Equity's 1992 Campus Climate Report

Acceptance

Heterosexuals comprised 91% of our sample. Asked directly about their acceptance of those in the GLB group on a scale of 1 - 10 (1=not at all;10=very much), sixty percent placed themselves in the 8 to 10 range of high acceptance--an encouragingly high figure; less than 10% placed themselves in the low acceptance range of between 1 and 3.

Women were more likely than men to express a high level of acceptance (66% vs. 56%) and less likely to place themselves in the low-acceptance category (6% vs. 16%), a common finding in surveys of this sort. Women are simply less threatened by individuals whose sexual orientation is different from theirs. Their higher level of acceptance may also reflect a feeling of kinship by some women as a result of the well-documented discrimination may have faced professionally and personally. Respondents' employment status, on the other hand, had no significant impact on the acceptance scale, with no major differences surfacing among faculty, staff, and graduate students.

Given the highly-publicized negative views of some religious groups on the topic of homosexuality, we included one direct question about his possible source of our respondents' attitudes: "Does your religion influence your views on homosexuality?" Seventeen percent of the respondents marked "yes." However, religion did not appear to influence people toward negative views only. Just over a quarter (28%) of those who said their religion was influential placed themselves at the high end; the remainder fell somewhere in the middle.

General Campus Climate

In an attempt to assess directly and broadly our respondents' perceptions of the general climate on campus, we posed two questions early in the survey:

· Has The University of Arizona created an environment where people are comfortable being open about their sexual orientation? · Has The University of Arizona created an environment where people are comfortable being open about other aspects of their personal lives?

Respondents were asked to characterize their reactions to these questions in one of four ways: absolutely, somewhat, unsure, or no.

When we compared responses of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual group to those made by heterosexuals, we found they were pretty much in accord with regard to the second question. When it came to their comfort level about "other aspects of their personal lives, "very few were able to respond "absolutely" -- only 9% of the GLB group and 7% of the heterosexuals. A somewhat greater number of each responded "no" (21% vs. 15%). The great majority fell in the middle range of "somewhat" (56% vs. 41%) and "unsure" (15% vs. 35%).

When we compared the two groups' responses to the question regarding "sexual orientation," however, we saw a marked difference. Heterosexual respondents perceived sexual orientation in much the same way as other aspects of their personal lives, except that this question elicited an even larger number of "unsure" responses (45%). The increase in "unsure" responses suggests that many have simply not considered the issue. In contrast, only 15% of the GLB group were "unsure." Over 40% answered "no," the University had not created a comfortable environment for them to be open about their sexual orientation, as compared to just 16% of the heterosexuals.

The preponderance of vague "somewhat" and "unsure" responses to the general climate questions, especially among heterosexual respondents, suggests that people tend not to analyze the relationship between their professional and personal lives except when they are forced to. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have to face the issue of sexual orientation and its place in their professional lives on a daily basis, and so have more definite opinions, which tend to be negative.

A lack of awareness among heterosexuals showed up in another interesting way on the survey, revealing a misunderstanding so prevalent that we thought it worthy of a somewhat extended discussion. Time and again, people confused sexual behavior--sexual acts-- with sexual orientation. The survey asks no questions about sexual behavior, yet one person wrote, "Consenting sexual activity between adults ought to be private!" and another, "[A] person's sexual orientation ... should remain at home. I don't discuss my sexual habits at work:; and another, "What one does in one's bedroom should not be brought up in the work place" These comments reflect a confusion expressed by many who filled out the survey (see Appendix 3 for a full listing of comments). Sexual orientation is about much more than sexual behavior. What people do in their bedrooms--whether they are heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, or gay-- is only one circumscribed part of who they are, singly and in their relationships. And to suggest or hold to the belief that it is otherwise for non-heterosexuals not only insults one-tenth of the population, it dehumanizes them.

Moreover, heterosexuals who assume their sexuality has been left at home should consider the desk or bookshelf photos of the husband or wife or children so many have in their offices; the collections taken for flowers when a colleague's spouse is hospitalized or dies; or the cards of congratulations that circulate for signatures when a colleague or colleague's wife has baby. Heterosexuals' ability to say to coworkers that they are married, dating, getting divorced, or to tell what their family is doing over vacation, constitutes a privilege to be "open" about "private" matters that many people fail to recognize. And it contributes to an important sense of community that makes people feel better about the working lives if not perform better on the job.

Once you distinguish "sexual orientation" from "sexual behavior," the position gays and lesbians are in is easier to comprehend. While few homosexuals have an more need or desire to share sexual details of their lives than their heterosexual counterparts, they cannot help but regret not having the freedom to make even the most basic comments about partners, family, and family life. Additionally, it stands to reason that many will suffer some personal and psychological cost by denying these basic human connections for fear of discrimination, harassment, loss of their jobs, and the like. If married heterosexual employees, especially those with children, would try going through a month on the job without once referring to the existence of their spouses and children they might better understand the importance many of their GLB colleagues place on this freedom to be "out."

The Workplace Environment

A series of items asked respondents to characterize the level of respect shown for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals by others in their department, specifically their immediate supervisor, co-workers, department head, and students. Five possible ratings were offered: excellent, good, fair, poor, and not applicable. (the last was meant to apply in case a respondent was the department head, or had no contact with students, etc). One third of the heterosexual respondents checked "not applicable," about twice the rate of the GLB group (16%). Of those who had an opinion, the proportion of heterosexual and GLB respondents who viewed their immediate supervisor and department head as "excellent" or "good" was about the same: 56% and 45% for the heterosexual group; 52% and 45% for the GLB group. The higher response rate of the GLB group--that is, the higher percentage who found the items "applicable"-- was accounted for by their tendency to rate these superiors as having a "poor" or "fair" level of respect: thirty-six percent of the GLB respondents felt this way about their immediate supervisor as compared to 16% of the heterosexual respondents; and 29% of the GLB group rated their department head as only "fair" or "poor" compared to 15% of the heterosexual group. The GLB respondents also had a more critical assessment of their co-workers than the heterosexual respondents: only 42% rated their peers as "excellent" or "good" versus 62% of the heterosexual respondents.

Concerning student attitudes, the two groups appeared to be in agreement, with about a third of each rating students as showing a "poor" or "fair" level of respect. This negative perception of student attitudes is consistent with the dorm encounter narrated at the beginning of his report, and the al-too-common use of "fag" and "dyke" by young people as generally derogatory terms. It also underscore the need to directly assess the attitudes of the undergraduate population. A follow-up to the present survey should be directed at this largest segment of the UA community.

When rating the overall level of respect in their departments, equal proportions of the GLB and heterosexual respondents chose "excellent" or "good" (42%), though a greater proportion of GLB respondents (53% vs. 30%) found conditions "poor" or "fair". All in all, the responses to questions about respect levels in departments reveal that the immediate environment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual members of the University is not a particularly good one, but that department heads and supervisors show generally higher levels of respect than co-workers and students. The discrepancies between GLB and heterosexual respondents also suggest that a large segment of the population is unaware of the prejudices encountered by their non-heterosexual colleagues. Another finding may offer us some hope that such prejudices can be altered. We observed an interesting correlation between respondents' level of acceptance for non-heterosexual orientation and their perceptions of the attitudes of others in their department. Respondents who rated themselves as highly accepting of GLB colleagues were more likely to think that the overall level of respect in their department was "excellent" or "good" than respondents who placed themselves at the low end of the acceptance scale (45% vs. 25%). Similarly, high-acceptance respondents were less likely to think that their department was "poor" or "fair" than low-acceptance respondents (31% vs. 41%). Given the relatively minor variation in self-reported acceptance level among divisions of the University, this correlation illustrates a bias toward believing one's own attitude toward gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is the prevailing attitude. The perceptual bias suggests that simply educating people to the fact that intolerance of homosexuality in not the norm (less than 10% of the respondents placed themselves at the low end of the acceptance scale, and nearly 60% at the high end) might help in modifying the generally chilly climate experienced by gay, lesbian, and bisexual members of the UA community.

Given their negative perception of the climate, however, it is no surprise that when we asked GLB respondents how "out" they are about their sexuality on campus (1=not at all and 10=very much), twenty-three out of thirty-four placed themselves in the lower half of the scale.

If you have comments or suggestions, email matkin@ccit.arizona.edu