Back to the Equity page.
The complete report is also available by continuing to page down.
The Campus Climate for Gays,
Lesbians and Bisexuals:
Status Report and General Recommendations
September 1992
The University of Arizona Faculty and Staff for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual
Equity (Equity)
Prepared by: Marian Binder Melissa Herbert Randy Oberhoff Boyer Rickel
Cyma Van Petten Mark Von Destinon
Equity facilitator and contact person: Bruce Fowler
Introduction
In early October of 1990, two University of Arizona employees--one a
faculty member, the other on the professional staff, a man and a woman--
pulled into the parking lot of an off-campus dorm. As part of a series
of meetings on various topics, they had been invited by a Resident Advisor
to discuss homosexuality with the young men in his hall. The meeting room
was a lounge with one small table near the windows and an assortment of
chairs, places for twenty; but at 8 p.m., the time of the meeting, the
lounge stood empty. Apparently, none of the young men had enough interest
in the topic to attend. The R.A. hustled room to room, gathering about
fifteen somewhat unwilling participants. Seated at the table, the presenters
began by explaining that they had twenty years of experience between them
in forums like this one, discussing with various groups--students in high
school and college classes, public servants such as police and health care
workers--matter of sexual difference. When the opened discussion to everyone,
soliciting the students' views on homosexuality, the first few comments
seemed guarded, if mildly tolerant: "Who cares one way or the other?"
"I just don't like to see it." But when the discussion leaders
asked if gays perhaps had rights, the tone shifted: "Fags don't belong
in the Rec Center." "Yea, I don't want no faggot lookin' at my
ass." "If my sister turned out to be one, I'd beat her."
The young men soon seemed intent on outdoing each other, their hostility
escalating. The vicious language, the red faces and tense bodies convinced
the presenters that no conversation or discussion was any longer possible.
They made a quick closing remark and returned to the safety of their car.
Moreover, the experience convinced them they should talk with other
University employees about that night, and about attitudes toward those
who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual on our campus.
In Spring of 1991, at noon on the fourth Monday of each month, brown
bags on our laps, we numbered eleven, then fifteen, then twenty-three.
During the following year, more than ninety attended one or more meetings
of the University of Arizona Faculty and Staff for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual
Equity (referred to hereafter as Equity).
At first we simply collected anecdotal evidence, everything from the
report of a department head who enthusiastically helped launch an undergraduate
gay/lesbian literature course proposed by a graduate student and adjunct
faculty member, to instances of fag jokes told by co-workers. If we were
to have a meaningful understanding of employee attitudes toward sexual
diversity, however, it was clear that one of our first projects would need
to be a campus climate survey. In the Fall of 1991, Equity members with
expertise in research design developed such a survey, the results of which
this report analyzes.
The survey asks forty-two questions (see Appendix 1), gauging participants'
attitudes toward gays. lesbians, and bisexuals, their attitudes toward
the rights of these individuals on campus, as well as their perception
of the University climate for those who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
A random sample of University of Arizona faculty and staff was selected
by taking one out of every fine names on an alphabetized list of employees.
The selected--about three thousand--were sent the survey through campus
mail and invited to respond anonymously.
Demographics of the Respondents
Slightly more than 600 of the 3,200 questionnaires distributed were
returned by the deadline, a rate o about 20%; two come back blank, and
two were photocopies of the original survey, which we did not tabulate,
leaving 598 for the purposes of analysis. Respondents came from every college
and school of The University of Arizona, as well as the Administration,
Library, Alumni Association, Facilities Management, and Parking & Transportation
(see Appendix 2 for a breakdown). A little over 80% listed their ethnic
identification as non-Hispanic white, with the remainder identifying themselves
as Native American, Asian American, African American, and Hispanic. About
60% were female, forty percent male. Nearly half the respondents were in
classified staff positions (46%), just under a quarter were faculty (22%),
and substantial numbers were professional staff (13%) or graduate teaching
assistants (16%). The sample included a broad distribution of for the length
of employment at the UA, ranging from less than one year to over twenty
years. The age range was also broad, though the bulk of respondents (83%)
reported being between 25 and 54 years old.
Thirty-four, or about 6%, of the respondents identified as gay, lesbian,
or bisexual.1 This is low relative to the general population estimates
of 10% (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953)2, but our sample was not particularly
large, and since an addition 3% marked "non-identified" or declined
to answer, the true number of GLB respondents may be somewhat higher.
ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
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.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND DISCRIMINATION
When respondents were asked if they were "aware of situations in
which students have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual
orientation," the contrast between the heterosexual and non-heterosexual
reaction was dramatic. Only 6% of the heterosexual respondents answered
"yes," whereas 35% of the GLB group were aware of specific incidents
of discrimination. When the question turned from discrimination to outright
harassment, the numbers were similar: 7% of the heterosexual respondents,
as compared to 39% of the GLB group, reported witnessing such incidents
on campus. In addition, twelve percent of the GLB group reported having
been victims of harassment on campus. Both heterosexual and GLB respondents
reported fewer incidents on the UA campus than off campus, where the percentages
were genuinely alarming: 54% of the GLB group had been witnesses, and 50%
targets. While we can be grateful that there may be fewer incidents on
a college campus where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged, the University
figures are still alarmingly high. Differences between the GLB and heterosexual
respondents also emerged in opinions about the perceived impact of sexual
orientation in the tenure process. While a minority of the heterosexual
respondents believed sexual orientation had been important in past tenure
decisions (18%), only half that many (9%) believed it could be important
today. The GLB respondents were more pessimistic about this and less inclined
to think the situation had improved: 35% thought that sexual orientation
might have played a role in past tenure decisions, and 30 % though it was
still influential today. Critically, the two groups agreed overwhelmingly
(93%) that sexual orientation should not be a factor in tenure decisions.
Curriculum
We asked several questions concerning the desirability of incorporating
gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues into the University curriculum. fully
two-thirds (67%) of the respondents agreed that the experiences of gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals should be included in currently offered classes
when relevant to subject matter. There was particularly strong support
among the teaching staff for this: sixty-nine percent of the faculty were
in favor as were 83% of the graduate teaching assistants. Only 15% of the
teaching staff disagreed, while 16% were uncertain.
On the question of whether the University should offer courses in GLB
studies, the respondents were fairly evenly split between "yes"
32%), "no" (38%), and "don't know" (28%). On this matter,
teaching staff were also less enthusiastic, perhaps because of their unfamiliarity
with the possible content such courses. Twenty-eight percent of the faculty
and 42% of the graduate assistants favored the courses.
A number of respondents cited financial criteria to explain their opinions:
"With budget problems," one wrote, "I'm not sure separate
courses would be a high priority for me"; "No," wrote another,
"due to budget considerations only." Repeated budget cutbacks
are a serious concern on our campus at this time. It's worth noting, however,
that complaints about cost have been used as way to avoid new programs
almost anytime change has threatened the status quo (e.g. we can't afford
equal access to education, we can't afford multilingual ballots, we can't
afford women's studies).
Despite budgetary arguments for not creating new courses, respondents
recognized a need for further education about the GLB minority. Given the
perceived intolerance of students, it was not surprising that most survey
respondents supported presentation to student groups to encourage respect
for the civil rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Sixty percent
thought the new students, residence groups, and Greek organizations should
be given such presentations. Twenty-one percent disagreed and 16% weren't
sure. Several thought Greek organization were in particular need: "I'm
certain that gay-bashing occurs on campus from macho fraternities"
(this from a heterosexual respondent). It's also worth noting that support
for GLB presentation was often placed in the context of presentations promoting
equal rights for all: "For all civil rights of everyone!"; "all
minority groups should be represented"; "concurrent emphasis
on other civil rights, and cultural differences"; "Should be
done for all protective (sic groups, not just one, and not one [presentation]
for each group," and so on.
Employee Policies and Benefits
Questions about extending employee benefits to "same sex domestic
partners" and "domestic partners in committed heterosexual relationships"
raised two concerns for respondents. A few worried about how the state
would pay the extra people covered; far more were concerned about the legal
status or definition of "domestic partner." Many of these suggested
that marriage is the only reasonable status upon which to offer partner
benefits to anyone, though this response ignores the discriminatory impact
of such a policy on gays and lesbians, who are unable to attain married
status in the state of Arizona. Workable definitions are not impossible
to come up with, of course; a number of corporations and municipalities
have done so, a subject we will take up in the Recommendations section
of this report. Even given their budgetary and legal concerns, over half
of the respondents felt that benefits should be extended to same sex and
to opposite sex domestic partners (52% for both). Slightly more than a
quarter disagreed, feeling that no domestic partners (28% for same sex,
27% for opposite sex) should be accorded benefits.
When asked whether they favored an affirmative action policy that would
protect employees from discrimination based upon sexual orientation, almost
three quarter (73.2%) of all respondents felt this would be a good idea.
A minority were unsure (18%) and a small number were against this form
of protection (7%).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The data we received from the Campus Climate Survey revealed a somewhat
better set of circumstances than we anticipated. Given the canyon of silence
on sexual diversity issues at The University of Arizona and the general
conservatism of the state, we were prepared to find more intolerance if
not hostility form survey respondents. That fully 60% placed themselves
in the high acceptance range for the GLB group and less than 10% placed
themselves in the low acceptance range is encouraging. That so many confuse
"sexual orientation" with "sexual behavior," on the
other hand, remains troubling. We must begin to address this confusion
and the bias toward gays, lesbians, and bisexuals that such a confusion
produces in people, many of whom would never consider themselves biased.
The Workplace Environment
One of the most disturbing findings was that heterosexual respondents
perceived a much more tolerant and friendly workplace environment than
did GLB respondents themselves. More than half of the GLB groups rated
conditions in their departments as "poor" or "fair,"
although most heterosexuals rated their own attitudes and those of their
departments as positive. Of the many possible sources for this discrepancy,
tow struck us as most likely: the presence of a few actively biased employees
who remain unnoticed by those who are not targeted; and unconscious heterosexist
attitudes held by employees who believe themselves to be accepting.
The Budget Issue
Philosophically, there appears to be support for changes in two important
areas: curriculum - the inclusion of GLB issues in existing courses; benefits
- coverage of "domestic partners" in employee benefit offerings.
Many cited -our current budgetary problems as a reason such changes
might not be feasible at this time. In fact, where curriculum changes are
recognized as necessary, they often cost little or nothing to implement.
When new ideas are seen as necessary to better teaching and research, there
will always be faculty and graduate students eager to work on those changes.
In the University of Arizona English Department, for example, when a graduate
student expressed interest in creating a graduate-level GLB literature
course, the Director and Assistant Director of Graduate Studies both supported
the idea enthusiastically, the latter signing on as the instructor of record.
Moreover, such curriculum development should be the ongoing work of any
teaching institution.
As for including "domestic partners" among those for whom
employees can obtain insurance coverage and other benefits, in institutions
where such coverage has been offered for any length of time, providers
have experienced no significant increase in costs. (See "Employee
Benefits" below for a more thorough examination of this issue.)
The Human Rights Issue
While the majority of University employees appear to be in support of
the rights. of -"all" minority groups, we cannot assume that
GLBs ate included in everybody's definition of this category. All too often,
GLBs are either overlooked as a group whose rights are in need of protection,
or worse, are seen as a group for whom many rights should be explicitly
denied.
We believe it necessary that the University administration provide clear
policy guidelines, which specifically include GLBs in any regulations,
requirements, or policies pertaining to the rights of underrepresented
groups.
Employee Benefits
A majority of our employee sample supported employment benefits for
unmarried heterosexual and gay/lesbian couples, if their family status
could be formally recognized. This general agreement reflects a growing
awareness of the complexity. and diversity of the American family. In 1988,
census data indicated that only 27% of the nation's households fit the
traditional definition of family-two parents living with their children
(Newsweek, November 1989). At the University of Arizona, where nearly 20%
of the employee compensation comes in the form of "extra" employee
benefits, the definition of what constitutes a family is a significant
matter, In spontaneous comments scribbled on the survey, many Respondents
despaired of arriving at such a definition outside of state sanctioned
marriage (see Appendix 3). During the last decade, however, an increasing
number of employers have solved this' problem, offering benefits to all
their employees on the basis of "domestic partnership" rather
than marriage only. For unmarried workers, this is a policy of equal pay
for equal work.
Employers offering full health benefits based on domestic partnership
span the public and private sectors and include a number of universities
- from the city of Seattle, Washington, to Lotus Development Corporation,
to Albert Einstein Medical College. These employers have found that the
new policy benefits all their employees, and that gay or lesbian domestic
partners have constituted a relatively small percentage of the total number
of domestic partners registered. Having overcome the obstacle of defining
a domestic partner, they also report no internal difficulties or abuse
of the benefits. Moreover, they've discovered that the initial cost of
domestic partner benefits is not large. The city of Seattle, for example,
experienced a 2% increase in the premiums for their Group Health Plan
Over the first year, while Berkeley, California, experienced no increase
after five years. Established domestic partnership programs thus provide
clear guidance for the University of Arizona.
Finally, for an institution which espouses equal pay for equal work,
and nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,, there can be
little moral justification for restricting employment benefits to married
couples.
Effect of employee attitudes on GLB students
While the present survey sought to gauge perceptions of the general
campus climate for GLB employees, there were hints that employee attitudes
about sexual orientation might have a significant impact on students, both
in the classroom and in other dimensions of campus life. The fact that
GLB employees knew about subtle--and not so subtle--forms of discrimination
that heterosexual employees -were, unaware of, suggests that GLB students
may suffer similar, largely "invisible," forms of discrimination
at the hands of employees in and out of the classroom.
A survey targeting GLB students in an attempt to ascertain their perceptions
of the campus climate with regard to these issues--that is, their treatment
by University faculty and staff--would not only be enlightening, but would
also provide direction for the creation of guidelines and policy. In the
meantime, the University Teaching Center currently offers a number of programs
to improve teaching effectiveness; we recommend that one of these incorporate
a "sensitivity to diversity" section, and that both new and current
faculty be made aware of the offering.
Student Intolerance Toward GLB Peers
University faculty and staff perceive students to be the least tolerant
group in the University community. Given that people tend to be influenced
by the behavior of their peers, it's highly likely that GLB students face
discrimination if not outright harassment from some of their heterosexual
counterparts. Should incidents of harassment be found, the University administration
has a responsibility to condemn the behavior through enforcement of Code
of Conduct policies.
Perhaps the first step would be to assess the extent of this situation
through a campus survey. If discriminatory behavior among students is as
problematic as some believe, steps to educate students through new student
orientations, Greek life and residence hall programs, as well as classroom
presentations would be in order.
Even more effective than "special" presentations would be
the inclusion of GLB issues into all facets of the curriculum. While a
small part of this would involve the creation of new courses, much could
be accomplished by simply encouraging faculty to incorporate relevant material
into existing courses. Significant progress has already been made in departments
such as English, Media Arts, Psychology, and Sociology.
Conclusion: The Role of the University Administration
While the University. has no right to control or censure personal beliefs,
attitudes, or values, it does have the responsibility to establish expectations
for acceptable behavior on campus. This includes, but is not limited to
providing .Clear statements that the University will not tolerate behavior
which harasses, abuses, threatens, or discriminates against people who
are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Equity also believes it is the University’s responsibility to set standards
for classroom activities which are respectful and which avoid stereotypical
or heterosexist assumptions. Such standards have already been established
with regard to issues of race, religion, disabilities, etc. It is time
to extend the awareness to the realm of sexual diversity. For example,
faculty should be educated to avoid the use of classroom exercises or assignments
which make a covert assumption of heterosexuality (e.g. asking students
in a Psychology class to list what they look for in a member of the opposite
sex).
Finally, the University might encourage and support educational and
organizational efforts which enhance visibility, knowledge, and awareness
of GLB concerns. Results of the current survey suggest that less than 10%
of employees have strong negative biases toward GLB persons. The vast majority
appear to either lack knowledge about sexual diversity issues, or have
just not given them much thought. Providing information and education for
those who are open to it could, in and of itself, be enormously beneficial.
Introduction