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