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

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

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

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

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

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

7. What Are Other Institutions Doing?

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

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

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

12. PEER INSTITUTION
COMPARISON

13. A comparison of UT & EMU University of Toledo
Eastern Michigan University
Enrollment
22,336
22,638
Type of institution
4-year public
Percentage of in-state students
70.9%
89%
Racial demographics
27.5% minority
32% minority
LGBT Center Budget,
$3,000
$25,000

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

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

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

17. The 6 Identified Interactive Processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. Questions?

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

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