings implemented for LGBT couples in the United States.

Nonetheless, the decriminalization of LGBT marriages has been televised on nearly every national

news network across the nation. Many prominent Ministers such as Pastor Bishop TD Jakes of The

Potter’s House megachurch and Pastor Kenneth Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries (2015)

have differences of opinions on the decision by the Supreme Court. Jakes proclaims to his

megachurch that he is more alarm about religious freedom as opposed to same-sex marriages. He

has alluded to his congregation that the United States Supreme Court is a worldly establishment.

Jakes contends the government entity has a legal obligation to validate laws governing the rights of

all citizens. The Court has the responsibility to render decisions based on the constitutionality of

human rights. However, according to Pastor Kenneth Copeland Ministries, the ruling by the Supreme

Court infringes on the principles explicitly enumerated in our founding documents. Copeland believes

that that the Constitution is straightforward as to how our government is to carry out the guiding

principles of the law. In researching Christian views, attitudes, and the debate concerning same-sex

unions. I encounter a young woman at the Veteran Administration (VA) hospital in Salisbury, North

Carolina, who asserted she was a lesbian. She so graciously shares she were a lesbian who were still

living in the shadows of her parents. She knew from as a young child that she was different from

other females. She contends, “I never were physical- attracted to males, my sexual tendencies were

towards other females. The thought of wearing dresses sicken her to the point of despair. She

proclaims she never heard term LGBT, until high school, but did not relate it to her situation. Raised

in a two-parent home, who like so many others are convicted by their religious principles, she is

unable to live freely as a lesbian. When asked if she is a believer, she quotes “that the Bible is against

homosexuality.” She utters she cannot outright defile her mother and father. Alluding to a previous

relationship, she emphasizes she tried to apply for a joint credit card with a lesbian partner as her

husband and theapplication was denied. She contends the denial of credit was because there were

two females and one was listed as the husband. The company told me “that was fraud.” she
proclaims. The story reminds me of a heterosexual couple who cannot openly love each other

because to do so would cause a rift in their relationship with their families. The young woman states

she only want to live as happily as the next person, but will remain in the closet until she moves to

another state or her parents die. This is another example of why LGBT equality should be address in

America. Many who publicly express their views do so on the bases or traditions whereas other

fervent Christian’s mention the Bible verse when debating the topic of homosexuality. They see it as

an immoral sin that subvert God’s intended purpose that is for children to be born of a woman.

Consequently, some religious leaders and Christian advocators argue that God created everyone

whether they were straight, LGBT, or in a heterosexual relationship or gay marriage. They believe the

laws should guarantee them the same affirmation as heterosexual marriages. Citing biblical scriptures

that condemn such as the story of Lot and the reprobate minded person. However, there are some

religious establishments, and their leaders would take a different approach when the topic of

homosexuality arises. The conflict over LGBT marriages will remain in question until the legality of the

marriage legislation is outlined. As recent legislation as shown that there is no cut-and-dry definitive

meaning of what constitutes a legal marriage. Many have form their own definition, and opinions.

Although there is unequivocally no mention of same-sex marriage in the Bible, the language

unambiguously denounces homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural iniquity. In the book of

Leviticus, (King James Version, n.d.), the authors assert that God considers homosexuality an

abomination and despicable immorality as aforementioned. Another authoremphasizes that Jesus

declared homosexual cravings and activities to be unnatural and indecent. However, considering all

these assertions many will stand firmly against supporting proposed legislative laws granting equality

when God condemns such relations. It is printed in multiple locations of the King James Version (n.d.),

that homosexuality is an unrighteous act. “Whosoever commits such acts will not be part of God’s

kingdom.” Consequently, both homosexual tendencies and activities are condemned in the Bible.

According to the Bible, there is no doubt LGBT marriages are not part of the Lord’s will. According to a

Moskowitz et al. (2010), people had the same perception and attitudes towards a lesbian marriage

and gay men. Heterosexual individual’s arrogances are associated with their shrewdness of
 homophobia. Contrariwise, it is still not proven whether a gender difference is linked with this

association. Their results from the study demonstrated that one’s aversion to lesbian nuptials and gay

men were based on religion. The same results were similar for both heterosexual women and men,

males were more homophobic compared to women attitudinal variances. Conversely, evidence

supports the notion that male counterparts are more accepting of lesbian relationships than gay men

(p. 325). However, regardless of how the public or mega pastors feels about the Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community, Frost (2012) contends there is a need for them to feel

accepted as a heterosexual married couple (p. 36). Granting that LGBT people presently revel in an

unparalleled degree of social and legislative acceptance, many are ridiculed by religious activists.

They continue to be the subject of a wide-range of legal inequalities in their daily lives. Even with the

recent legislative changes, there are still legalities that have to straighten out among every state.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, discrimination of the LGBT community was legal in the majority of

states, whereas the several mainstream states actively practice discrimination against same-sex

marriages. Among the disparities were the right to formulate a union between same sexes,

healthcare, parenting, employment, safety, education, and government benefits amongst other

things. In some locations, teachers were prohibited from educating students about sexual orientation

whereas in other states adoptions were forbidden by men and lesbians. Likewise, transgender

individuals face contradictory and overlapping rubrics. (Knauer, 2012, p. 748-749).

file:///C:/Users/Andador%20Family/Downloads/A_Literature_Review_of_Same-Sex_Policies%20(1).pdf
THE CONTROVERSY OF HOMOSEXUALITY: A Critical Look At The Issues That Make

Legalizing Homosexuality In Malawi Difficult

By Manuel Malamba BA

Spring 2012

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section of the thesis will discuss the concept of “sexual rights”. It will discuss the debates in human rights

regarding sexual rights. It will discuss why the issue of sexual rights is a human rights issue. The chapter has also

attempted to discuss the status of homosexuality in Malawi. Factors that shape people’s attitudes on same-sex

relationships are also discussed. This section will provide the framework on how data will be analyzed later on in

this project. To make the debates clearer and easier to follow, the researcher has divided the chapter into sub-

sections. 2.1 Homosexual Rights and their current status in Africa The issue of homosexuality remains to be one of

the most controversial issues in the world today. In 2007, the International Gay and Lesbian Association (IGLA)

performed a world survey on the legal status of homosexuality. As of 2007, 40 of Africa's 53 countries criminalized

and viewed homosexuality in various capacities meaning that 75% of Africa outlaws homosexuality (IGLA, 2007).

Research on homosexuality in African studies has split between two predominant fields (Anderson, 2007). Amory

(1997), reports that the western scholars research and theorize about the diverse history of sexuality and gender

in Africa, while Africans in the field are focusing on post-colonial practice. This academic difference reflects the two

aspects of homosexuality in Africa, the historical and the contemporary (Anderson, 2007). It also identifies the two

areas where African scholars can influence public opinion on homosexuality in Africa; firstly the realization that gay

rights are human rights and not ‘un-African’ as it is usually claimed, and secondly that homophobia represents the

lingering imperialism of both colonial and imported religion (Anderson, 2007). 2.2 The question of “identity” The

concept of homosexual rights problematizes several areas, such as definitions of sexuality and identity, cultural

relativism versus the universalism of human rights, the individual and community, cultural imperialism, cultural

convergence, globalization and international relations, to name as stated by Offord and Cantrell, (2001). Sexuality

and identity are highly contentious areas which are under immense debate within most schools of thought (Fuss,
1989; Stein, 1990). 18 | P a g e For a formulation of homosexual rights to be substantive, the whole question of

identity is crucial in terms of organizing a gay and lesbian presence in law and politics. Questions of identity and

naming oneself “gay” or “lesbian” are important in the discussion of human rights and homosexuality in southern

Africa (Dunton and Palmberg, 1996). To demand to be protected against harassment and discrimination on the

grounds of sexual orientation involves some degree of acknowledgement of the nature of one’s sexual

preferences. According to the International Council on Human Rights (2009) problems of definition exist in

attempting to situate the concept of homosexual rights in the human rights context. Homosexual rights represent

first and foremost the right of an individual to express his or her sexuality with freedom and dignity, and to do so

protected by the law of the State (Offord and Cantrell, 2001). How does one express his or her sexuality with

freedom and dignity when the state in which they live in has restrictive laws to prevent it? Herein is the central

difficulty. 2.3 The question of ‘legitimate sex’ and the state The modern day state has been regulating sexual

behaviour of its citizens. The state from the beginning of its establishment has decided what “legitimate sex” is.

International human rights law facilitates the state’s repressive role in regulating sexual activity and expression

(International Council on Human rights, 2009). International human rights law states very little about the national

regulation of sexuality. States are permitted to limit sexual behaviour but only on certain grounds which are

generally phrased in the following terms: in conformity with the law; necessary in a democratic society; in the

interests’ of national security or public safety, public order; protection of public and health morals or the

protection of public health morals; or the protection of rights and freedoms, and reputations of others (ICCPR,

articles 18, 19, 21 and 22). Bamforth (1997) asks what these justifications imply for sexual rights, and where should

their values or content be challenged? Freedman et al. (2004 cited by International Council on Human Rights

Policy, 2009) asserts that when many key international human rights instruments were drafted, in most

modernizing states marriage and reproduction provided the legal and social context for acceptable sexual conduct.

He says two kinds of human rights standards related to homosexuality emerged. One addressed the conditions of

entry into marriage: “marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the 19 | P a g e intending spouses

(ICESCR, Article 10). The other addressed equality within marriage. The importance of marriage consent in human

rights and sexual relations was set out clearly though it was subsumed within the practice of consenting to

marriage (International Council on Human rights, 2009). In most developed states, the governments are
advocating for easier conditions for homosexuals. In contrast, in developing countries like Malawi the state still is

the main regulator of sexuality. The human rights debate articulates the tension between the modern state and

the “sphere of individual freedom” (Kunhardt, 1987, cited by Heinze, 1995:69). In the last 40 years, seismic

changes have occurred in social understandings of what is acceptable sexuality (International Council on Human

Rights, 2009). There have been several factors that have contributed to different attitudes that people have

towards homosexuality. Religion, politics and culture are some of the major factors. Below is a discussion of these

factors in detail. 2.4 Religion and Homosexuality Personal religious beliefs and affiliation are usually seen as

powerful predictors of attitudes about homosexuality. As Yip (in Adamczyk 2009) states, most religions tend to

categorize behaviours associated with homosexuality as “unnatural”, “ungodly”, and “impure”. Active religious

involvement, regular exposure to religious literature, and frequent interaction with religious friends are likely to

encourage anti-homosexual attitudes (Olson et al., 2006; Sherkat and Ellison, 1997; Scheitle, 2009 in Adamcyzk

2009). Cross-national differences in cultural orientations suggest that the role that religion has in explaining sexual

attitudes may depend on a nation’s cultural context (Adamczyk and Pitt, 2009). Studies conducted in United States

and Europe have suggested that the religious culture of a nation may shape attitudes that people have on

homosexuality. Adamcyzk (in Felson and Adamcyzk, Moore and Vanneman) has suggested that even people who

are not personally religious may be influenced by the religious culture in which the live. 2.5 Culture and

Homosexuality Culture has been one of the major reasons most African governments have rejected homosexuality.

Lamb (1982) asserted that homosexuality in Africa is virtually unknown and said that Africa is rigidly heterosexual.

Scholars in agreement with Lamb have parti 20 | P a g e that homosexuality is a cultural practice from the west

that was brought to Africa. However, over the years Lamb's idea has been challenged by many scholars. Dynes

rejects the claim that homosexuality is western culture but however attributes its current prejudice and

marginalization to the missionaries outright condemnation of the practice (Pincheon, 2000 cited by Anderson,

2007). He says when missionaries came to Africa to spread Christianity, they preached against homosexuality

hence the existence of homophobia today in Africa. Amory (1997) also seeks to dispel the myth of African

homosexuality being a culture from the west. He says the “the white man” was most probably the source of

African homophobia that perpetuates contemporary persecution. Anderson (2007) argues that colonialism may

have brought Europe’s concept of homosexuality to Africa, but it did not introduce her to same-sex eroticism. This
leads to an important question. Is the western “concept of homosexuality” understood the same in all cultures

across the world? Homosexual behaviour might have existed (or exists) in Malawi but it is looked at in a different

perspective because of the cultural differences between the Malawi and the west. There is evidence that

homosexuality existed in Sub-Saharan Africa long before colonization (Murray, 2005). Thus, this disputes the claim

that homosexuality is an import from the west. Kendall (in Anderson, 2007) makes a fascinating and insightful

distinction between women-to-women eroticism and the western concept of lesbianism. She uses the example of

Lesotho women in a culture where there is no concept or social construction equivalent to “lesbian” (Phillips,

2001). Thus, while the western concept of lesbianism is common place in Lesotho, in the absence of the western

lesbian construct this behaviour was not and is not seen as sexual or an alternative to heterosexual marriage. In

recent times a number of African leaders have openly criticized homosexuality. Robert Mugabe at one point

postulated that homosexuals are “worse than dogs”. Namibia's president Sam Nujoma declared that “homosexuals

must be condemned and rejected in society” (Anderson, 2007). The Malawian former president Bingu wa

Mutharika had stated that homosexuality is against Malawian cultural values (Chinoko, 2012). Siker (2007), states

that the prohibition of a particular behaviour should be taken as prima facie evidence for its existence. 21 | P a g e

2.6 Industrialization and Attitude change The key to solving the problem of homophobia is to change the attitudes

of homophobic persons on same-sex relationships. However, what influences attitude change? According to

Inglehart et al., (2002) there is a link between attitude change and economic development. In a study of 65 nations

that represented 75% of world’s population, Inglehart and his colleagues examined the link between economic

development and attitude change in different countries. On the basis of their findings from the World Values

Survey, Inglehart and Baker (2000) explain that as nations undergo the process of industrialization and

modernization, attitudes and values shift away from concerns about physical and economic security to world-views

that are increasingly rational, tolerant and trusting (cited by Adamczyk, 2009). He further says instead of people

worrying about fulfilling basic needs like shelter, food; people become increasingly interested in issues related to

subjective well-being, quality of life and self expression (Inglehart, 1977, cited by Adamczyk, 2009). Conversely,

when a nation is regularly faced with political and economic uncertainty and insecurity, people are likely to

support values and norms that emphasize the famil 22 | P a g e Malawi adopted a constitution in 1994 which

guarantees human rights and freedoms for its people. The issue of sexual orientation becomes a human rights
issue for a number of reasons. CEDEP and CHRR (2011) state that “Homosexuals are human beings and human

rights by definition imply the rights a person has, simply because he or she is a human being. These human rights

are by their very nature: inalienable, implying that a person cannot lose these rights any more than a person can

cease being human; indivisible, implying that you cannot be denied a right because it is less important than

another right; and are inherent in a human being” (CEDEP, 2011). A baseline study conducted by an NGO the

Centre for The Development of the People (CEDEP) conducted in 2011 unveiled a number of issues concerning

LGBT people in Malawi. According to the study, the majority of Malawian people think that same sex relationships

are not normal and should not be allowed in Malawian society (CEDEP, 2011). Most of the people who were

interviewed in the baseline study said that they started hearing issues concerning homosexuality after Steven

Monjeza and Tionge Chimbalanga were arrested in 2009. There are also challenges to appreciate the existence of

homosexuals in the country. Certain groups have argued that the number of people involved in same sex

orientation is insignificant in Malawi to warrant actual programmes to promote these minority rights. CEPEP

(2011) asserts that this has been based on the fact there is no data to determine the gay population in Malawi. 2.8

Politics, Donor aid and issue of Homosexuality in Malawi It is politically important that human rights have been

codified in international and national law, but it is a mistake to believe that the legalization of human rights takes

the concept out of politics (Freeman, 2002). This is mainly because of the content in international law also requires

political consent from states to be applicable. The state shall always be a major player as far as human rights are

concerned because their (rights) recognition and content application are conditioned by political factors. Malawi

like most developing nations depends on donor aid to supplement its national programmes. This aid usually comes

under some conditions that Malawi has to fulfill. Some of the conditions include good governance and

transparency and accountability. Since the gay rights saga began in Malawi donors have questioned Malawi’s

human rights record. The donors 23 | P a g e like Britain have postulated that Malawi must repeal all the

oppressive laws and adopt new laws that will enable homosexuals live freely (The Nation Newspaper, 2011). The

United States a major donor to Malawi for instance announced that it would use foreign aid to pressure countries

like Malawi to decriminalize sexual acts (Smith, 2011). In response, the Malawian government through the Justice

Minister Ephraim Chiume stated that “It will now review provisions of the penal code concerning "indecent

practices and unnatural acts", "In view of the sentiments from the general public and in response to public opinion
regarding certain laws, the government wishes to announce to the Malawi nation that it is submitting the relevant

laws and provisions of laws to the law commission for review,". Despite such sentiments from the government

nothing concrete has been put forward and homosexuality still remains illegal. This has however not influenced

the Malawian government. In fact, in its response it has passed more laws that further criminalize homosexuality.

The government has accused the west of tying its aid to conditions that are not suitable for Malawi. Because of the

gay issue and other human rights issues like press freedom in the country some aid was withdrawn. This has been

affecting Malawi’s already fragile economy. This also justifies why it is important to look at the gay issues in Malawi

since the issue indirectly affects everyone in the country. It is argued that discrimination based on sexual

orientation violates a number of rights on the people affected. Some of the rights include right to dignity, right to

privacy, right to nondiscrimination and in some instances even the right to health. 2.9 The Rights to Privacy, Non-

discrimination, Health, Dignity and Homosexuality in Malawi 2.9.1 Privacy When the Malawian couple was arrested

in 2009 some scholars and commentators have argued that the state violated their right to privacy among other

rights. It is also argued that the manner in which one of the offenders was treated by the authorities when he was

forced to undress several times for people to ‘verify’ whether he was a woman was contrary to the Constitution of

Malawi and its international human rights obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Mujuzi, 2011). According to CEDEP and CHRR (2011)

restrictive laws on homosexual practices tend to allow 24 | P a g e for invasive actions that interfere with a

person’s privacy and human dignity, such as subjection of suspected homosexuals to intrusion into their bodily

integrity through their subjection to nonconsensual medical tests, or experiments, searches of their homes,

communications among others. Section 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi states that “Every person

shall have the right to personal privacy which shall include the right not to be subjected to: (a) searches of his or

her person, home or property; (b) the seizure of private possessions; or (c) interference with private

communication, including mail and all forms of telecommunications (Malawi Constitution, 2004). The Universal

Declaration of Rights (UDHR) also states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,

family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the

protection of the law against such interference or attacks. However, despite international law and the Malawian

constitution citing the above homosexuality still remains an illegal act in Malawi. 2.9.2 Non-discrimination In some
instances homosexuals are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Article one of the Universal

Declaration of human rights states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and right (UDHR, art.

1). Equality, and thus prohibition on discrimination on any ground, is at the foundation of the human rights policy

of the UN (Smith, 2008). So discrimination on any ground is against the UN charter. Section 20 of the Malawian

Constitution states that “discrimination of any persons in any form is prohibited and all persons are, under any law,

guaranteed equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language,

religion, political or other opinion, nationality, ethnic or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status.”

The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) also states that every individual shall be entitled to the

enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any

kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any 25 | P a g e other opinion, national

and social origin, fortune, birth or other status (cited by CHRR and CEDEP, 2011). 2.9.3 Right to Health Issues of

right to health are raised when there are laws that bar the practice of homosexuality. As observed by CEDEP and

CHRR (2011) persons in this category are often left out on various public health initiatives, such as education

programmes, or provision of disease/infection prevention and care and support initiatives, leading to the denial of

the right to health for persons in this category. Section 13 of the constitution of the Republic of Malawi states that

“the State shall actively promote the welfare and development of the people of Malawi by progressively adopting

and implementing policies and legislation aimed at achieving the following goals: Health: To provide adequate

health care, commensurate with the health needs of Malawian society and international standards of health care

(Malawi Constitution, 2004). Malawi is one of the poorest nations in the world and it has struggled to deal with the

HIV/AIDS pandemic. Human rights are an integral part in addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. According to CHRR

and CEDEP (2011) human rights violations increase the vulnerability of HIV infection. In the context of

homosexuality “discriminatory policies and practices can also result in people being denied access to the

information, support and services necessary to make informed decisions and to reduce their vulnerability and risk

of infection (CEDEP and CHRR, 2011). Because of fear of stigma and discrimination coupled with unfriendly laws

many homosexuals in Malawi operate underground which poses serious challenges on HIV and AIDS interventions

(CEDEP and CHRR) , 2011). 2.9.4 Right to Dignity According to the United Nations Declaration on Human rights all

human beings have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Homosexuality as a form of sexual orientation
raises issues on the human right to human dignity. The aspect of personal autonomy which is central to the right to

human dignity is implicated by laws or practices that prevent people from acting as autonomous beings in

prohibiting them from conforming to their particular sexual orientation (CEDEP and CHRR, 2011). The operation of

the guarantees for the human right to personal 26 | P a g e autonomy in this regard implies strict restrictions on

what actions the state or private entities can regulate on private acts done by consenting adults in private.

file:///C:/Users/Andador%20Family/Downloads/thesis.pdf
College Students’ Attitudes toward LGBT Individuals

Tessa M. Johnson and Ashley A. Greeley

Literature Review In researching attitudes towards homosexuality, it is important to keep in mind that there are

limited studies available. This may be because the issue of homosexuality is a more contemporary topic in today’s

society. Most of the studies found used the term homosexuality; however, we will be using homosexuality and

LGBT interchangeably. The majority of the studies available seem to be correlational because they compare

different populations and their attitudes towards homosexuality. Similarly, this study is attempting to show a

relationship between college students’ attitudes towards homosexual persons and which major that student is in.

The articles that were reviewed gave some information on why people perceive individuals to be homosexual

based on their characteristics. These four studies provided a basis for why more research is needed in this field.

The research reviewed indicated that homosexuality is still something that is disapproved in society, even though it

is more visible in the public domain (Wong, McCreary, Carpenter, Engle, & Korchynsky, 1999; Burn, 2000; Kim,

D’Andrea, Sahu, & Gaughen, 1998; Herek, 1988). College Students’ Attitudes toward LGBT Individuals Wong,

McCreary, Carpenter, Engle, and Korchynsky (1999) examined why male and female college students thought

some of their peers were of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. This research suggests that a male will

be looked down upon since he is lowering his social ranking by being more feminine, and that a female might not

be “punished” for acting in an opposite gender role because the male role is considered superior. In a study based

on heterosexuals’ use of the words “fag” or “queer,” Burn (2000) found that harassment of gay students is

common and that college students are frequently exposed to language that reminds them that LGBT individuals

are seen as undesirable and abnormal by the dominant heterosexual society. Burn also found that anti-gay

language is most common within the young male culture and is specific towards male homosexuality. Kim,

D’Andrea, Sahu, and Gaughen (1998) found that the issue of homosexuality in the past few decades has become a

topic of greater discussion and is increasingly more public in the United States. This study focused on the

knowledge individuals have about gay and lesbian persons in relationship to their attitudes toward the issue of

homosexuality. Overall, having positive attitudes about homosexuals most likely implies that a person has more
knowledge and understanding about the lifestyles of gay and lesbian persons. Furthermore, these positive

attitudes lead to greater acceptance. A unique finding of this study indicated that students’ knowledge and

attitudes toward homosexuality changed significantly in relation to their chosen field of study. In particular,

students in an education major expressed greater knowledge and acceptance of LGBT individuals than students

majoring in business. In 1988, Herek tried to show a relationship between heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians

and gay men and gender. Herek attempted to uncover whether heterosexual male attitudes were more positive or

negative than heterosexual women by rating their homophobia, or personal and institutional prejudice against

lesbians and gay men. According to this study, heterosexual individuals with negative attitudes are more likely to

express traditional, restrictive attitudes about gender roles. One of the most consistent findings in this study

revealed that heterosexual males manifest more anti-gay hostility on average than do heterosexual females. One

explanation for men feeling more negatively toward homosexuality is the idea that American society has placed

such an emphasis on the importance of heterosexuality being linked to masculinity. While there was a very small

study showing a relationship between education majors being less heterosexist towards LGBT people than

business majors, the purpose of our study is to take it one step further by including more diverse majors. We are

exploring the relationship between choice of major and heterosexist attitudes towards LGBT people. The central

research question in this study is “What is the relationship of male and female college student’s attitudes toward

LGBT individuals compared across the curriculum in the following majors at the University of Wisconsin-Stout:

Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS), Applied Science (AS), Art (ART), Engineering Technology (ET), and

Hospitality and Tourism (HT)?” It is hypothesize that male-dominated majors will exhibit more heterosexist

attitudes overall. Theoretical Framework The theory used in this study is the Feminist Theory (Strong et. al.., 2005).

It was developed as a result of the feminist movement and it was used to study how each family was shaped by

gender and gender roles. Historically, men were expected to display masculine attributes, while all women were

expected to display femininity. This theory indicates that males and females have specific gender roles that they

must conform to. While mostly gender related, this theory also extends to all oppressed groups based on age,

class, ethnicity, race, disability, or sexual orientation. As applied to this study, the Feminist Theory would predict

that the results would reflect that of society’s assumptions towards males and females. This theory suggests that

our College Students’ Attitudes toward LGBT Individuals sample’s attitudes would reflect heterosexual and
traditional gender roles based on men possessing masculine traits and women exhibiting feminine traits. Also, this

theory indicates that males are responsible for having established the gender roles in which all individuals, male

and female, are expected to follow. This could imply that men, in general, have stronger feelings about staying

within the gender role boundaries. Furthermore, because gender roles were socially constructed by men, we feel

that males will probably have a more heterosexist attitude.

file:///C:/Users/Andador%20Family/Downloads/AttitudesTowardsLGBT-1.pdf
A Great Divide on Homosexuality in the Contemporary World: How Do Attitudes

Change?

Aleksandr Ilikbaev

May 2017

Literature Review Since our research about public opinion towards homosexuality will be conducted in the field of

quantitative political science, sociology and cultural studies, we will explore the literature related to this issue in

the same fields. In addition, because we try to understand the reasons behind 53 Kon 1995 10 the global divide on

homosexuality in the world, it makes sense to investigate papers based on data gathered from different countries

from all over world. It is intuitive that when we research such issue as homosexuality and attitudes towards it,

cultural context and religion may play an important role in shaping these attitudes. Historical review also

suggested its importance. When we speak about culture and cultural change, it is appropriate to mention Ronald

Inglehart, an American political scientist and director of the World Values Survey who had done a lot of research

focused on cultural and value change, based on the world data from his survey. In his first two great volumes, The

Silent Revolution (1977)54 and Culture Shift in 11 Homosexuality was first criminalized under the influence of new

religions – Christianity and Islam, and then decriminalized either after revolutions (and what is revolution if not the

most radical value change?) and secularization. In addition, economic development is another predictor of public

opinion on homosexuality. Since poverty and economic insecurity are associated with secular values, and,

therefore, less tolerance towards homosexuality, the economic prosperity and social welfare, in the contrary,

promoted the self-expression values and increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Inglehart and Baker (2000)

tested the thesis that economic development and modernization is linked to the change of values, including the

public opinion towards homosexuality. For this purpose they used data from three waves of the World Values

Surveys from 65 societies and 75% of world population. Public acceptance of homosexuality in their view is very

important because it could be considered level of tolerance and acceptance of any outgroup or minority in

particular society.57The acceptance of homosexuality, in turn, is associated with changing of societal values from

traditional, survival values of pre-industrial societies to secular-rational values of postindustrial ones. As was
mentioned above, Inglehart and Baker found evidence that industrialization and economic development promotes

shift in values and is responsible for huge and pervasive cultural changes in many postindustrial societies.

Inversely, economic collapse tends to move societies in opposite direction. However, Inglehart and Baker also

found evidence for persistence of distinctive traditional values and associated with them intolerance towards

homosexuality in some societies despite of the economic development. What could be the reasons for that? To

explain this notable contradiction, we should remember, that different societies, even when they are subjected to

the same economic development, react to it in different ways. In general, many country-specific factors could be

responsible for these differences, but the most interesting for our analysis is cultural heritage which also shapes

the development of each particular society. Many scholars have explored this issue as well. For example, Weber

argued that traditional values shaped usually by religion have an overwhelming influence on society and its

institutions.58Therefore, we need to investigate in more details the role of religion in shaping values and culture.

What is interesting here, however, is what we now call traditional values, are values which shaped by relatively

new world religions – Christianity and Islam. Back in pre Christian times, as our literature review suggested,

traditional values were different and they supported homosexuality. It‘s new religion who brought negative

change to these values. 57 Inglehart and Baker 2000: 19-51 58 Weber 1904, translated by Parsons 1958 12 In

addition, Inglehart‘s works were concentrated more on value change in postindustrial societies in general, and

homosexuality acceptance was only one small part of this great change, along with increasing tolerance towards

other marginalized groups. In their research Inglehart 13 survival vs. self-expression index is highly correlated with

living in Muslim-majority country and that almost all of Muslim countries with a slight exception of Nigeria have a

strong survival orientation. Adamczyk and Pitt‘s findings are indeed very important. They gave an additional

empirical support for Inglehart‘ argument about self-expression values as one of the main predictors of

homosexuality acceptance. They demonstrated also that though personal religiosity in general affects attitudes

towards homosexuality in a negative way, the difference between religion affiliations is also important. Thus,

Muslims have much more disapproving attitudes towards homosexuality compared to members of other religion

denominations. However, that could be the case not only because of negative role of Islam compared to other

religions in this respect, but also because of the strong survival orientation of almost all of Muslim-majority

countries, and the survival orientation is proved to be one of the strongest predictors of negative attitudes
towards homosexuality. Adamczyk and Pitt, however, did not find significant differences in attitudes towards

homosexuality between members of other than Muslim religion denominations. It is intuitive though that the

attitudes of Buddhists might be different from the ones of a Christian, for instance. We need to explore other

researches which examine the relation between religiosity and the religion denomination in particular, and

attitudes towards homosexuality (following Adamczyk and Pitt, we will call it later ATH). Jäckle and Wenzelburger

(2015) 60 conducted a multilevel analysis based on data of 78 countries from the two waves of the World Values

Survey (1999-2004, 2005-2009). They measured the relationships between religious denomination, religiosity and

the ATH. It is interesting, however, that, using the same data as Adamczyk and Pitt and almost the same variables

of interests (both dependent variable – justifiability of homosexuality, and independent variables – level of

religiosity and religion denomination), yet they received a slightly different results. It partially might be due to

more excessive measures of religious affiliation in their research. They included more religion denominations and

scaled them from 1 to 6 based on to which extent they promote so-called homonegativity (negative attitudes

towards homosexuality). Here is their scale, with Islam as the most homonegative religion and atheism as the

least: ―1. Islam 2. Catholicism/Protestant Free Churches/Orthodox Christianity 3. Traditional (European)

Protestantism 4. Hinduism 60 Jäckle and Wenzelburger 2015: 207-241 14 5. Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism 6.

Atheism‖ 61 Their regression results supported the hypothesis made by the authors in abovementioned scale. The

highly significant negative influence on religion on ATH is strongest in Muslim case which is in agreement with

Adamczyk and Pitt results. The differences in ATH between members of other religion denominations turned out

to be more significant than in Adamczyk and Pitt research, however. Thus, Orthodox Christians and Free Church

Protestants proved to be more homonegative than Catholics and Traditional Protestants, and the latters are more

homonegative than Buddhists and Hindus. The atheists turned out to be the least homonegative group, as was

expected by researchers. The general level of personal religiosity also affects ATH in a negative way, though to

which extent it highly depends on particular religion denomination. These findings further support the argument

about importance of particular religion denomination when we explore the ATH. Inglehart, for instance, measured

only general level of personal religiosity and did not paid specific attention to the religion denomination. Though

the last two researches demonstrate that, at least in case of ATH, this focus is indeed important. Thus, we should

not worry too much about strong religiosity of a Buddhist as we should do about the keen religious spirit of a
Muslim, if we care about gay rights. However, the slight discrepancies between two researches in terms of

differences in ATH between members of other than Muslim religion denominations suggest that we should

replicate this analysis in our own research. One more research contributed to the field of relations between

religion and homosexuality. Rimac and Štulhofer (2008)62 explored the determinants of homonegativity in Europe

using data from the European Values Study (1999/2000). As their dependent variables, they used two variables –

―Neighbors: Homosexuals‖ as an indicator of social distance towards homosexuals, and the abovementioned

―Justifiable: Homosexuality‖ as an indicator of justification of homosexuality. According to their findings, ―social

distance towards homosexual persons was predicted by the Eastern Orthodox religion, a greater degree of

urbanization, economic development and immigration‖. Thus, as for religion denominations, Orthodox Christianity

demonstrated to be the most homonegative and the Protestant Christianity – the least one (since this research

was conducted on data from EU, no Muslim or Buddhist religion denomination was included). However, negative

role of immigration on ATH with borderline significance hints that Islam might play a role there since many

immigrants were Muslims. Another research is required to support this argument, however. The positive role of

economic development on ATH gave further support for 61 Ibid 62 Stulhofer and Rimac 2009:24–32 15 Inglehart‘s

argument. Urbanization could be considered part of economic development of the country and thus influence ATH

in indirect way, but also cities, because of its big size and active social life, could give homosexual people more

opportunities to socialize on the one hand and to become relatively invisible among the all citizens – on the other

(Lauria & Knopp, 1985)63 . The possible role of immigration in shaping negative ATH in EU suggests us to explore

another detailed research. Röder (2015)64 investigated the immigrants‘ ATH in Europe using data from European

Social Survey (ESS) from 27 EU and EFTA countries. Her dependent variable is ―gay men and lesbians should be

free to live their own life as they wish.‖ As independent variables, Röder included ―Immigrant Groups‖ (divided by

generation and by religion denomination), ―Religiosity and Attendance‖ (the level of personal religiosity and the

frequency of church attendance), ―Length of Residence‖, and the ―Differences in acceptance of homosexuality

between host and origin country‖ (the last variable came from World Values Survey). Röder main finding is that

Muslims and to a lesser extent other non-Christian and Eastern Orthodox migrants hold overall more negative

ATH. With Muslims, it is the least supportive of homosexuality immigrant group in the first generation, and along

with the Eastern Orthodox Christians the only immigrant group of the second generation who holds the negative
ATH even after controlling for demographic composition and individual-level religiosity. Thus, the Muslim migrants

hold the most homonegative attitudes and their views persist even in the second generation. These findings are

indeed very important since they indicate that even in the countries with majority of population supports

homosexuality, some population groups could persist in their homonegative attitudes. It is also demonstrated that

the effect of homonegative Islamic values on Muslim immigrants is stronger than that of selfexpression values of

the host countries. The fact that in general Muslims expressed the most homonegative ATH which persists even in

the next generations of immigrants is supported by plenty of other studies (Simon 200865; Stulhofer and Rimac

200966; Gerhards 201067; Van den Akker, Van der Ploeg, and Scheepers 201268). All of these findings once more

suggest the high importance of religion and Muslim religion denomination in particular in shaping negative ATH,

with stronger impact on ATH than self-expression values and economic development, for instance. One more

significant research focused on relationships between ATH and religiosity has been done by abovementioned Pew

Research Center in 201369 . Thus, PRC also suggested and 63 Lauria and Knopp 1985: 152–169 64 Röder 2015:

1042–1070 65 Simon 2008: 87–99 66 Stulhofer and Rimac 2009:24–32 67 Gerhards 2010: 5–28 68 Van den Akker,

Van der Ploeg and Scheepers 2012:64–68 69 Pew Research Center 2013 16 discovered strong empirical evidence

on relationships between religiosity and acceptance of homosexuality. Based on their measurement, they

concluded that ―there is far less acceptance of homosexuality in countries where religion is central to people‘s

lives – measured by whether they consider religion to be very important, whether they believe it is necessary to

believe in God in order to be moral, and whether they pray at least once a day‖ 70 . Thus, PRC included in their

research the general religiosity and the frequency of religious activity (praying) and did not divide their

respondents by religion denominations. However, they still were able to produce notable results, demonstrating

the negative correlation between the religiosity and ATH. However, there are some notable exceptions in their

results. For example, Russia got a low score on religiosity on PRC scale, but only 16% of Russians are ready to

accept homosexuality. In the contrary, Brazil and Philippines received high scores of tolerance towards

homosexuality despite their high religiosity levels in PRC report.71Therefore, religiosity might play an important

role in public opinion on homosexuality, but it cannot be the only factor which influences it. In addition, we should

remember that PRC data come from 39 countries from all around the world. It is indeed good research in terms of

representation of different parts of the world in one research. The data is, however, are far from being
comprehensive and many important countries (for instance, China) are not represented in their data. Therefore,

more comprehensive analysis is required. For example, combined datasets from World Values Survey and

European Values Surveys might offer us data from more than one hundred countries.72 As was mentioned above,

general religiosity and Muslim religion denomination play a significant negative role in shaping negative ATH. If

religiosity and Muslim religion denomination are the main determinants of homonegativity in the world, however,

how could we explain such cases as Russia and China, both of which are relatively secular and yet highly

homonegative nations? Therefore, if religion in general and religion denomination in particular are important in

shaping ATH, it is not the only important determinant though. Which could be the other ones, then? Some scholars

argue that political regime in general and democracy matters when we are speaking about gay rights. For example,

Omar G. Encarnación found the strong correlation between democracy and gay rights, e.g., that in modern world

gay rights are mostly embraced in democratic regimes and suppressed in authoritarian ones.73 Correlation does

not imply causation, however, and, therefore, Encarnación tries to find further evidence about causal effects of

democracy on gay rights and homosexuality acceptance in particular society. Thus, he argues that process of

democratization fostered the evolution of so-called ―citizenship‖, or membership in polity, and active citizenship

70 Ibid 71 Ibid 72 European Values Study 73 Encarnación 2014: 90-104 17 then protects repressed or marginalized

groups, like poor, disabled, racial, ethnic and religion minorities, and homosexuals.74Encarnación states then that

―democracy also facilitates gay rights by making possible a vibrant and robust civil society that can exist only

within a political framework allowing for freedom of association‖.(Encarnación (2014), p.99) Therefore, strong civil

society, and sometimes even civil disobedience to authorities is a necessary prerequisite of protection and

promotion of gay rights.75 Indeed, if we remember the Stonewall riot in 1969 in New York City,76 which was

followed next year by the first world‘s gay pride parade in history, this argument might seem more plausible77 .

Gay rights protection in democracies might be facilitated also by intra-civil society collaboration, e.g., by fruitful

relationships between gay rights and human rights movements, or between LGBT and feminist movements.78It is

hardly possible to think about such collaboration in authoritarian regimes where the even existence of strong civil

society and any human rights movements is highly questionable. Encarnación states further that ―gay rights also

depend on a strong judiciary and the rule of law, hallmarks of any healthy democratic polity‖. (Encarnación (2014),

p. 99-100) Thus, democracy is necessary prerequisite for gay rights because it provides the better opportunities for
gay people to advocate for their rights in courts, party system, through LGBT organizations, and gives them more

ways for self-expression because of the changed social environment.79 Therefore, it is not democracy itself which

fostered the gay rights protection in Western countries, but the attributes which are necessary for democracy,

facilitated the promotion of gay rights as well. According to Encarnación, the most important of these attributes

are strong civil society, independent judicial system and the rule of law, and collaboration between different

human rights social movements. Based on Encarnación arguments, it makes sense to include all of these variables

into analysis to discover which of these factors plays the strongest role there and which are less important for gay

rights. However, Encarnación‘s analysis suggests, that countries ruled by authoritarian, nondemocratic regimes,

provide less or no opportunities for homosexuals to advocate for their rights. That could explain why such

countries as Russia and China, with relatively secular populations, still face problems with gay rights and give no

any legal recognition to same sex marriages. However, democracy may be necessary, but not sufficient condition

for gay rights recognition and protection. For example, India became a democratic and secular republic in 1950 74

Ibid 75 Ibid 76 History. This Day in History 77 Encarnación 2014: 90-104 78 Ibid 79 Ibid 18 with introduction of its

constitution. However, homosexual relations are still illegal in India nationwide from 1861 with penalty up to 10

years. Indian Supreme Court appealed and overturned this code in 2009, thus making homosexuality legal but only

for four years and only on the territory of Delhi, and even this decision was revoked already in 2013. Therefore,

now homosexuality is still illegal in India, and more than fifty years of democracy didn‘t help India to protect gay

rights and to give a legal recognition to the same-sex marriages – inversely, the homosexual relations are still

penalized in India. Therefore, even if political regime matters for gay rights and recognition of same-sex marriages,

it is not the only factor which influences this issue. Another flaw in Encarnación research is that he explores mostly

the effects of democracy on legal recognition of gay rights and pays little attention to the value change which leads

to homosexuality acceptance in society and might precede the legal issues. Surely, legal recognition of same-sex

marriages, and protection of gay people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, made gay people

feel safer and their lives – much easier. However, in general law change does not mean value change – e.g.,

negative attitudes towards homosexuality in particular society might persist despite of legal recognition of gay

rights. Therefore, we need some measures of value change which could demonstrate that not only law protects

gay people from discrimination, but societal attitudes towards homosexuality had also been changed during last
fifty years in most of Western democracies. Thus, we come back to Inglehart who argues that political and law

change is usually preceded by a value change. Therefore, according to him, societal values towards homosexuality

should change first in order to allow the legal recognition of gay rights and same-sex marriages. Still, we need to

keep in mind the political regime and the legal matters associated with it as important predictors of ATH. What

other scholars said about this legal framework for gay rights, importance of which stated by Encarnación?

Adamczyk and Pitt (2009) tested this legal framework in their research but did not find a significant effect. Jäckle

and Wenzelburger (2015) also explored this issue using more detailed framework. They included into their analysis

as explanatory variables the following ones: a fact that a country has signed the Declaration on Human Rights,

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as introduced to the General Assembly of the United Nations; the number

of years since decriminalization of homosexual activities; and a composed index from the International Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA) which basically contains all basic gay rights granted in

particular country (same-sex marriage or other registered partnership, child adoption by homosexual couples,

inclusion of sexual orientation in antidiscrimination labor laws, etc.) Thus, their so-called ―legal index‖ comprised

all issues highlighted by Encarnación and, intuitively, highly correlated with democratic political regime. What is

important, however, that this legal 19 index, along with UN Declaration variable, appeared to be highly significant.

Thus, their findings gave an additional support to Encarnación‘s argument: ―the more legal rights granted to

homosexual people, the more positive attitudes the general population has toward homosexuality‖. Some scholars

offered another explanation for possible differences in ATH around the world. Thus, Huntington divided the world

into eight major ―cultural zones‖ based on specific cultural differences which were persisted through centuries.80

These zones were shaped by religious tradition special for each particular zone, and by other ideologies (e.g.,

Communism). According to Huntington, there are following eight cultural zones in modern world: Western and

Orthodox Christianity, the Islamic world, and the Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, African, and Latin American zones.

This typology, however, is not quite consistent with a real world dynamics in our discussion. For example,

Huntington did not distinguish between Catholic and Protestant societies (in his typology, they are united into one

cultural zone – the Western Christianity), but Protestant and Catholic societies, as was noted above, have many

significant differences in their values, including views on acceptance of homosexuality, therefore it makes sense to

separate them into two different cultural zones, as actually was already done by Baker and Inglehart.81 Inversely,
Japanese society, even if it distinct from Confucian ones in its religion (dominant religions in Japan are Shintoism

and Buddhism), shared many cultural similarities with Chinese and other Confucian societies for centuries, and,

therefore, Japanese and Confucian cultural zones could be united into one zone. In addition, we should bear in

mind, that many countries in Northern, Western and Eastern Africa are Muslim countries nowadays, therefore, the

difference between Islamic and African cultural zones might turn out to be not so significant. However, in general,

division between different cultural zones will be important for our analysis. In addition, it would be useful to

include into our analysis one more cultural zone – Communist, based on Inglehart and Baker‘s typology. 82 Even if

Communist ideology is relatively new in the world compared to traditional religions, it had its enduring influence

on huge part of the world, from Eastern Europe and Russia to China and North Korea. Therefore, the cultural zones

for our analysis will be the following nine ones: Communist world, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity,

the Islamic world, and the Confucian, Hindu, African, and Latin American zones. The importance of Communism in

shaping negative ATH was discovered in the abovementioned research by Jäckle and Wenzelburger (2015). They

included Communist heritage as an explanatory variable on the aggregated level. In their findings, the residents of

(-post) Communist countries turned out to be significantly more homonegative which could explain the 80

Huntington 1996 81 Inglehart and Baker 2000: 19-51 82 Ibid 20 cases of Russia and China. Another interesting

finding in their research that, because of the negative interaction effect between Communism and religiosity,

―religiosity increases homonegativity less strongly in (post-) communist countries than in other countries,

although the level of homonegativity is higher in (post-) communist countries‖ (quotation) because of the

Communism itself. Thus, by introducing into research different cultural zones and Communist ideology in

particular in addition to religion and religion denomination, more discrepancies in ATH could be explained. After

exploration of bunch of researches concerning ATH, we discovered that their opinions about the reasons of this

―great divide‖ on homosexuality are in turn divided significantly. Some scholars, as Encarnación, argued that type

of political regime and legal framework matters when we are speaking about gay rights, and the democracy

fostered the legal recognition of gay rights and same-sex marriages by creation of specific political and social

conditions necessary for it, while dictatorships hinder the gay rights recognition because they lack these specific

conditions. However, Encarnación argued mostly about legal recognition of gay rights and not about value change

of societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Inglehart stated that political and law change in particular society is
usually preceded by value change though. His self-expression and secularrational values are one of the main

predictors of positive ATH. Inglehart and Baker emphasized the importance of modernization and economic

development for changing of societal values, in particular towards acceptance of homosexuality. However, other

scholars emphasized a significant role of religion and religion denomination in shaping negative ATH. Thus, Jäckle

and Wenzelburger (2015), Adamczyk and Pitt (2009) discovered the high negative impact of personal religiosity in

general and Muslim religion denomination in particular on ATH. Before them, Rimac and Štulhofer (2008)

investigated the main determinants of homonegativity in Europe and stated a significant role of religion

denomination and immigration in shaping negative ATH. Echoing these findings, Röder (2015) conducted research

about immigrants‘ ATH in EU and discovered that Muslim immigrants hold persistent homonegative views despite

of positive ATH of majority of population in the host country, and that these negative views persist also through

generations of Muslim immigrants. This finding suggests the high importance of religion in general and Muslim

religion denomination in particular in shaping negative ATH, which could overweight the positive influence of self-

expression values, political regime, legal framework and economic development on ATH. Finally, Huntington

offered a concept of cultural zones which shaped population values throughout the centuries based on religion

beliefs and geographical position. Inglehart and Baker developed this concept by including Communist cultural one

based on relatively new ideology of Communism which could nevertheless play an important role in shaping

population attitudes. 21 Jäckle and Wenzelburger (2014) found an empirical support to the argument about

negative influence of Communist ideology on ATH. However, some questions about ATH remained unanswered.

For example, what is special about India, where criminal penalty for homosexual activity is still implemented into

the law, despite of fifty years of democracy in this country and despite of relative tolerance of Hindu towards

homosexuality? In the contrary, why Latin America, with its relatively high religiosity (and since most Latin

American countries are Catholic, and Catholics are not such tolerant towards homosexuals as Hindus, for instance),

has made a substantial progress with respect to homosexuality acceptance and gay rights? Which factors play a

significant role in these cases which were overlooked by researchers? The implications of different cultural zones

and historical patterns might help there. Speaking about effects of religion, impact of general religiosity and

particular religion denomination was explored excessively. However, what about religion attendance and active

church membership, for instance? We might expect that ATH of a particular person who visited church one time
per year and every week, might be different. In addition, the church clergy could have different ATH than its

parish, too. The importance of religion attendance and church membership might vary in different religion

denominations as well. We might also expect that people who place their confidence in religion over science,

churches over other institutions, and religion leaders over other political leaders, might share more homonegative

views, than other religious believers, though. All these hypotheses could be tested in our own model. Before

testing it, however, we should try to understand the mechanism behind value change in general and ATH in

particular. To do it, we need some theoretical background.

file:///C:/Users/Andador%20Family/Downloads/1517232671.pdf
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON INCLUDING GAY AND LESBIAN ISSUES IN THE

CLASSROOM

Jennifer D. Hoffman

August 2001

CHAPTER II Review of Literature

When discussing the inclusion of gay and lesbian issues in the classroom, it is important to understand the

diversity of students in a classroom. There may be students of gay and lesbian parents, students that are currently

struggling with their own sexual identity, or students that realize a few years later they are gay or lesbian. Learning

the needs and backgrounds of these students, along with the findings of research regarding the inclusion of gay

and lesbian issues in the classroom is important in understanding the complexity of this issue. Children of Gay and

Lesbian Parents Educators may see children of gay and lesbian parents as very different from children of

heterosexual parents. This difference could produce fear (Clay, 1990). It is common for people to fear the

unknown. This reason alone shows the importance for understanding these families. An estimated 6 to 11 percent

of school children have gay or lesbian parents (Chasnoff & Cohen, 1997), approximately 6 to 14 million children live

in households with gay and lesbian parents (1997), and there are up to 5 million lesbian mothers and up to 3

million gay fathers in the United States (Johnson & Colucci, 1999). It has been indicated that these parents are

constantly being attacked from the courts to the state houses (“Children’s Right,” 1999). Several legislative tactics

are used to deny children homes with gay and lesbian parents (“Children’s Right,” 1999). Yet, prospective parents

are using their options of artificial and donor inseminations, domestic and international adoptio Teachers’

Perceptions 11 care and surrogacy to build the loving family of their dreams (Johnson & Colucci, 1999). There has

been a long-standing myth that the only acceptable home for a child contains a mother and father who are

married to each other. But today the traditional definition of the married, heterosexual couple with 1.5 children is

only one of the many types of families. There is no evidence that children of gay and lesbian parents face any more

difficulties socializing in school than children of straight parents (Flaks, 1995). The fact is that gay and lesbian

parents must work harder at protecting their families by creating legal relationships to assure that their children
will have the same equal rights and protections as children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 1992). Many times

these families are at the end of brutal resentment and hatred. Even with all of the court battles and discrimination,

the people that we are supposedly trying to protect, the children, are getting hurt the most (“Children’s Right,”

1999). Why? Research shows that these children are no worse off than any other child in any other family

(Patterson, 1992). Some studies suggest these children are better adjusted (Patterson, 1992). Children of gay,

lesbian, and bisexual parents appear to be more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with

heterosexual parents (Patterson, 1992). Daughters of lesbian mothers appear to have higher self-esteem than

daughters of heterosexual women, and sons of lesbian mothers seem more caring and less Teachers’ Perceptions

12 aggressive (Patterson, 1992). These children seem to find it easier to be different and independent (Clay, 1990).

Lesbian mothers indicate their family structure gives their children strength, sensitivity, compassion, and maturity

beyond their years (Clay, 1990). There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents

or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised relative to that of

children of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be

disadvantaged in any significant manner compared to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to

date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by

heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth (Patterson 1992). It should be

acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and limited. Less is

known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers (Johnson & Colucci, 1999). Little is

known about the development of offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood (Johnson &

Colucci, 1999). Studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time would be extremely helpful for providing

long-term effects and providing a clearer picture of what these families generate. Teachers’ Perceptions 13 Gay

and Lesbian Students Adolescence is an exciting yet perplexing stage of life. It is not an easy time for the average

heterosexual teen, so one can imagine how difficult it is for a gay or lesbian teen. It is during this confusing stage

that identity development comes into play. A gay or lesbian teen may encounter vague feelings of being different,

or experience feelings of isolation (Bass & Kaufman, 1996). It is important for these teens to gain a sense of

universality, to not feel alone but to feel accepted and understood (Bass & Kaufman, 1996). By providing support

and open discussion in the classroom, this sense of universality may be obtained (Bass & Kaufman, 1996). But first
their needs and struggles need to be understood by the educators and other students as well (Mallon, 1996). It

may come as a surprise how early gay and lesbian youth come to selfrealization. One report indicated that lesbian,

gay, and bisexual youth first became aware of their sexual orientation at age 10 (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993).

While the mean age of lesbian and gay youth becoming aware of their first same sex attraction is 9.7 (Herdt &

Boxer, 1996). When that age is put into perspective, it represents a 3rd or 4th grade student. Along with self-

realization, this stage brings a wide array of feelings and emotions. It takes a lot of courage for one to admit that

he/she is gay. It is common for a young gay or lesbian person to experience inner conflict (Bass & Kaufman, 1996).

Society still, to a degree, teaches that same-sex relationships Teachers’ Perceptions 14 are a negative thing, yet

this is exactly what feels natural to these youth (Bass & Kaufman, 1996). One young, gay man remembers feelings

of shame, reporting, “I’d feel so guilty and dirty…” (Bass & Kaufman, 1996, p.21). Some youth experience denial

and spend a great deal of effort suppressing their same-sex feelings of attraction in order to fit in with the norm.

These vague feelings of being different may result in isolation. Eric Marcus (1999) recalls his feelings; “The two

emotions that most dominated my life at that time [of self-realization] were fear and a sense of isolation. I was

fearful of what my friends and family would think of me if they knew the truth and I felt enormous isolation

because there was no one I could talk to” (p. 34). This experience is more typical, than not (Bass & Kaufman, 1996;

Mastoon, 1997; Bennett, 1997; Kaeser, 1999). Many feelings become immeasurable when toying with the idea of

“coming out” (Bass & Kaufman, 1996). Responses to a gay or lesbian’s “coming out” can range from shock, denial,

and anger to grief, guilt, and even bargaining or pleading. Although, many friends and family, in time, respond with

love and compassion. Coming out is a life long procedure. Every time a gay or lesbian person tells someone new

that they are homosexual, it is as if they are coming out again for the first time. But once a gay or lesbian person

has found the support and self-acceptance, it is a stimulating experience to discov Teachers’ Perceptions 15 Sadly

enough during a gay or lesbian youth’s school years, s/he is rarely able to be accepted or become him/her real self.

Many gay and lesbian students do not feel comfortable or safe in school, nor do they feel comfortable taking to

school staff about their issues (GLSEN, 1999). It has been reported the average high school student hears anti-gay

epithets 25 times a day, yet teachers who hear these slurs fail to respond 97% of the time (D’Augelli &

Hershberger, 1993). A majority of the gay and lesbian youth surveyed (69%) by The Gay, Lesbian and Straight

Education Network, reported experiencing some form of harassment or violence (GLSEN, 1999). Of those 69%,
61.1% reported experiences of verbal harassment, 46.5% reported experiences of sexual harassment (having

suggestive comments made, being touched inappropriately, etc.), and 27.6% reported experiences of physical

harassment (being shoved, pushed, kicked, etc.). Many people are shocked to find that gay, lesbian, and bisexual

youth are more than 4 times likely to attempt suicide than other youth (GLSEN, 1999). It is explained that this

homosexual risk factor stems from the effects of hostility against people who are gay (Hyde & Forsyth, 1994).

Instead of being able to be themselves and feel good about who they are, these youth deal with isolation, fear, and

harassment. Nathan a 21-year-old gay man sums up the intense isolation with this powerful analogy, Teachers’

Perceptions 16 “If anyone wants to know what it feels like to be in the closet, find a deep, empty well, jump down

to the bottom, and sit there. Wait a day…and a night…and the next day…never knowing if you’ll move in a wide

open space again” (Mastoon, 1997, p. 21). Gay and Lesbian Issues in Schools Although the literature with respect

to gay and lesbian youth in general has grown rapidly, the literature concerning gay and lesbian issues within

educational settings is limited (Mallon, 1996). Many would agree that education and sharing of information are the

keys to eliminating homophobia (Bennett, 1997; Boyd, 1999; Marcus, 1999; Raymond, 1996). Unfortunately, when

it comes to how one might include education to eliminate homophobia in the classroom, the agreement dwindles.

“Sexuality of any kind in the schools is a touchy issue” (Bullough, 1979, p. 102). Boyd (1999) examines teachers’

anonymous reasons for and against the inclusion of this topic in their classroom. Their responses are paraphrased

in the following sections. Reasons for inclusion. Educators feel it is there responsibility to provide accurate

information and clarify misunderstandings. They need to open up the classroom to discuss topics freely and allow

the children to form their own opinions. Teachers need to educate their students to respect and accept all people

and show compassion to everyone. This issue cannot be ignored; children will learn mixed messages from

Teachers’ Perceptions 17 society and the media. Educators feel it is important to explore understanding of all

lifestyles openly in the classroom. Here they can teach not to discriminate but respect differences in the world.

Finally teachers find it valuable to create an atmosphere to discuss social issues and keep them from being taboo.

This is especially important for children of gay and lesbian parents. By not talking about something gives the

message that there is something wrong with it. Including information about all families in educational programs

and curriculums reassures children of gay and lesbian parents that their school thinks that their family is OK.

Reasons against inclusion. Many teachers feel it is the responsibility of the family to discuss gay and lesbian issues.
Topics involving sexual issues do not belong in schools, especially a topic of this nature, which tends to be seen as a

moral issue. The issue of homosexuality is seen as a religious issue, which goes against many religious beliefs.

Educators feel that many people see homosexuality as morally wrong and to discuss it in the schools would violate

religious rights. Finally educators think children are too young to understand gay and lesbian lifestyles. Arguments

state that elementary children should remain innocent and not be exposed to sexual issues. They are too

immature to discuss such a mature topic. Chasnoff and Cohen (1997) express that education about gay issues is

necessary because negative language about gay and lesbian people is common in school hallways, classrooms,

playgrounds, and even in teachers’ lounges. Teachers’ Perceptions 18 “Opening these conversations with young

children gives us an opportunity to prevent prejudice, discrimination, and violence and to support the lives of all

children just as they are” (Chasnoff and Cohen, 1997, p. 10). It is a common assumption, as mentioned above, that

elementary school children are too young to be introduced to this topic. Owens (1998) feels education and

tolerance training can begin as early as first grade, “Students need only become acquainted with diversity and

learn that some children have one parent, some two, and a few three or more and that all-male, all-female, and

mixed-gender parents are possible” (p. 135). It is a belief that helping students become more tolerant and

accepting means starting at the very earliest ages (Aronson, 1995). As early as first grade negative name-calling

begins. Even before children understand the meaning of the words, they have been made aware of negative

images of what it is to be gay and what gay people are like (Chasnoff & Cohen, 1997). Because of this early

knowledge, Chasnoff and Cohen (1997) believe it is not possible for a school to introduce gay and lesbian topics.

Instead a school could correct misleading information and enforce a more accurate viewpoint. George Sloan, an

elementary school principal, reflected on the idea of gay and lesbian issues in the classroom by stating, “It should

be mandatory. It’s a healthy way of teaching students to respect each other” (Chasnoff & Cohen, 1997, p.12). A

student has the right to know about homosexuality. Freedom of thought decrees that each student be exposed to

diverse information and be able Teachers’ Perceptions 19 to make judgments based on factual information (Unks,

1995). Including gay issues in the curriculum not only educates students on the various themes, but also allows a

gay or lesbian student to feel less isolated and better understood (Littig & Long, 1995). Yet, fears about

inappropriately influencing the sexual orientation of students, and being seen as advocating or promoting

homosexuality make school administrators reluctant to allow gay and lesbian issues in the classroom (Griffin &
Harro, 1997). According to Griffin and Harro (1997), even if there was not great reluctance, “Most schools are ill-

prepared to address the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, or lesbian, gay and bisexual parents with

school-aged children (p. 142). Before these issues can be discussed in the classroom, students and staff should

become sensitized. Davis and Reilly (1999) offer some first steps toward sensitizing students and staff. Never

Make Assumptions About Someone’s Sexuality~ Always use neutral language such as, “Are you seeing anyone”

instead of “Do you have a boyfriend?” Validate, Support and Normalize Students’ Feelings about their own or

Their Parent’s Sexuality~ Let students know that you’ll be there for them. Have Something Gay or Equal Rights-

related in Your Classroom~ Supportive symbols will identify you as a safe person to talk to. Teachers’ Perceptions

20 Challenge Homophobia~ Respond immediately and forcefully whenever you encounter an obviously

homophobic “event.” Once the school climate has been prepared, Chasnoff and Cohen (1997, p. 16- 17) advocate

five ways to address gay issues in the classroom. Use the Words~ Frequently even the youngest children have

heard the words gay, lesbian, and bisexual as negative connotations. Generally they do not understand the true

meaning. Be Prepared for Teachable Moments~ Everyday moments can be used to create a safe atmosphere for

conversation. Block the derogatory name calling such as “fag” or “homo” by reminding students that it is not

allowed. Then discuss why and how that particular name could be hurtful. Draw On Current Events~ Bring in

articles that relate to gay and lesbian rights and have students discuss what they think and how they arrived at

their ides. Acknowledge the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People Whom the Children Already Know~

“Prejudice persists when members of a group are invisible” (1997). By mentioning individuals who are gay in a

respectful manner, that invisibility can be offset. Be Conscious of the Sexual Orientation of Characters in Your

Classroom Literature~ Generally all couples in children’s books are heterosexual. Sporadically read books that have

gay characters in them.

http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2001/2001hoffmanj.pdf
FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS AMONG

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN MALAYSIA

TEH SIN TING

EE SIU KWIN

PUA XINYI

APR. 2016

Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter discussed the current phenomenon, factors and its consequences on the attitudes toward

homosexuals. Next, various past studies on the relationships of variables and attitudes toward homosexuals were

also reviewed. The theoretical framework and conceptual framework were presented at the end of this chapter.

Review on Attitudes toward Homosexuals In Malaysia, homosexuality is illegal and the society had very low level of

acceptance toward non-heterosexuals. Statistical survey conducted by Pew Research Centre indicated that

approximately only 9% of respondents accepted homosexuality while 86% rejected homosexuality while others did

not know or refused to answer. This phenomena can be explained by the fact that Malaysia as a Muslim country

and religion centered around the people‟s lives (“The global divide on homosexuality,” 2013) which portrayed

sensitivity toward homosexual which believed to be contradicted with their religion beliefs. From the political

point of view, the government also exhibited negative political stand toward LGBT behavior. This can be

emphasized from the Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak speech on July 2012, who stated that, “it is

compulsory for us to fight LGBT behavior” (Human Rights Watch, 2013). This stand was more obvious where a

Malaysian parliament, Datuk Baharum Mohamad suggested the government to start a gay rehabilitation center as

it was found in a study that there was an increasing number of gay men whereby out of 10 Malaysian men, 3 of

them were gays (Fridae, 2012). There were several factors that contributed to one‟s attitude toward homosexuals

such as interpersonal contact, religiosity, and gender role belief. Firstly, interpersonal contact with homosexuals

can influence the attitudes toward homosexuals. Previous literatures revealed that interpersonal contact is
positively related with the attitudes toward homosexuals (Collier FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD

HOMOSEXUALS 11 et al., 2012; Detenber et al., 2013; Feng et al., 2012; Hsu, 2009; Lau, Lau, & Loper, 2014; Tu &

Lee, 2014; Yen et al., 2007). Individuals who have contact with homosexuals held more positive attitude towards

homosexuals. Besides that, intrinsic religiosity was one of the factors that lead to attitudes toward homosexuals.

Researches indicated that those with higher religiosity had more negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Besen &

Zicklin, 2007; Cardenas et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2015; Wu & Kwok, 2013; Yen et al., 2007). Various studies also

indicated that different religious groups have different attitudes toward homosexuals. Findings of the study found

that Muslims (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009; Roggemans et al., 2015) tend to have more negative attitudes toward

homosexuals followed by Christian (Roggemans et al., 2015; W FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD

HOMOSEXUALS 12 Another factor that contributed to attitudes toward homosexuals was socioeconomic status.

Researches revealed that those with higher socioeconomic status had more favorable attitudes regarding

homosexuals (Bernardo, 2013; Detenber et al., 2013; Yen et al., 2007). Besides that, previous studies also

highlighted that urban residents had more favorable attitudes concerning homosexuals (Feng et al., 2012; Nguyen

& Blum, 2014; Tu & Lee, 2014). Lastly, researches revealed that higher level of knowledge regarding homosexuality

was positively associated to positive attitudes regarding homosexuals (Detenber et al., 2013; Hou et al., 2006). As a

result of the sexual prejudice towards homosexuals by both the government and society, homosexuals were being

mistreated and faced a high risk to mental health problems. Extensive literature had denoted that homosexuals

were prone to suicidal attempts (Hegna & Wichstrøm, 2007; King et al., 2008; Russell, 2003), depression (King et

al., 2008; Mustanski et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2014), alcohol dependence (Drabble et al., 2005), anxiety disorder

(King et al., 2008), and substance dependence (King et al., 2008) compared to heterosexuals. This situation can be

explained that they experienced social hostility, stigma and discrimination which placed them to at risk of

emotional and behavioral problems. Furthermore, homosexuals also had a higher tendency in suffering from other

mental disorders such as conduct disorder (Mustanski et al., 2010), neurotic disorders, obsessivecompulsive

disorder and phobic disorder as well as self-harm (Chakraborty et al., 2011). In conclusion, various studies showed

several factors affecting the attitudes toward homosexuals. The sexual prejudice towards homosexuality had been

a serious social issue in Malaysia. So, this study investigated two factors, which are intrinsic religiosity and gender

role belief on its influence in attitudes towards gay men and lesbians among undergraduate students in Malaysia.
FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 13 Relationship between Intrinsic Religiosity and

Attitudes toward Homosexuals Existing literature denoted the differences in religions on the perception or attitude

toward homosexuals. Religious group can be viewed as an important variable when come to the topic of

homosexual. Different religious believes and practices may have different point of view in this topic. A Malaysian

study conducted by Ng et al. (2015) evaluated nursing students‟ attitudes toward homosexuality, to find out the

causes of the attitudes, and to analyze in detail the relationship of religion in different aspects and homosexuality

in Muslim population. A total of 495 nursing students of University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) with the mean

age of 19.27 years were recruited as participants in this study. The instruments used were Homosexual Attitude

Scale, Duke University Religion Index and demographic information. They revealed that religious group can

significantly influence the attitudes toward homosexuals. Besides that, Muslim is significantly associated with the

negative attitude toward gay men and lesbians due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in Malaysia, the

influence of intrinsic religiosity in them and their own belief toward Muslim teaching that integrated into their way

of living. Besides that, a Belgium research by Roggemans et al. (2015) aimed to study about the relationship

between religion and the negative attitudes toward homosexuals among youth. The sample of 1907 secondary

school students within the age range of 15 to 20 years old was randomly chosen and was measured using the

Homophobia Scale and the Attitudes Towards Gay Men Scale. Findings showed that strong Muslim follower and

strong Christian follower held the more negative attitudes toward homosexuals while freethinkers had the most

positive attitudes regarding homosexuality. This was because of traditional gender roles as part of the cultural

identity of youths and Muslims put importance and apply family values from their origin country even after

immigrate to a Western country. For both Muslims and Christians, FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD

HOMOSEXUALS 14 their religion conviction is an important contributing element for their identity and affects their

understanding of sexuality when they explore their own sexuality. On the other hand, a cross-national comparison

study conducted by Adamczyk and Pitt (2009) aimed to investigate religion and culture‟s micro and macro effect

on the public‟s point of view regarding homosexuality. The data used were from the fourth wave of the World

Values Surveys with sample size of 45 824 adults from 33 countries. They found out that religions such as Hindu,

Buddhist, Orthodox Christians and freethinkers held more accepting attitudes regarding homosexuality compared

to Muslims which held more condemning attitudes regarding homosexuality. This was explained from the hasher
punishments for homosexuals which encouraged unacceptable attitudes regarding homosexuality in Muslim

countries. In addition to religious groups, religious belief, education and practices can strongly influenced one‟s

perception towards certain social issues, like homosexuality. So, an individual‟s level of religiosity was also an

important aspect to study on its influence on attitudes toward homosexuals. Religiosity can be characterizes as the

level of fundamentalism and how frequent one attended to church (different building for different religion).

Malaysian is a multi-ethnic society with variety of religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and

others. In fact, in Malaysia, Islam is the federal religion and homosexuality is forbidden (Ng et al., 2015). As

homosexuality is known as illegal, Malaysia rejected same-sex unions or antidiscrimination laws for sexual

orientation or gender identity (Alagappar & Kaur, 2009). According to Ng et al. (2015), religion can create a big

impact on one‟s attitude toward homosexuals. However, existing literature showed inconsistency in reporting on

its relation with attitudes toward homosexuals. FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 15

Landicho, Aliwalas, Buenaventura and Rodriguez (2014) conducted a research to investigate religiosity associated

with attitudes towards homosexuals as well as the level of religiosity and attitudes based on demographic

variables. A total of 120 non-homosexual students in Batangas were recruited for this study and the instruments

used were Attitudes towards Lesbian and Gay Men Scale and Religiosity Scale. The religions of all participants were

differentiated into Born Again, Roman Catholic, Adventist, Latter Day Saints and Iglesia ni Kristo. Findings showed

that the respondents had an average level of attitudes towards homosexuals. Result also revealed no difference

between the level of religiosity based on religion groups and gender. Besides that, it was found that there was no

significant relationship among religiosity and the attitudes toward homosexuals. As a result, one‟s religiosity did

not influenced the attitudes toward non-heterosexuals. In Malaysia, the result from the study by Ng et al. (2015)

revealed that respondents have unfavorable attitudes toward homosexuals and the negative attitude is significant

correlated with intrinsic religiosity. This can be explained that majority, more than 90 percentage of the sample,

was Muslim and they had strong Islamic belief that hinder them to held sexual prejudice toward homosexuals. A

recent research by Jäckle and Wenzelburger (2015) investigated religion, religiosity, and attitudes concerning

homosexuals with a multilevel analysis of 79 countries. As the databases, the World Values Survey from 1999-2004

and 2005-2009 were used for analysing purpose. The results indicated the clear discrepancies in levels of negative

attitude towards homosexuality among the individuals that follow religions such as Muslims at the negative polar
of the scale, while Buddhists and Atheists on the other extreme. Similarly, one with higher religiosity is also known

as a religious person who have more unfavorable attitude toward homosexuality generally. The researchers also

concluded that religiosity of a Muslim FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 16 had impact on

the perceptions towards non-heterosexuals more negatively than the Buddhist‟s religiosity. Next, a research by

Detenber et al. (2010) aimed to investigate the changes in attitudes concerning homosexuals in Singaporeans. It

was conducted in the form of telephone interview using random-digit dialing. The participants consisted of 924

Singapore citizens and permanent residents with the mean age of 37.9 years. Result of this study indicated that

intrinsic religiosity was the strongest predictor which was negatively related to the attitudes toward homosexuals

and the acceptance of homosexuals. Result also showed the religious group that had the most negative attitudes

and least acceptance of homosexuals was Muslim while Freethinkers had the most positive attitude and

acceptance toward homosexuals. In addition, Christians scored for second lowest in ATLG but held more positive

attitudes concerning homosexuals as compared to Buddhists and Muslims. Moreover, Ahrold and Meston (2010)

had examined about sexual attitudes differences in EURO-American, Asian, and Hispanic American populations

with acculturation measures to study the relative influences of heritage and mainstream cultures, along with

religiosity from different ethnics. The total sample of 1415 college students were asked to complete questionnaires

which assessed attitudes towards homosexuality, traditional gender role, casual sex, and extramarital sex. Findings

showed that intrinsic religiosity and spirituality were significantly correlated for women who are Asian, Hispanic,

and Euro-American, whereby the conservatism of sexual attitudes is strongly related with intrinsic religiosity at

higher levels of spirituality. The results showed consistency in indicating the different of ethnicity in the effects of

religiosity on sexual attitudes. Similarly, in Asians and EuroAmericans, intrinsic religiosity and fundamentalism

significantly predicted several sexual attitudes, whereas in Asians, significant predictor was spirituality. Besides

that, the FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 17 measurement of religiosity predicted the

sexual attitudes for females significantly more often than for males. In conclusion, previous studies showed there

was difference in the attitudes toward homosexuals among religious groups. Muslims was found to hold more

unfavorable perceptions concerning homosexuality compared to other religions. In the aspect of religiosity,

intrinsic religiosity gave a great impact on the attitude towards homosexuals. The higher the level of religiosity in

an individual, the more unfavorable attitudes were held towards lesbians or gay men. From the existing studies,
there was only limited number of Asian studies while most of them were conducted in Western context.

Therefore, to fill in the knowledge gap, this study examined the relationship of religiosity and attitudes toward

homosexuals among Malaysian undergraduate students. Relationship between Gender Role Belief and Attitudes

toward Homosexuals Whitley (2001) defined gender role beliefs as individuals‟ ideas of the proper roles and

behavioral norms for female and male in community. According to Nierman, Thompson, Bryan and Mahaffey

(2007), gender role beliefs were expected to explain multicultural differences in attitudes toward homosexuals

since cultural ideas were closely reflected about the desirable outcome toward sexual behavior. As denoted by

Brown and Gladstone (2012) women displayed less traditional gender roles beliefs than men did. In addition, there

were significant correlation between liberal gender role beliefs and the favorable attitudes toward homosexuals

(Brown & Gladstone, 2012). Ito (2007) conducted a research on Japanese university students to investigate their

attitudes toward homosexuals, its factors and in comparison to American university students using quantitative

method. The participants for Japanese data were 166 Japanese university students in the average age of 20.3 years

while American data were 746 university students in the average age of 22.4 years from Baunach and Burgess‟

study in 2002. The instruments FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 18 used were Attitudes

toward Gay Men and Lesbian scale, Male Role Norm Scale and General Social Survey. For both gender roles‟

scales, male and female respondents were more likely to believe more traditional gender role attitudes as if the

values of the scales are high. In this study, the result showed that Japanese heterosexual males who believe more

in traditional gender role had more negative attitudes toward homosexuals compared to those who had more

feminist gender role beliefs. Another finding of this study examined that American respondents held more

negative attitudes regarding homosexuality after controlling for gender role attitudes. For another Asia context,

Feng et al. (2012) conducted a research to investigate the perception of homosexuality among adolescents and

young adults from three different Asian cities where they practiced Confucianism. They conducted the research

using cross-sectional design. The sample consisted of a total of 17016 males and females from the age range from

15 to 24 years old. The sample was recruited from Hanoi, Shanghai and Taipei using multistage sampling method.

The findings of the study showed that respondents with traditional gender roles belief had negative attitude

toward homosexuals which were both as abnormal and unacceptable. The researchers discussed that respondents

who believed in more traditional Confucian values tend to perceived homosexuality as negative because they
viewed non-heterosexuals as a violation of established ideas that what should males and females be based on

cultural femininity and masculinity standards and viewed as being gender inconsistent and transgressing social

norms. Furthermore, a research was carried out to study the significance different between traditional gender

roles and unfavorable attitudes towards homosexuals in Greek-Affiliated and independent male college students

(DeCarlo, 2014). Ninety-eight participants that were eligible for the requirements were selected. After that, they

were asked to complete the demographic questionnaire, Anti-Femininity subscale, the Anti-Masculinity subscale,

and the FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 19 attitudes towards homosexuals. The result

showed that participants who had higher adherence to traditional gender roles will had more unfavorable

attitudes towards homosexuals. Thus, the researcher indicated that more research was needed before conclude

with the statement of people with traditional gender role attitudes are tied into more unfavorable attitudes

toward homosexuals in some populations. In addition, Stoof (2014) conducted a research about the relationship

between gender differences from cross-national and attitudes towards homosexuals. The researcher collected

data of 220,457 participants in 40 countries. As a result, participants who held gender role attitude which is

traditional have unfavorable attitudes regarding homosexuals. This was further explained that individual who

believed in higher traditional gender role, he or she was expected to hold stricter and more valuable in gender

identities. In spite of that, males‟ gender role became stricter than female. Therefore, the attitudes toward

homosexuals in males were more negative in order to uphold their masculinity and self-esteem, whereas this was

less important for women‟s femininity. On the other hand, an interesting comparison study between Chile and

U.S. had been carried out by Nierman, Thompson, Bryan and Mahaffey (2007). They examined the association

between gender role beliefs and attitudes regarding homosexuals. A total of 102 students from Chile and 153

students from United States were recruited for this study. Moreover, the instruments that used for this study were

Gender Role Beliefs Scale and Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gays scale. As a result, there were significant

differences between traditional gender role belief and attitude towards homosexuality whereby respondents who

believed in traditional gender roles will have unfavorable attitude towards homosexuals. Besides, it was also found

that respondents from Chile held more traditional gender role beliefs and negative attitude toward homosexuals

than respondents in United States. It was concluded that individuals who believed more in traditional gender role

were FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 20 more likely to be prejudiced concerning
homosexuality, perhaps due to the perception that homosexuals respectively violated femininity and masculinity

based on cultural standards. To summarize, gender role beliefs offered a great impact on the attitudes toward

homosexuals. Individuals with more traditional gender role beliefs were more likely to hold sexual prejudice

towards homosexuals. However, there was lack of studies in Malaysia context and no multi-ethnic samples from

past studies. So, this study intends to examine the relationship between gender role beliefs and attitudes toward

homosexuals among multiethnic sample of Malaysian undergraduate students as well as to trace the development

of gender role belief. Link between Gender as Antecedent Variable and Attitudes toward Homosexuals Past

researches highlighted the difference in gender concerning the attitudes toward homosexuals whereby male tends

to have more negative attitude toward both gay men and lesbians while female held more positive attitudes

toward both gay men and lesbians. Most of these result were reviewed from Taiwan (Chang & Chen, 2013; Hsu,

2009), Malaysia (Azrowani Ulia et al., 2012), Philippines (Bernardo, 2013) and Hong Kong (Lau, 2013). In

Philippines, the study conducted by Bernardo (2013) in investigating the association between belief systems and

the attitudes toward homosexuals in two different Filipinos samples. The first study examined two belief systems,

which were social dominance orientation and egalitarian belief, in relation to attitudes toward homosexuals. There

were 173 university students as participants with the mean age of 18.86 years as sample and were measured by

using Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale, Humanitarianism– Egalitarianism scale and Social dominance

orientation scale. The result showed that men had more unfavorable attitudes towards gay men but there was no

significant difference of gender regarding on the attitudes towards lesbians. In the second study, socioeconomic

status and another two belief systems, protestant work ethic and polyculturalism, were included besides FACTORS

AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 21 replicate the first study. The sample for the second study was

334 participants, 135 from lower socioeconomic groups while 179 from higher socioeconomic groups. They were

measured using Protestant work ethic scale and Polyculturalism scale included the scales used in the first study. It

was found in the second study that women held more positive attitudes toward homosexuals while male had more

unfavorable attitudes toward gay men. In Taiwan, Chang and Chen (2013) conducted a study on the social

relationship attitudes of university students who are identified as heterosexual toward homosexuals and bisexuals

were examined. A total of 784 undergraduate students athletes were recruited as sample and were measured

using three separate scales of Social Relationship Attitudes toward four sexes which are gay, lesbian and bisexuals
males and females. The result showed that both gender held more unfavorable attitudes toward gay men and less

negative towards lesbians and bisexuals. Another Taiwan study was conducted by Hsu (2009) to investigate the

association of demographic and sociocultural factors in the perception towards homosexuals among Taiwan

heterosexual college students by using cross-sectional survey design. Two hundred and twenty three Chinese

participants within the age range of 18 to 25 years old were recruited from private universities in Taipei and

Taoyuan. The instruments used were Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale-Revised-Short Form, Filial

Peity Scale, Trueblood Sexual Attitudes Questionnaire and the Acceptance of Lesbians and Gay Men in

Relationships Scale. Result showed males held more negative perceptions toward homosexuals compared to

females in both Taipei and Taoyuan sample. This was due to the social structure in Chinese culture that

emphasized on patriarchy. Furthermore, a study conducted in Hong Kong by Lau (2013) examined regarding the

heterosexual athletes‟ attitudes toward homosexual players and the factors of the attitudes. Convenience

sampling was used to recruit 100 university heterosexuals‟ players as FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDES TOWARD

HOMOSEXUALS 22 participants with the mean age of 21.24 years. The measures used were demographic data and

Attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay Men Scale. Both males and females were found to have more negative attitudes

towards gay than lesbian players. Besides that, men had more negative perceptions toward gay men in comparison

to women. This is because gay men gained more social attention but lesbians gained better social acceptation.

Moreover, in Malaysia, Azrowani Ulia et al. (2012) aimed to examined sport spectators‟ information and attitudes

toward athletes who are gay men and lesbians. A total of 100 sport spectators were recruited as participants and

were measured with The Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire and Perception toward Lesbian and Gay.

Result found that male was slightly more negative in their perception towards athletes who homosexuals. This is

explained by men‟s nature in being easily disgusted about homosexual behavior and women‟s nature of accepting

others by their quality instead of their behavior. In conclusion, past studies from different countries in Asia showed

that males are more negatives in their perceptions toward both gay men and lesbians as compared to females.

This study also investigated separately the difference of gender in the attitudes toward gay men and lesbians

among undergraduate students in Malaysia.

http://eprints.utar.edu.my/2323/1/PY-2016-1203747.pdf
The Lived Experiences of Lesbian/Gay/[Bisexual/Transgender]

Mary Jean Denton

May, 2009

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In their groundbreaking study of open and closeted lesbian and gay (LG) K-12 administrators, Fraynd and Capper
(2003) described the harassment and discrimination that is all too often forced upon this subgroup of educational
leaders by United States society: ‘Do you have any idea who you just hired?!?!’ shouted the voice at the other end
of the superintendent’s phone. Sharon Freeman and her partner moved to Carson just two weeks before the call
came to her new employer. That evening, after she returned from her job as principal of Logan Elementary, Sharon
and her partner settled in to watch the news. Sharon’s face was plastered around the perimeter of the television
screen as the evening’s lead story. Sharon shared how she decided to resign her position as principal: ‘The phrase
they kept using which just haunts me to this day was, ‘she touches little girls’ . . . Sharon, like all lesbian and gay
administrators, is forced to deal with what most would call an incongruity on a daily basis . . . . While the majority
[American society] may permit the existence of LG individuals, most do not want them around their children–and
certainly LG individuals should not be allowed to run schools.’ (p. 86-87) Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT)
persons have long been the victims of harassment and discrimination evolving from a deep-seeded fear of
difference and heterosexual oppression (Blount, 2003; Capper, 1993a; Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Lugg, LG[BT]
Educational Leaders/Denton 29 2003a; Sears, 1993; Valdes, 1998). The civil rights movement over the past three
decades has identified LG[BT] individuals as a protected non-majority group which “typically hold less political and
economic power in society” (Capper, 1993a) and, therefore, can also be classified as “persons on the axis of
oppression” (p. 4). Despite movement at the Federal level to protect students, there continues to be no
constitutional or statutory protection for LGBT persons, and only 20 states and the District of Columbia claim to
provide equal protection against sexual orientation discrimination (State nondiscrimination laws in the U.S., 2008).
Since the majority of states do not constitutionally provide protection against harassment and/or discrimination
based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, LGBT persons often do not enjoy the same economic and political
stature as their heterosexual counterparts. The domination of white supremacy, male supremacy, and Euro-
heteropatriarchy runs rampant in our communities (Valdes, 1998). Heterosexist domination is particularly true in
education due to the long history of moral uprightness teachers are expected to maintain (Capper, 1993b;
Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a; Sears, 1993; Valdes, 1998). School districts, unless required by state legislation, often
do not have policies forbidding sexual orientation harassment/discrimination or, if they do, these policies are tag-
ons to the district’s sexual harassment and equal opportunity policies. These policies do not adequately address
issues surrounding sexual orientation/identity of students, staff, and particularly educational leaders (Lugg, 2003a).
For this reason, harassment or discrimination of LG[BT] staff or administrators may go undetected allowing
inequitable and prejudicial policies to permeate organizations, which may possibly initiate a LG[BT] Educational
Leaders/Denton 30 downward spiral of decreasing acceptance, support, and promotion, possibly leading to
irreparable damage to one’s personal integrity and/or career. For the purpose of this study, the review of the
literature provides an overview of homosexuality and U.S. public education, as well as a discussion of the history of
United States policy/law as it relates to homosexuality, particularly in public schools. Although formal policy and
law is not the focus of this study, they are dictated by societal values and often viewed as one in the same. Policy
and law and social mores play in sync with one another, therefore, as they continuously connect, you cannot have
one without the other. For this reason, it is critical to present an historical overview of law, as it pertains to
homosexuality, in order to begin to understand how the formal policies and laws, and the informal actions and
attitudes of society have contextualized the lives of LGBT educational leaders. Homosexuality and Teachers in
Public Schools Homosexuality in education is not a recent phenomena, in fact “society has been confronted with
the issue of the homosexual school teacher since at least 450 B.C., when the most famous homosexual educators,
Socrates and Plato, educated Greek youth” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 17). Education in ancient Greek society was the
responsibility of teachers and philosophers, and excluding girls, was designed to teach boys the duties of manhood
(Buchanan, 2000; Harbeck, 1997). The student was expected to respect and admire his teacher, and the teacher
was expected to gain the devotion and affection of his student; therefore, “homosexual conduct between a
teacher and student was considered a valuable part of the education process” (Buchanan, 2000, p. 4). LG[BT]
Educational Leaders/Denton 31 Sexual orientation discrimination, found in education, has an equally long history.
For centuries, the Roman empire, heavily influenced by the Greeks, saw nothing illegal or inappropriate about
homosexual conduct between males, and fourteen of the first fifteen emperors practiced homosexuality
(Buchanan, 2000). Roman values, however, differed from the Greeks when it came to family and education. While
Greek society viewed the sole purpose of “family” as a source of procreation and bestowed the education of their
young boys to teachers and philosophers, ancient Romans believed the “family” played a more crucial role than
merely procreation. In ancient Rome, it was an “extension of the parental responsibility” (Buchanan, 2000, p. 5) for
a father to educate his son(s). Because a father would not have sexual relations with his child or chi LG[BT]
Educational Leaders/Denton 32 In this larger section, homosexuality in U.S. public education, from the 1850s to
the 1970s, is discussed. This section is divided into four major eras: 1) Homosexuality: The 1850s to the Turn of the
Century, 2) Homosexuality: Early 20th Century, 3) Homosexuality: The Witch Hunt in Public Education, and 4)
Homosexuality: Post World War II to the 1970s. The historical look at homosexuality in U.S. public education
begins in the mid-1850s. Homosexuality: The 1850s to the Turn of the Century Teachers in U.S. schools were
primarily men until the mid-1850s, apparently due to the fact that women were viewed as subordinate and
generally not allowed a formal education (Blount, 2003). Although there are few examples of homosexual teachers
in the early history of education, it has been posited that the early U.S. educational system fostered homosexual
activity between primarily male teachers and male students (Crompton, 1976; Harbeck, 1992, 1997). Harbeck
(1997) advanced ideas about homosexual activity in U.S. education: The public images of English boarding schools
and American same-sex colleges were that no homosexual teachers were employed and no homosexuality
occurred between the students. The private realities of these institutions is that they supported practices that
encouraged homosexual behavior by both faculty and students. (p. 168) Lesbians and gay males may have been
more prevalent in early U.S. education than society has been willing to believe. Several notable literary scholars
were educators, as well as practicing homosexuals: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth LG[BT]
Educational Leaders/Denton 33 Peabody, Amos Bronson Alcott, Henry David Thoreau, Henry W. Longfellow,
Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman (Harbeck, 1992). Early homosexual educators often worked together in the
same institutions and socialized in the same circles. The majority of the lesbian and gay male teachers mentioned
above, worked at the Alcott School, founded and owned by Amos Bronson Alcott. Although the homosexual
practices of this group of early literary scholars has become widely known, their experiences as teachers appear to
have been blurred by their literary careers (Harbeck, 1997). The post-Civil War era heralded rapid growth in public
education, and men were no longer willing to work for the low wages paid to teachers. To fill the ever-growing
need for teachers, school districts began hiring single women and required they remain unmarried in order to
retain their teaching position. Should a female teacher marry, she would be forced to resign or be fired by the
school board (Blount, 2003, 2004; Lugg, 2003a). Female teachers were held to high moral standards and
continually watched to assure that the imposed regulations were followed (Lugg, 2003a). Homosexuality: Early
20th Century By the early 20th century, the teaching profession was dominated by single woman (Blount, 2003,
2004; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003c), and the few men who remained in the classrooms were viewed with
suspicion (Lugg, 2003a). Lugg (2003a) described the early 1920s as “an era when social roles and employment were
fraught with stringent and highly differentiated gender expectations” (p. 105). The early 20th century opened the
door for those men desiring a career in education, but not wanting the sissified stereotype associated with male
teachers. Educational administration became the new LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 34 career for male
teachers. As Lugg (2003a) stated, “educational administration became by definition masculinist, a career for
married males with academic credentials” (p. 106). The view of educational administration has not changed since
the early 1900s, and the profession itself has evolved into one of fierce conservativism and homophobia (Blount,
1996; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Koschoreck, 2003; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b; Lugg & Koschoreck, 2003). The 1920s also
brought the introduction of sexual orientation issues into the political arena of education (Blount, 2003, 2004;
Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). The sexual orientation debate began as a direct result of the emergence of
research in human sexuality and the identification of homosexuality and heterosexuality as the two primary means
of human sexual expression (Blount, 2004; Katz, 1992; Lugg, 2003a). Once an identified means of human sexual
expression, homosexuality was viewed as devil possession, a sin, a crime, biologically hereditary, a mental
disorder, and even a learning disorder (Harbeck, 1997). Indeed, sexuality researchers in the 1920s saw
homosexuality as an “unhealthy and poor developmental outcome because such behavior violated supposedly
natural gender norms and accepted notions of procreative sexual behavior” (Lugg, 2003a, p. 106). Society was on
heightened alert and lawmakers took the opportunity to expand and strengthen sodomy laws. Homosexuals were
viewed as both criminals and predators, and “should not be allowed to influence young children, nor should they
be permitted the opportunity for potential sexual activity with children” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 157). LG[BT]
Educational Leaders/Denton 35 Homosexuality: The 1920s Through World War II The much publicized sexuality
research during the 1920s and 1930s, resulted in a plethora of homophobic fear, and a critical eye was turned
toward the schools, in particular toward teachers. Teachers remaining single into their 30s, especially male
educators, were viewed as having questionable character, and marriage became the socially acceptable norm
(Blount, 2003; Chauncey, 1994; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). In order to remain in the education profession
and avoid the stigma of being classified a homosexual, men turned to marriage to prove their heterosexuality, and
the gay male was forced into assimilation (Blount, 2003; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b; Pinar, 1998). Women
teachers were also scrutinized and the traditional “spinster schoolteacher”, once held in high regard, was now in
jeopardy (Blount, 2003, 2004; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). Female teachers, however, found themselves in
a Catch 22. Since the mid-1800s, school boards required female teachers to remain single so they could devote
their attention to the education of children (Blount, 2003, 2004; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). The ban on married women
in the teaching profession remained the norm rather than the exception until post-World War II. To retain their
careers as teachers, women were forced to remain single while at the same time being subjected to ridicule and
suspicion of lesbianism and criminal activity (Blount, 2003, 2004; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). By the late 1920s, society
believed the single female teacher posed a moral threat to her female students. However, due to low wages paid
to unwed female LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 36 teachers, school boards viewed their employment as cost-
effective and economically sound (Blount, 2003, 2004; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). Homosexuality: Post-World War II to
the 1970s Post-World War II and the rise of McCarthyism once again fueled flames of homophobia, particularly as
homosexuality was linked to communism, and the slur “commie, pinko, queer” was coined (Harbeck, 1997; Lugg,
2003a, 2003b). The publication of the 1948 Kinsey report on male sexuality and the 1953 report on female
sexuality increased public awareness of the high incidence of homosexuality and intensified the hysteria (Blount,
2003, 2004; D'Emilio, 1983; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). Without a doubt, “the interaction between
cold war hysteria, Kinsey’s data, rampant homophobia, and lurid and incendiary newspaper reporting proved to be
a volatile mix” (Lugg, 2003b, p. 107). The scrutiny of previous decades was at full strength again as society sought
to purge all branches of the government, the military, and the educational system of people suspected to be
homosexuals (Blount, 2003, 2004; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). By the mid-1950s, maintaining a
“non-queer educational force had become a matter of national security” (Lugg, 2003a, p. 108). In overwhelming
numbers, states began to pass legislation to rid the schools of suspected homosexuals, with Florida leading the
way (Blount, 2003, 2004; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). Legislation mandated that educational
administrators and school boards were to terminate employees who were suspected to be lesbian or gay. Without
a doubt, an educator arrested on a homosexual charge, whether convicted or not, was immediately terminated
LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 37 from employment with license revocation most likely to follow (Harbeck,
1997). LG[BT] teachers were no longer safe as public pressure forced schools to become vessels of persecution
with school administrators at the helm. During the 1950s and 1960s, lesbian and gay educators faced daunting
choices. If they remained in the profession, they risked exposure and humiliating expulsion. To avoid detection,
they would need to adopt behaviors and characteristics considered appropriate for their sex. Alternatively, they
could leave schools and work elsewhere. (Blount, 2004, p. 114) Public school administrators were charged with
“policing” their schools and were viewed as hostile toward LGBT individuals (Kissen, 1996; Lugg & Koschoreck,
2003). The 1969 Stonewall Riot in Greenwich Village became a turning point for LGBT educators. Stonewall was an
awakening for many LGBT individuals throughout the country and gave rise to a nationwide grassroots effort to
openly claim their sexual identities (Blount, 2004). The 1970s brought heightened public awareness of LGBT
teachers as individuals began to exercise their civil rights in the courtroom. LGBT teachers contested the decisions
that terminated their employment on the bases of homosexual allegations in ground-breaking and high-profile
court cases – cases that would set a precedent for future policy and law (Blount, 2004; Harbeck, 1997). Civil rights
gains for LGBT educators were on the upswing in the 1970s. The movement, however, was not without strong
opposition. Anita Bryant’s nationwide Save LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 38 Our Children Campaign3 and
California State Senator John Briggs’ Proposition 63 were backlash movements to once again rid the schools of
homosexuals (Blount, 2003, 2004; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003b; Sears, 1993; Stewart, 2001) 4 . Bryant’s
campaign was successful in reversing sexual orientation non-discrimination clauses in school policy in Dade
County, Florida; Eugene, Oregon; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Wichita, Kansas. Briggs’ attempts, however, failed, in
part due to the opposition of then former governor Ronald Reagan (Harbeck, 1992, 1997). The backlash
movements of Bryant and Briggs, although not completely successful, laid the foundation for several major legal
setbacks that would plague the LGBT movement and LGBT educators throughout the remainder of the 20th
century and into the 21st century. History of United States Policy/Law and Homosexuality Homosexuality has been
a part of U. S. policy and law since the colonial era. This section discusses the evolution of U. S. policy/law with
regard to homosexuality from the arrival of the first British settlers through the close of the 1970s and is presented
as follows: 1) Colonial Law to the 1930s, 2) Post-World War II to the Mid-1970s, and 3) Late 1970s. Colonial Law to
the 1930s Oppression of LGBT individuals in the United States dates back to the arrival of the first settlers to New
England when the law of the time criminalized homosexual activity (D'Emilio, 1983). By incorporating the English
sodomy law, punishable by death, 3 For a fuller account of the Save Our Children Campaign and Proposition 6 see
pages 30-34. LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 39 into legal code, homosexuality became punishable by death in
all of the 13 original colonies (Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003b). These laws remained the status quo until 1873,
when South Carolina became the last state to drop sodomy from the list of capital offenses (Crompton, 1976;
Harbeck, 1997). Capital punishment for the crime of sodomy in U.S. law had a significant impact on the lives of
homosexuals for over two centuries. Although sodomy was no longer a capital crime by the late 1800s, it was still a
crime in all states and all homosexual activity was considered sodomy until post-World War II (Blount, 2003;
Chauncey, 1994; D'Emilio, 1983; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). In addition, “almost every state
expanded their vagrancy, disorderly conduct, degeneracy, and prostitution laws in hopes of criminalizing same-sex
and gender ‘deviant’ behavior” (Lugg, 2003b, p. 54). In many states, educators convicted of a “crime against
nature” would not only lose their jobs, but could have their teaching license revoked (Lipkin, 1999). Such legal acts
gave autonomous power to school boards and administrators as they sought to uphold socially appropriate gender
norms and regulate sexual behavior by ridding U.S. schools of LGBT educators. The introduction of the
homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy in human sexuality research in the 1920s further fueled the flames of
oppression. Most states and municipalities seized the opportunity to expand and broaden their sodomy laws in an
attempt to include any deviant behavior that fell outside of socially accepted gender expectations (Chauncey,
1994; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). Expansion of the “crimes against nature” laws in the 1920s and
1930s made it illegal to be homosexual LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 40 and forced LGBT individuals into a
deeper state of secrecy and isolation. As Chauncey (1994) put it, “the state built a closet in the 1930s and forced
gay people to hide in it” (p. 9). Policy and Law: Post-World War II to Mid-1970s As previously mentioned, stringent
“crimes against nature” laws and closeted gays remained the status quo until the post-WWII era when, by 1950, 48
states still considered homosexual activity a felony, with only murder, kidnapping, and rape receiving heavier
penalties (D'Emilio, 1983). In addition, the medical model classifying homosexuality as a disease emerged during
this era and prevailed through the early 1960s (D'Emilio, 1983; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Sears, 1993). Many states
passed “sexual psychopath laws that officially recognized homosexuality as a socially threatening disease”
(D’Emilio, 1983, p. 17). In the 1950s and early 1960s, LGBT individuals were the focus of police entrapment and
warrantless arrests on the streets, in bars, and even in private homes. Gay men and lesbians were charged with an
array of offenses including disorderly conduct, vagrancy, public lewdness, assault, and solicitation, as well as being
subjected to blackmail, surveillance, and postal authority investigations (D'Emilio, 1983; Harbeck, 1992). LGBT
individuals often did not challenge the authority of the police and even when there was a lack of sufficient
evidence, most would plead guilty to the charge in an attempt to avoid being further ostracized (D'Emilio, 1983).
Despite the continued and overt oppression of LGBT individuals in the early 1950s, there was an undercurrent of
change. Society was beginning to slowly alter its LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 41 attitude toward sexuality,
and a greater sympathy for those accused of victimless crimes was emerging. In 1955, the American Law Institute’s
Model Penal Code recommendation was to legalize all forms of sexual activity between consenting adults.
Although the recommendation was initially rejected by most states, the courts slowly exercised more leniency with
those charged with victimless crimes (Harbeck, 1992). The growing leniency of the courts had a direct impact on
the U.S. educational system because “for the first time in United States social history the judiciary broke with
educational policy concerning immorality, criminal conduct, and the extent to which someone should be punished
for consenting sexual activity outside of marriage” (Harbeck, 1992, p. 125). With the trend toward greater
leniency, educational leaders began to lose the autonomous power they had for so long possessed. School
administrators no longer could rely on the court system as a source of support for information gathering focused
on the private lives of teachers (Harbeck, 1992). Judicial leniency for teachers charged with victimless crimes was
quickly met with opposition by California lobbyists wanting to keep their teachers in check. The lobbyists
successfully sponsored legislation that would return power to educational leaders and was specifically directed at
teachers and their morality. California’s Penal Code Section 291 now required police to inform local school boards
whenever a teacher was detained or arrested for a criminal offense, and Education Code 12756 allowed for the
immediate suspension of a teaching license upon conviction of any of several statutes relating to sex and morality
(Harbeck, 1992). As a result of this legislation, school LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 42 administrators once
again possessed autonomous power to rid their schools of social misfits and sexual psychopaths. However, the late
1960s both social and legal attitudes were changing, increasingly, from removing a teacher from his/her position
solely on actual or perceived sexual orientation became more difficult. In the 1969 landmark decision in Morrison
v. State Board of Education, the California Supreme Court ruled that a teacher could not be dismissed from his
teaching position without taking into account, and analyzing, the individual’s behavior with respect to his job
responsibilities (Harbeck, 1992; Sears, 1993). The Court further stated “the status of being a homosexual was
insufficient grounds for dismissal unless coupled with some related misbehavior” (Harbeck, 1992, p. 126). This
court ruling was a major advancement in employment rights for LGBT educators. Finally, by 1973 “Morrison was
firmly established as one of the strongest statements in favor of an individual’s right to retain employment despite
a wide variety of personal indiscretions” (Harbeck, 1992, p. 126). Beginning in the early to mid-1970s,
municipalities and school boards were beginning to pass anti-discrimination ordinances to protect homosexuals in
the workforce. By 1973, the National Education Association included sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination
policy and supported domestic partner language as a negotiable contract issue. The American Federation of
Teachers followed suit in 1974 and gave their gay and lesbian employees domestic partnership status (Rossman,
1997). LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 43 Policy and Law: The Late 1970s Since 1975, many state legislatures
have removed situational descriptions that permitted immediate revocation of a teaching license (Harbeck, 1992).
The late 1970s was a period of nationwide change and significant advancement in the civil rights for LGBT
individuals. Greater acceptance of homosexuals in society, especially in education, was not without backlash from
conservatives. In this section, the three major anti-gay rights movements of the 1970s are discussed, 1) Save Our
Children Campaign, 2) California’s Proposition 6, and 3) Helm’s Bill. As previously stated, in 1977, Anita Bryant,
former Miss America finalist, spearheaded the Save Our Children campaign. At that time, Dade County was home
to a large gay/lesbian population and was considered to be a politically liberal community (Harbeck, 1997). Dade
County was Bryant’s starting point, but the ripple effect would reach nationwide proportions for years to come.
Save Our Children Campaign Prior to 1977, Ruth Shack, wife of Dick Shack, long-time booking agent and friend of
Anita Bryant, won the election to the Dade County Metro Commission. Anita Bryant had publicly endorsed Shack in
the election, taping several radio endorsements, which were considered to be instrumental in her election. Shack,
however, had also been endorsed by the Dade County Coalition for the Humanistic Rights of Gays. Shack, along
with 48 other candidates supported by the Coalition, had promised to support LG[BT] rights in return for the
homosexual vote. The election brought 45 of the 49 Coalitionsupported candidates to office and shortly there
after, Shack in LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 44 discrimination ordinance supporting LG[BT] rights, and the
ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 3 (Harbeck, 1992, 1997). Bryant, outraged by the passing of the ordinance,
immediately began her Save Our Children campaign in an attempt to repeal the ordinance. Both Bryant and the
supporters of the ordinance received nationwide support, and “Dade County became the setting for the first head-
to-head conflict between the fundamentalist religious movement, with Anita Bryant as its nationally-prominent
spokesperson, and the as yet rather closeted but increasingly militant [LGBT] population” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 42).
Although Bryant had minimal knowledge of homosexuality and admittedly met only a few homosexuals, she was
quick to link homosexuality with child pornography, other forms of depravity, and communism. Bryant
characterized the LGBT movement for civil rights as a “homosexual conspiracy” against God and country. Bryant
stated: The word gay totally belies the homosexual lifestyle. I don’t even know How the word gay was attached to
the homosexual lifestyle. The militant homosexuals took the word and with the power that they have, they
programmed it into our modern vocabulary. That in itself is a frightening example of what they can do to a society
– how they can brainwash you into using their terminology. It’s too early to say, and I don’t know what the
homosexuals still have up their sleeve. They are very desperate people who will stop at nothing. (as cited in
Harbeck, 1997, p. 43) Bryant’s accusations that homosexuals were militant, desperate people who would
brainwash the public and stop at nothing to achieve their end was a form of LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 45
McCarthyesque tactics that were successful in heightening fear in citizens nationwide. She even went as far as to
assert that the Equal Rights Amendment and National Organization of Women were fronts for lesbianism. Harbeck
(1997) pointed out, however, that Bryant’s attack “was aimed at the stereotypical, limp-wristed, seductive,
crossdressing, male homosexual who was sexually interested in young boys” (p. 44), and homosexual teachers
were at the top of her list. Before long, LGBT teachers were viewed as having three main goals: molestation,
recruitment, and violence, and rhetoric was advanced that these individuals should not be allowed to teach
children. Bryant’s five month campaign ended successfully on June 7, 1977, when the voters of Dade County
repealed the ordinance supporting LGBT housing and employment rights by a vote of 69 percent to 31 percent.
Bryant’s campaign against gay rights did not stop in Dade County; by 1978, she had helped to successfully repeal
sexual orientation anti-discrimination ordinances in several other municipalities. While the successful battles raged
in the states of Florida, Minnesota, Kansas, and Oregon, another was brewing and taking hold in California.
California’s Proposition 6 California’s conservative State Senator John Briggs was known for his disdain of
homosexuals, and in 1977, flew to Dade County to lend his support to Anita Bryant and her Save Our Children
campaign. Briggs was impressed with the large sums of money Bryant had raised for her cause and felt
empowered by her resulting victory (Harbeck, 1992). After returning to California, “Briggs decided to use the issues
of homosexual LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 46 school teachers and the death penalty as the emotional
underpinnings of his campaign for governor” (Harbeck, 1992, p. 129). In June, 1977, Briggs introduced Proposition
6 as a means of ridding California schools of homosexual teachers. Like Bryant, Briggs equated homosexuality with
depravity and considered it a “conspiracy of corruption.” Briggs’ focused on the premise “that gay and lesbian
individuals intentionally entered the teaching profession to seduce young students into a homosexual lifestyle.
Thus, Proposition 6 was necessary to curb this conspiracy of corruption” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 61). Supporters of
Briggs and Proposition 6 contended that adoption of Proposition 6 would not forbid school districts from hiring
homosexual teachers, but would, instead, provide them with an option not to (Harbeck, 1997). In reality, however,
Proposition 6 had significantly more far-reaching intents, and its ramifications would have been devastating for
homosexual educators and their heterosexual allies. The Initiative defined “homosexual conduct” as “advocating,
soliciting, imposing, encouraging, or promoting of private or public homosexual activity directed at, or likely to
come to the attention of schoolchildren and/or employees” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 64). Opponents of Proposition 6
feared that its definition of “homosexual conduct” was too broad and would lead to flagrant misuse of power on
the part of school administrators resulting in arbitrary grounds for termination or non-hiring. Under this definition,
both homosexuals and heterosexual allies could be scrutinized and considered for termination or non-hiring for
merely discussing his/her homosexual lifestyle and presenting it as a positive alternative to students or by
expressing tolerance of homosexuality in a private conversation with LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 47
friends or colleagues (Harbeck, 1997; Stewart, 2001). For this reason alone, it was argued that Proposition 6 was
unconsititutional. The broad definition of “homosexual conduct” was not the only criticism brought about by the
opposition. Concerns were raised about the review and dismissal process, which increased the power bestowed on
school administration to “define standards of conduct and gather information against a school employee”
(Harbeck, 1997, p. 65). In essence, Proposition 6 was viewed as a setback in civil rights and a return to the
autonomous power school administrators had wielded in previous decades. This unlimited power was viewed as
contrary to federal and state limitations on separation of power and directly violated federal and state privacy
protections (Harbeck, 1997). Ronald Reagan, then former California governor, has been credited as being the most
influential opponent of Proposition 6. Although Briggs had claimed Reagan initially expressed support of
Proposition 6, it is surmised that Nancy Reagan’s numerous homosexual friends in Hollywood and Reagan’s
campaign for the Presidency influenced him to not speak out in favor of an anti-gay initiative. However, Briggs did
not expect Reagan’s vehement opposition of the initiative (Harbeck, 1992, 1997). In addition to Reagan’s claims of
the unconstitutionality of Proposition 6, he also asserted the insurmountable cost of enforcement and significant
governmental involvement. He foresaw a negative backlash against innocent people, particularly LGBT educators,
and stated “whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like measles. LG[BT] Educational
Leaders/Denton 48 Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age,
and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this” (as cited in Harbeck, 1997, p. 73). Amid charges of voter
fraud, failure of the California Supreme Court to rule on the initiative’s constitutionality, and an outpouring of
parental support for the retention of a gay male teacher, Proposition 6 went to the voters on November 7, 1978. It
was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1 and “for the first time, supporters of homosexual rights had won an election
against the conservatives. In fact, they may have won their most important election” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 81).
Helm’s Bill Before the defeat of Proposition 6 in California, Oklahoma State Senator Mary Helm requested a copy
of the legislation from John Briggs. Helm’s Bill, a replica of Proposition 6, was introduced to the Oklahoma State
House and Senate in February 1978. It passed unanimously and began a seven year judicial journey that would end
with a United States Supreme Court split decision in 1985 (Harbeck, 1992, 1997). On the heals of the Supreme
Court split decision, several other states began to draft and consider laws similar to the Helm’s Bill. These states
included: North Carolina, Texas, Nevada, and Arkansas (Harbeck, 1997). What began as a small ripple of judicial
leniency and relaxing social attitudes, toward homosexuals in the early and mid-1970s, quickly grew to a tidal wave
of resurgent discriminatory legislation that began with Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign and continued
into the next millennium. LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 49 Current Anti-Discrimination Policy/Law and
Homosexuality In the decade following the successful Save Our Children campaign, the future of LGBT civil rights
appeared grim. Throughout the U.S., discrimination against LGBT individuals prevailed and “more than two-thirds
of the anti-gay ballot measures were lost every year, the vast majority of them repeals of basic nondiscrimination
laws like the one targeted by Bryant in Miami-Dade County” (Anti-LGBT Ballot Measures, 2005-2006). In this
section, anti-discrimination law and policy, from the 1980s to present day, are discussed. The subsections include:
1) Law and Policy: Small Victories in the 1980s, 2) Law and Policy: The 20th Century Comes to a Close, and 3) Law
and Policy: The New Millennium. In the midst of the trend against gay rights, the LGBT community did win some
battles in the on-going war. In 1977, the same year Bryant was spewing her anti-gay rhetoric and gaining support
for the repeal of nondiscrimination laws, the District of Columbia, with its sodomy law still in place, passed a gay
rights law. This law remained the strongest gay rights law in the country through the 1980s (Mohr, 1988). Law and
Policy: Small Victories in the 1980s The Congressional defeat of the Family Protection Act of 1981 was another
similar victory. The bill, supported by conservative Christian groups, would have terminated any state or municipal
anti-discrimination laws intended to protect LGBT individuals from employment or housing discrimination and
even stipulated the withholding of Federal funds (Blount, 2005). Then Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan,
endorsed the bill during his campaign, but once elected opposed it, “claiming LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton
50 simply that it discriminated against a class of people” (Blount, 2005, p. 160). In 1982, Wisconsin became the
first state to pass a nondiscrimination law protecting gays in the workforce and public accommodations. The
following year Wisconsin revised its sodomy law to “eliminate consensual adult sex in private as a crime” (Mohr,
1988, p. 54). During the remainder of the 1980s, Massachusetts (1989) was the only other state to pass a
nondiscrimination law which included sexual orientation as a protected category (Harbeck, 1997), and by 1989,
only 42 cities and counties throughout the United States had passed sexual orientation discrimination laws (The
state of the workplace: For lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans 2002, 2002). Law and Policy: The
20th Century Comes to a Close As the United States moved into the final decade of the 20th century, a shift in
social mores became increasingly apparent, and the LGBT community’s quest for civil rights was on the upswing. In
1991, Hawaii and Connecticut passed sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws, with New Jersey, Vermont, and
California following suit in 1992, and Minnesota in 1993 (Harbeck, 1997). During this period, concern was raised
regarding the safety of LGBT youth in our schools, and the National School Board Association (1993) and the
American Association of State Boards of Education mandated the development of curricula and counseling
programs for LGBT students (Rossman, 1997). January1993 brought President Clinton to office, and his
administration proved to be a strong advocate for gay rights through the turn of the century. In an attempt to end
the military pursuit of homosexuals among their ranks, Clinton promised to rescind the ban on homosexual service
members. Under great political pressure, however, Clinton LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 51 did not rescind
the ban; rather, he agreed to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which was enacted into law in 1994 (Gerstmann,
1999). In the next year, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was co-sponsored by Senators
James Jeffords (R-VT) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and introduced to Congress. ENDA would provide basic
protection against employment discrimination based solely on sexual orientation, real or perceived. EDNA had
unprecedented bipartisan support, including that of President Clinton, however, it was strongly opposed because
some believed that it would specifically protect educators and severely restrict districts from dismissing
homosexual educators for improprieties (Lipkin, 1999). EDNA failed to pass through Congress, allegedly due to the
efforts of the right-wing evangelical and fundamentalist Christians (Harbeck, 1997; Mazur, 1997). ENDA continues
to be introduced annually and would be the first federal law protecting individuals from job discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. To date, EDNA has failed to pass. The U. S. Supreme Court issued another victory to the
LGBT community in 1996 with its decision on Romer v. Evans. In response to Colorado Governor Romer’s executive
order prohibiting discrimination against individuals with AIDS, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s
recommendation that the state adopt sexual orientation anti-discrimination statutes, a religious activist group
known as Colorado for Family Values, introduced Amendment 2. The amendment was an attempt to repeal: any
existing law or policy that protected persons with ‘homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation’ from
discrimination in the state and any of its cities, towns, counties, and LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 52 school
boards and to prohibit further adoption or enforcement of any such law or policy. (Stewart, 2001, p. 232) In 1992,
Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, and a four year judicial battle began ((Harbeck, 1997; Stewart, 2001). The
U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case and characterized Amendment 2 as being unprecedented because it
identified a group of people by a single trait and denied them all protections by the state (Stewart, 2001). In 1996,
the Court issued its decision in Romer v. Evans and struck down Amendment 2 as unconstitutional (Harbeck, 1997;
Lipkin, 1999; Stewart, 2001). Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot exclude homosexuals from
seeking protections, it did not rule out local exclusionary practices or local/state discrimination based on actual or
perceived sexual orientation (Lipkin, 1999). In 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13087 – the Federal
Employment Nondiscrimination Order (Gerstmann, 1999; Stewart, 2001) – which “reaffirmed the executive’s
branch’s longstanding internal policy that prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within executive
branch civilian employment” (Gerstmann, 1999, p. 124). This marked the first presidential directive prohibiting
sexual orientation discrimination, however, it did not open the door to enforcement through the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission or authorize affirmative action programs (Stewart, 2001). Law and Policy:
The New Millennium The LGBT struggle for equal rights continues to make advancements in the 21st century. In
2003, the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas, struck LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton
53 down all sodomy laws as being unconstitutional. In 2006, Illinois outlawed sexual orientation discrimination,
Washington state added sexual orientation to its existing nondiscrimination laws, and Missouri legalized
homosexuality between consenting adults. Currently more than 460 of the Fortune 500 companies and more than
1975 private companies, nonprofits, and unions have adopted sexual orientation antidiscrimination policies (Gay
and transgender anti-discrimination, 2006). As of March, 2009, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have
enacted anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation protection (Quick Facts, 2009; State
nondiscrimination laws in the U.S., 2008). In addition, approximately “100 municipalities in the 30 states without
nondiscrimination laws have local nondiscrimination laws” (State nondiscrimination laws in the U.S., 2006). (See
FIGURE 1, p. 54). Despite the apparent progress in the acquisition of civil rights for LGBT individuals and a 2001
survey for the Kaiser Family Foundation finding that 75% of U.S. citizens believe that there should be laws
protecting LGBT people in the workplace, 33 states remain without sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws
(Gay and transgender anti-discrimination, 2006). LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 54 FIGURE 1. Anti-
Discrimination Laws in the United States State Year Sexual Orientation Gender Identity State Employees Only
Public Employment Private Employment USA 1998 X X Alabama Alaska 2002 X X Arizona 2003 X X Arkansas 2003 X
X California 2000 X X X X Colorado 2007 X X Connecticut 1991 X X X Delaware 2001 X X District of Columbia 1977 X
X X X Florida Georgia Hawaii 1991 X X X X Idaho Illinois 2005 X X X X Indiana 2004 X X Iowa (originally repealed)
2007 (2000) X X X Kansas X X X Kentucky 2003 X X Louisiana 2004 X X Maine 2005 X X X X Maryland 2001 X X X
Massachusetts 1989 X X X Michigan 2003 X X Minnesota 1993 X X X X Mississippi Missouri Montana ? X X Nebraska
Nevada 1999 X X X New Hampshire 1997 X X X New Jersey 1992 X X X New Mexico 2004 X X X X New York 1993 X X
X North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 1999 X X Oklahoma Oregon 2007 X X X Pennsylvania 1988 X X Rhode Island
1995 X X X X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont 1992 X X X Virginia Washington 2006 X X
X X West Virginia Wisconsin 1982 X X X Wyoming Bold – states with anti-discrimination laws; Shaded – states with
city/county policies, ordinances, proclamations Current as of March 2009 LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 55
Need for Research on Anti-Discrimination Policy/Law and LGBT Administrators To date, the legal status of LGBT
educational leaders is “one of absolute invisibility . . . . As a category or area of legal inquiry LGBT school
administrators simply do not exist” (Lugg, 2003b, p. 76). Since the late 1970s, some states and municipalities
throughout the country have recognized the need for protection of the oppressed sexual minority culture and
began passing legislation to prevent discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. In the schools,
these policies have focused primarily on creating a safe environment for students. The schools, however, continue
to be a predominantly unsafe place for LGBT educators, even in states with anti-discrimination laws (Capper, 1999;
Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b) and “public school administrators, who are largely at-will hires, have even
fewer protections” (Lugg, 2003a, p. 114). LGBT administrators are in a tenuous position, and their sexual
orientation make them particularly vulnerable yet, all too often “what few legal rights LGBT administrators retain
regarding employment end with the first suspicion” (Lugg, 2003b, p. 77). In light of the limited legal protection for
LGBT educational leaders and the fragility of their position, the impact of formal and informal context on this
invisible sect remains unexplored. The mere existence of sexual orientation anti-discrimination policy/law may not
be enough to protect LGBT educational leaders, personally or professionally. As one LGBT school administrator
explained, “the law is there for the big things, but it does not protect against the small, unsaid, day to day
oppression that we face, everyday, when we come to work” (Anonymous, 2006). LG[BT] Educational
Leaders/Denton 56 The past two decades has brought significant research in the area of LGBT youth and civil rights
legal issues. In addition, there has been an increasing interest in employment protection for LGBT educators
(Capper, 1999; Harbeck, 1992; Kissen, 1996; Lugg & Koschoreck, 2003). To date, however, there have been only
two studies that has focused solely on the experiences of LGBT school administrators (Fraynd & Capper, 2003;
Tooms. 2007). And this study did not specifically address the impact of policy/law on LGBT school leaders. Lugg and
Koschoreck (2003) stated: “educational administration may very be the final unrecognized and unexamined closet
for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgendered (LGBT)” (p. 4). The lack of scholarly research in the
area of LGBT school administrators has become an issue of concern to several researchers and scholars in the area
of educational leadership (Blount, 1996, 2003; Capper, 1999; Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003b;
Lugg & Koschoreck, 2003). And questions regarding the lack of and significance of such research has been raised
(Capper, 1999; Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Lugg, 2003b). Capper (1999) discussed two issues that may play a role in
the dearth of sexual minority administrator research: 1) the small numbers of LGBT educational administrators,
and 2) that education centers around students’ lives. In her discussion of the potentially small numbers of LGBT
school administrators, Capper pointed out that LGBT administrators may comprise up to 10% of the total school
administrator. Considering the small numbers of LGBT educational leaders, some may ask if it would be worth the
time to research this area. Capper (1999) responded: “research on women administrators and administrators of
color suggests, however, that LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 57 the low numbers of such administrators could
be one reason for conducting related research, bringing the issue into the public arena” (p. 5). The idea that
education centers around students’ lives has brought the argument that research on LGBT educational leaders
would not contribute to the quality of student life, and that LGBT administrators do not influence student
achievement (Capper, 1999). In addition, LGBT administrators themselves may argue that because our schools
continue to be heterosexist and homophobic, research efforts would yield a greater return if the focus was on
sexual minority youth and sexual minority parents with school-aged children (Capper, 1999). Lugg and Korschoreck
(2003) suggested the lack of research in the area of LGBT school leadership may be due to a lack of awareness that
this population even exists. They wrote: “A colleague’s assertion that ‘there aren’t any’ is indicative of just how
invisible LGBT educational leaders have been” (p. 4). The January 2003 special issue of the Journal of School
Leadership, was “the first scholarly journal to devote an entire issue to exploring the lives and issues facing LGBT
leaders” (Lugg & Korschoreck, 2003, pp. 4-5). They not only credited the lack of research to the apparent invisibility
and awareness of the existence of LGBT administrators in public schools, but also that “LGBT researchers working
in the areas of educational administration and leadership [suffer from the same] lack of visibility and professional
safety within higher education” (p. 5) as their counterparts in K-12 public education. The discriminatory practices
which plague LGBT public school leaders are the same for those in the professorate (Lugg & Korschoreck, 2003), as
such practices are deeply rooted in the history of educational LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton 58
administration as a fiercely homophobic and heterosexist profession (Blount, 1996, 2003; Capper, 1999; Fraynd &
Capper, 2003; Harbeck, 1992, 1997; Koschoreck, 2003; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b). The Euro-heteropatriachial
distribution of power within our educational system, has allowed for tolerance of LGBT students and educators,
however, they are not treated equally (Blount, 1996, 2003, 2005; Capper, 1999; Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Harbeck,
1992, 1997; Koschoreck, 2003; Lugg, 2003a, 2003b; Lugg & Koschoreck, 2003; Mohr, 1988; Sears, 1993; Sears &
Williams, 1997). The concept of tolerance, but unequal regarding LGBT educators and leaders was furthered by
Fraynd and Capper (2003): “while the majority may permit the existence of LG individuals, most do not want them
around their children – and certainly LG individuals should not be allowed to run schools” (p. 87). Indeed, the
obvious lack of visibility and awareness of LGBT administrators in public school settings clearly suggests the need
for further scholarly research in this area. As Pinar (1998) stated: Despite the explosion in scholarship and an
apparent and slight clearing in in the public space, we remain in a defensive position: trying to teach tolerance,
trying to teach the truth, trying to find ways to decenter and destabilize the heterosexual normalization that so
constructs . . . the public world we inhabit. (p. 6) If the U.S. educational system is to shift from the current power
structure, which historically fostered Euro-heteropatriarchial dominance, it is critical that knowledge and
understanding of the experiences of LGBT educational leaders and the formal LG[BT] Educational Leaders/Denton
59 laws/policies, and informal actions/attitudes of society that contextualize their lives is expanded. The
participant’s in Fraynd and Capper’s (2003) study continued to fear the ramifications of sexual identity disclosure
on their own and/or other LGBT school administrator’s personal and professional lives, despite living in states
where sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws exist. Is the fear of ramifications from sexual identity disclosure
and overarching phenomena of LGBT educational leaders? Or, is it unique to the participants of Fraynd and
Capper’s study? (See FIGURE 2, p. 60). A study that delves into the personal and professional lives of a marginal
group, particularly a group that is “on the axis of oppression” (Capper, 1993b, p.5), as LGBT administrators are, is
edgy, to say the least, and bold in the eyes of most. However, if as a democratic nation we truly believe in and
uphold equality for all, this research is important for bringing greater equality to education for our children, our
teachers, and our administrators. In conclusion, “research on this [LGBT] population can significantly contribute to
the literature. Queer research in administration can open another window on power and oppression in schools,
and further expose how heterosexism constrains everyone” (Capper, 1999, p. 5).

https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/51938/Denton_umn_0130E_10375.pdf?sequence=1
]