Running head: GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 1

Combatting Microaggressions:

A Subculture Paper on Gay and Bisexual Fraternity Men

The University of South Carolina

Alia McAdams
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 2

Most research shows that, students within Greek organizations have typically

been hostile towards gays and lesbians (Fine, 2011). What are the reasons behind this

and what can professional student affairs staff do to combat the negative behavior? In

order to combat the marginalization of gay fraternity men it is crucial for student affairs

professionals to be aware of the history, challenges, theories, and personal experiences.

Background and History:

To begin, it is important to understand a brief history of fraternities and the

struggles faced by the gay and bisexual men within them. Fraternities are a prevalent

organization on many college campuses. This being said, while, gay groups have gained

acceptance on many college campusesacceptance of gay men into the mainstream

fraternity community has been a slower process (Hesp & Brooks, 2009, p. 396). This

could be in part due to the fact that fraternities are institutions that reinforce stereotypical

ideas about masculinity and femininity. These stereotypes may create prejudice against

gay and lesbian students. Research shows that homophobic Greek individuals often tend

to be those who support more stereotypical gender roles (Worthen, 2014).

Early on in American university history, fraternities began as outposts of

rebellion, places apart from the institution where male students could do whatever they

wished (Hesp et al., 2009, p. 412). As a result, the purposes of the Greek organizations

do not always serve the purpose of the academic institution. Each fraternity has a set of

values. The fraternities could benefit from focusing on the pillars or values of which each

organization was built on (Hesp et al., 2009). These, communitiescomprised of

fraternity chapter brothers are bound together by common threads entwined by

interpersonal exchanges and rituals that continually communicate and construct the
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 3

concept of the organization's culture (Hesp et al., 2009, p.395). Many men flock to such

organizations upon arrival on college campuses in search of a sense of belonging. Since

fraternities are exclusive to men a part of the appeal may be that, brothers can be more

authentic to themselves, whether that means feeling free to behave without fear of

offending anyone, or alternatively, more emotionally open without worrying about any

negative effects on the impressions women might hold of them (Hesp et al., 2009, p.

408). On the other hand, fear of showing weakness and intimate feelings to other brothers

is often linked to homophobia (Yeung, Stombler, & Wharton, 2006)

It is most likely that there have always been gay men in fraternities, but the old

dont ask dont tell unspoken policy has long been an unwritten rule in in fraternity life

(Hesp et al., 2009). As homosexuality becomes more accepted nationwide, these old

customs are becoming outdated. Unfortunately change does not happen overnight, and

acceptance has been a slow process. Generally, Greek system members were more likely

to extend membership to individuals who fit strict stereotypes: women who appeared to

be extremely feminine and men who appeared to be extremely masculine (Worthen,

2014, p. 172). Effeminate men, regardless of sexual orientation, are the least likely to

receive membership to fraternal organizations (Hesp, et al., 2009). Similarly, research

shows that fraternity and sorority members place greater social distance between

themselves and LGB people compared to non-Greek college students (Worthen, 2014, p.

174). The high levels of group cohesion within fraternities often lead to groupthink.

Groupthink can suppress independent thought and may also contribute to a like-

mindedness in groups that encourages conformity and compliance but fails to challenge

discordant ideas (Worthen, 2014, p. 170). Due to groupthink supportive attitudes

GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 4

towards LGB communities may be suppressed (Worthen, 2014). This contributes to the

slow rate of change from a time of suppression to a time of acceptance.

When asked about why they joined fraternities with knowledge of the common

discrimination men admitted having the desire to increase number of male friends even if

the consequence is having to keep their sexual orientation a secret. The men often argue

that they are not like the stereotypical gay man. This response can be evaluated as a form

of conformity (Hesp et al., 2009). Many gay fraternity men are in search of acceptance

for who they are both connected to and apart from their sexuality. Some homosexual

brothers seek leadership positions specifically as a way to find acceptance in the

brotherhood (Hesp et al., 2009). While discrimination is often present it is important to

note that, it might not be that fraternity members are intolerant of differences...but

instead just ignorant as to the possibility that some chapter brothers were gay (Hesp et

al., 2009, p. 409). By creating outreach programming and creating a community in which

gay men feel comfortable revealing their identities, college campuses may be able to

further combat discrimination of gay members of Greek organizations.

Analysis, Synthesis and Interpretations of Journal Articles:

For all students, straight and LGBTQ alike, college has commonly been a place

where intellectual and social development has taken place. College campuses have also

generally been places where issues of sexual identity are often discussed, engaged,

investigated, and explored by students as they reach young adulthood (Fine, 2011). This

includes student discoveries and exploration of their own sexual orientations.

Unfortunately, in 2003 it was, reported that 74% of LGB undergraduate and graduate

students rated their campus as homophobic, and 60% of LGB students reported
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 5

concealing their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid discrimination

(Longerbeam, Inklelas, Johnson, & Lee, 2007, p. 216). Whereas the college experience

should be a time to develop ones full identity, students within the LGBTQ community

constantly struggle with issues of heterosexism, microaggressions, and minimization,

which have consequences on their identity development.

Male students who choose to join fraternities face issues that challenge their own

acceptance of their identity both in and out of their Greek affiliations. While universities

are often referred to as liberal bubbles and places of acceptance, higher education is not

immune to homophobic discrimination (Fine, 2011). For many college men, one of their

first impressions of a college campus and community is within the residence halls. The

environment of the residence hall has proven to have a huge impact on the initial college

identity development of gay college men.

Factors that contribute to positive growth include having LGBTQ hall staff as role

models, having hall staff who confront homophobic behavior and language, and having

supportive roommates. Other factors include providing programming about LGBTQ

issues and having visible symbols of support such as rainbow flags or Safe Zone

Certification Cards. This contributes to an environment where these young men can

accept their sexual identity. On the other hand, there can also be factors that hinder the

creation of that safe environment. These factors often include the lack of community

within the hall, homophobic remarks, defacement of fliers in support of LGBTQ events,

and little support from the hall staff (Longerbeam et al., 2007). It is crucial to be

intentional in creating safe environments for every student, LGBTQ students included.

Safe environments allow student to take risks, grow, and prosper. Heterosexism,
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 6

microaggressions, and minimization are three major threats to the creation of safe

environments that student affairs professionals must look out for.

Without the establishment of a safe environment students who do not identify as

straight are generally unable to comfortably express themselves fully without being afraid

of experiencing homophobia from peers (Fine, 2011). These students may fear violence

or bullying as a result of their differences. Heterosexism uses homophobia as a base to

exist. Heterosexism is the expectation that the world is and should be heterosexual (Hesp

et al., 2009). The dont ask dont tell policy that until recently prevented openly gay

individuals from serving in the military serves as an example. Similar to heterosexism,

another form of homophobia that affects students is heteronormativity, which is the belief

that the only natural expression of sexuality is heterosexuality. Heterosexism and

heteronormativity often negatively affect gay men in the college setting because they

begin to think of their own sexual identity as unnatural (Fine, 2011). When these students

are treated in this manner they are subject to oppression. Gay students living in a

heternormative community are subject to unwritten rules or social norms, which prevent

them from expressing themselves and participating in certain events or traditions.

A common situation illustrating this concept occurs in the fraternity setting when

gay men decide against bringing men as dates to functions at which other brothers often

bring female dates (Hesp, et al., 2009). While heterosexism is a milder form of

homophobia, it helps promote a homophobic environment. When students feel unsafe or

unaccepted because their identity does not align with the normal expectations of members

of a group such as a fraternity, the LGBTQ students often do not come out due to fear of

hostility from their peers (Longerbeam et al., 2007). Other than religious beliefs, the most
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 7

accurate depiction of an individuals feelings towards homosexuality is LGBTQ

affiliations. This being said, the more comfortable students become with the idea that

heterosexuality is not the only normal the more accepting the student environment will

become creating an even stronger environment of acceptance (Worthen, 2014).

Microaggressions are, brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or

environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile,

derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward members of oppressed groups (Nadal,

Issa, Leon, Meterko, Wideman, & Wong, 2011, p. 235). Individuals who use

microaggressions are often unaware that they are doing so. As a result they can be

defensive when confronted. This makes microaggressions complex to deal with. The best

way to confront the issue is to work on preventative measures by raising awareness of the

malpractice. This is especially important because LGB students can experience

purposeful and subconscious microaggressions from heterosexual individuals on campus

almost daily, which can lead to mental health issues (Nadal et al, 2011). Even further,

Microaggressions may hinder an individuals identity development process. If an

adolescent experiences microaggressions on a regular bases, the individual may attempt

to deny her or his LGB identity and may internalize that LGB people are bad or

abnormal (Nadal et al, 2011, p. 253).

There are many different types of microaggressions to educate individuals on and

to watch out for including microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations.

Microassaults are, the usage of explicit and intended derogations either verbally or

nonverbally, as demonstrated through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or discriminatory

actions (Nadal et al, 2011, p. 235). This can be demonstrated through the use of
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 8

heterosexist terminology. Microinsults are, often unconscious and are described as

verbal or nonverbal communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a

persons heritage or identity (Nadal et al, 2011, p. 235). Examples of microinsults

include when individuals assume that all homosexuals are the same or demonstrate

discomfort or disapproval of LGBTQ lifestyles. Finally, microinvalidations are, often

unconscious and include communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the realities of

individuals of oppressed groups (Nadal et al, 2011, p. 235). This can be demonstrated

through exoticization of homosexuality whether for comic relief or homosexual

individuals otherwise being treated as objects. Microinvalidations also include when

heterosexual individuals assume that homosexuals are abnormally sexual. The denial of

heterosexism and heterosexual privilege can lead to further oppression by invalidating the

struggles that homosexual individuals face (Nadal et al., 2011). Though subtle,

microaggressions can have an extremely negative effect on the mental health of LGBTQ

individuals by invalidating or devaluing their challenges and their lifestyles.

Like many LGBTQ individuals, gay fraternity men often find themselves in

situations of minimization. This is when students downplay the importance of

discriminatory events, making them seem of little importance. Minimization is harmful to

the creation of a safe community because patterns of minimization and emphasizing

normality contribute to the structures of primary marginalization (Fine, 2011, p. 538).

The lack of voice against homophobia and mistreatment of the LGBTQ community

caused by marginalization will further delay the rate at which the issue is handled.

Marginalization also has many negative effects on the LGBTQ students because the

tendency of the majority ofstudents to downplay the influence of negative, hurtful

GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 9

incidences in their everyday lives could prevent out LGB students from acknowledging

the social power of heterosexism in leaving sexual minority persons at a disadvantage

(Fine, 2011, p. 542). Denial contributes to the negative behaviors within the college

community when the marginalized students refuse to admit their struggles against

heteronormativity.

The common patterns of minimization make it challenging for students to combat

negative treatment and stereotypes, yet LGBTQ students often find themselves

minimizing heterosexism or homophobia because of how common it is (Fine, 2011).

Within the fraternity community, young men face microaggressions so often that they

begin to let the comments slide as a coping mechanism to reduce the stress that comes

from confrontation. These men want to fit in and blend with their group, so they try not to

call attention to their differences. Generally speaking, research shows that attitudes of the

generation may be shifting towards minimization of differences between individuals. As

a result, differences between any two individuals are commonly minimized in an effort to

find more similarities (Fine, 2011). Similarly, research has revealed that attitudes towards

the LGBTQ population are more positive than they used to be, which may be why

LGBTQ students are becoming quick to minimize the issues (Fine, 2011).

There are many negative effects of heterosexism, microaggressions, and

minimization on gay fraternity men and their development. These men feel a heightened

need for a sense of belonging therefore contributing to their involvement in risky

behaviors such as drinking and doing drugs. In fact, gay men are significantly more

likely than other groups to consume alcohol to fit in and to feel more comfortable in a

social setting (Longerbeam et al., 2007, p. 224). While men with strong peer groups
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 10

such as fraternities experience many positive results there are also negative ones such as

being more likely to drink alcohol and abuse drugs due to peer pressure (Longerbeam et

al., 2007). These behaviors could also be in part due to the fact that negative experiences

heighten stress and increase alcohol and drug use (Reed, Prado, Matsumoto, & Amaro,

2010). The stress of marginalization also often leads to psychological and emotional tolls

on the students (Fine, 2011). It is unfortunate that given this discrimination on societal,

institutional, and interpersonal level, LGBT individuals may experience excess social

stress or minority stress... which in turn makes them prone to mental health problems

than heterosexual people (Nadal et al, 2011, p. 237). This information in mind, it is vital

for professional staff at universities to keep an eye out for signs of mental health issues or

alcohol or drug abuse in order to help keep the students safe.

Type of Student:

Sexual identity formation is a common phase of development experienced during

the college years (Longerbeam et al., 2007). This is illustrated in theories of both moral

and identity development. Specifically Perrys Theory of Intellectual and Ethical

Development and Eriksons Identity Development Theory can be used to further

understand the experiences of gay and bisexual fraternity men who come out during their

time in college. The theories illustrate the development of the students as they experience

this new detrimental chapter in their lives.

Perrys Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development is broken into four stages,

each with two to three sub-stages. The four stages are dualism, multiplicity, relativism,

and commitment in relativism. Each stage highlights the different thought processes that

go into decision-making. Student within the dualism position see situations as black and
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 11

white and believe the authority figures to have all of the information. People in this stage

of thinking may be prone to falling victim to homophobic beliefs. Gay students in this

stage may struggle to accept their identities. The next position is multiplicity. In this

position students see perspectives with a hint of gray and begin to consider the

perspectives of peers. In this phase students are reliant on their peers opinions, which

could have a negative effect if the members of a fraternity are homophobic or constantly

use microaggressions and heteronormativity. Relativism allows room for individuals to

give weight to their own ideas. Students in this position may be able to accept themselves

by taking their own emotions and thoughts into account when deciding their moral stance

on homosexuality and the importance of acceptance. The final position is commitment to

relativism. This is when individuals make choices based on opinions, evidence, and their

own commitment to the cause. In this final position gay and bisexual fraternity men are

capable of accepting their sexuality as well as taking a stance against marginalization. On

the other hand, heterosexual students in this stage are the most capable of acting as allies

for their LGBTQ peers (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010).

Eriksons Identity Development Theory is made up of eight stages each

correlating to a different phase of life. The stages that college students are often between

are stage five and stage six. Stage five is titled identity versus identity diffusion and

generally happens during adolescence. Adolescents begin to question their identities and

attempt to figure out who they are. Individuals who struggle to develop an understanding

or acceptance of their identity, often become insecure. When someone does not

successfully establish a sense of identity he or she experiences identity diffusion instead,

which is also described as identity confusion. When students are unsure of their identity,
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 12

they may over identify with others and demonstrate intolerance toward those they view

as different (Evans et al., 2010, p. 50). This can have negative effects on gay students

because they may have difficulty accepting their identities leading to identity diffusion.

On the other hand, it may lead to other being non accepting towards them.

Stage six is titled intimacy versus isolation, According to Erikson this is when

young adults begin building intimate relationships with others. This phase comes after

stage five because without a strong sense of identity individuals would have difficulty

establishing strong connections with others. If people are unable to create friendships or

other durable relationships during this time, they will experience isolation, which can

often lead to depression. Men often look past having the privilege to be open about their

sexuality in return for the friendships and brotherhood bond promised by fraternity

membership. This may be a result of this phase. In terms of romantic intimate

relationships, gay fraternity men may struggle in this aspect if they are not completely

accepting of themselves. Student development theories are helpful in uncovering the

reasoning behind the behaviors of the students. Theories also help professionals

implement programs to promote acceptance of gay men within fraternities.

Substantive Insights and Analyses from the Interviews:

The students focused on in this research are gay and bisexual fraternity men who

came out during their four years in college. For the purpose of creating an understanding

of personal experiences, three college-aged men were interviewed. All three men are in

the same fraternity at a public state university in New England. NS is a senior studying

communication studies and leadership studies, JF is a junior studying public relations and

political science, and CA is a junior studying pharmaceutical sciences. NA and JF

GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 13

identify as bisexual, while CA identifies as gay. All three men are white middle class and

all are originally from New England, though none are from the state in which they are

attending school. These men were interviewed over video chat and each of them was

more than happy to help. In the words of CA, its nice talking about these things because

like I said before, I dont get the chance to talk about it oftenits a good time for

reflection (CA, personal communication, February 23, 2016).

Often people question why gay men choose to join fraternities when they are

aware of the possible discrimination. For these three men the answers were about the

networking and involvement opportunities and the connections made before joining.

Overall, the men were looking for a sense of belonging and friendships during this new

stage in their lives. This response correlates to Eriksons Identity Development Theory

stage six noting that men are looking to establish relationships. CA mentioned how he

met an older brother through his involvement in student government. This older brother

was also gay, and though CA was not out to college friends yet, he found this as a

comforting sign of acceptance. CA intended to join a fraternity mainly for the networking

opportunities. He found himself proud to be a part of an organization with brothers who

pride themselves on the values of brotherly love, social responsibility, integrity, and

academic intent. NS joined for similar reasons. He met a few brothers through his on

campus job who encouraged him to come to some rush events. Similar to CA, NS did not

come out to his brothers until months after receiving his bid (NS, personal

communication, February 24, 2016). JF met an older brother through a freshmen seminar

experience. He was convinced that he wanted to join when he asked the brother if the
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 14

fraternity hazed and his mentor responded, if we wanted you to be our brother, why

would we treat you as any less (JF, personal communication, February 25, 2016).

According to the men, there are many great aspects to their brotherhood. JF

mentioned how his brothers may not all be his best friends, but theyre all his brothers.

They argue, they laugh, and they support one another. NS agreed, stating that the

fraternity is made up of men with diverse personalities of individuals who are connected

on the same values and traditions. When CA was a freshman he witnessed true brotherly

love when his fraternity big brothers mother was in the hospital on life support. The

fraternity came together in such strong support of his big, demonstrating just how deep

the fraternal bond can run. While there are also negative aspects to being in a fraternity,

the three men in the interviews were persistent that the good heavily outweighs the bad.

Some common struggles include when brothers try to play into the stereotypical frat

culture. NS commented that he believes that this behavior takes away from the genuine

experience. The attempts of some brothers to be something that theyre not also causes

the men to leave behind their shared values in search for outward acceptance. At the end

of the day, all three interviewees were sure to mention their extreme satisfaction with

their experience being a part of a fraternity. They have been challenged, supported, and

made great connections. Overall, the fraternity experience was a positive one.

A fraternity often becomes a home away from home form of a family. It is

interesting to hear the differences in the ways that men may come out to their family but

not their fraternity or vice versa, based on a search for acceptance. Coming out is a vital

part of development for gay men because it is when they fully recognize and accept their

identity and sexuality and feel comfortable expressing themselves to others.

GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 15

CA came out as gay to four friends in high school, quickly reverting to his

closeted status when the process did not go as planned. CA told his best friend first, and

soon realized that she had spread the information to the rest of his friends before he had

gotten the chance. When you choose to come out it is a huge moment in your life, and

for someone to take that moment away from you can be a little hurtful, CA sighed

looking down with pursed lips (CA, personal communication, February 23, 2016). A few

years later CA came out to his family the summer before his freshman year. His parents

and sisters were extremely supportive of him, and continue to be today. When CA got to

college and decided to join the fraternity he became inspired to come out as a part of the

growing process and in an effort to move on with his life. When asked about deciding to

come out to his brothers CA laughed and said, when I came to school I got to meet a lot

of different people, some who identified as LGBT as seniors, and they were looking

forward as CA intended to do. He was anxious about coming out to his brothers, but not

afraid that they would not accept who he was. CA found that there were three general

reactions. The brothers closest to him were supportive, one or two did not agree with his

sexuality, and the rest remained apathetic. He noted that it could be underwhelming to

experience brothers apathy to a moment that was so big for him.

JF did not fully accept his sexuality or come out to his parents until a few months

into college. When he came to college he began experimenting with his sexuality,

assuming that it was just a part of the college experience. If there was an option I would

have wanted to be straight, he mumbled looking down at the table, its weird to be 18

and questioning your decisions and ultimately, who you are (JF, personal

communication, February 26, 2016). When asked how he came out to his parents JF
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 16

begins to laugh and says, I dont think I really decided. I dont even consider it as a

coming out (JF, Personal communication, February 25, 2016). One day JF was in the car

with his mom and she asked if one of his friends one gay. When JF said that he was

bisexual his mom asked, Are you bisexual? He was surprised to learn how quickly his

parents accepted this new revelation. Not too long later JF was also outed to members of

his fraternity when the one older brother who did know accidentally let it slip to some

executive board members and came clean to JF right away. He shook his head an

admitted to being terrified at first that his brothers were going to look at him differently,

but he approached the brothers one by one to find that they accepted him as he was. It

was refreshing to realize that his brothers still saw him the same as they had before.

Unlike CA and JF, NS has come out to his fraternity, yet refuses to tell his family.

NS mentioned that he has always known that he was bisexual and he started telling close

friends his sophomore year of high school. After joining the fraternity and becoming

close with a few brothers he began to come out to them slowly. When asked what

inspired him to come out NS stated, if Im joining this group and we want others to be

open and honest I need to be open and honest about who I am. Transparency was

especially important to him as he became Recruitment Chair on the executive board. He

felt that in order to be a true leader he needed to be honest with his brothers. NS was not

the first gay or bisexual man to come out in his fraternity, so he had an idea of what to

expect. As the fraternity accepted NSs first recruitment class, he stood in the front of the

room and announced that he is bisexual. His announcement was met with applause and

acceptance from the majority of the brotherhood. He felt happy and supported with a

weight lifting from his shoulders. I finally felt like a part of the brotherhoodevery
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 17

single piece of it. I became closer with my roommate and other brothers. I could finally

be myself, (NS, personal communication, February 24, 2016). NS reflected on the

experience. NS seems to be in the commitment in relativism position of Perrys Theory

of Intellectual and Ethical Development based on his acceptance of individuals, himself

included, for who they are based on his opinion and ideas as well as his commitment to

the idea of honesty and acceptance.

A fascinating aspect of the interviews was what the men did not say. When

speaking about how their brothers were quick to accept them, the men flitted through the

aspect of the few men who were not. It was not until NS was further asked about his

roommate that he mentioned his roommates initial qualms about NSs sexuality. He

admitted that his roommate was distant for a while. He would make lighthearted jokes at

the expense of NSs sexuality in an attempt to diffuse the awkward tension, and it was

not for a few months until his roommate was able to let his previous religious beliefs go

and he came to terms with NSs sexuality. While it was difficult for a few months, NS

mentions how this ended up being a bonding moment as well as an inspiring one. It

showed NS that love and brotherhood bond could break barriers of discrimination when

treated with patience and love. JF demonstrated minimization when he discussed how his

friends often use gay slurs in every day conversations but clarifying that, if its not

meant in a malicious way it doesnt bother me (JF, personal communication, February

25, 2016). CA agreed saying that the terms that the men are using is a reflection on the

culture, not on their personal beliefs. While the men could be more intentional about their

word choice, it would not be worth it to confront every brother every single time. When
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 18

speaking with gay fraternity men, heteronormativity and minimization can be found in

what they brush off.

When asked about brothers reactions when they talk about romantic experiences

all three men gave the same sheepish smirk as they shook their heads. JF responded, I

make sure not to. I mean not everybody always talks about those things. I dont like

talking about my love life with other people (JF, personal communication, February 25,

2016). Similar to JF, NS looked away and said that he does not talk even discuss his

experiences with girls unless he is with his close friends. CA stated that he knows it

makes the guys uncomfortable and he does not wish to put them in that position. Its an

empathy thing, he explained, they cant understand it or react genuinely, so I just dont

bring it up (CA, personal communication, February 23, 2016). The three men may be

missing out on that connection with the brothers in which they discuss their romantic

experiences, however this did not appear to delay their development.

While JF and CA were hesitant to admit any moments facing homophobia within

their brotherhood, NS did have an experience to share. When he was Recruitment Chair

at the beginning of his junior year he had planned a date with a young man who

coincidentally rushed the fraternity. When the brothers found out about the date they

were outraged and claimed abuse of power. The president got the National Headquarters

involved and threatened to remove NS not only from his position, but from the fraternity.

The executive board had the power to remove NS from his position, however when the

movement came in to remove him from the brotherhood NS created a countermovement

with the support of a few of his brothers. His biggest support in this process was his

fraternity little brother who coincidentally enough ended up being elected president two
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 19

terms after the fact. In the end there were only 10 out of 75 brothers who voted to remove

NS from the brotherhood, allowing him to remain. While this experience was stressful

and hurtful NS sighs and breaks into an ear to ear smile as he nods and says, after that

there was a positive shift for acceptance of homosexual and bisexual members of the

fraternity (NS, personal communication, February 24, 2016). While this moment was

initially discriminatory, by standing up for himself NS was able to create a positive

change towards acceptance within the fraternity.

When asked about other fraternities on their campus, the men answered very

kindly. CA spoke about how the Greek community is there to have fun with one another.

There is drama at times, but overall the Greek community is a proactive and

philanthropic group focused on brotherhood and sisterhood bonds, academics, and

philanthropy. CA and NS both mentioned that they believe that gay men in other

fraternities have similar experiences to their own. Some may be a little more

discriminating, but overall the college culture at this New England University is very

accepting. JF agreed stating that he knows gay men in different fraternities and generally

they had very positive experiences.

It was surprising to find how calm and well adjusted the three men from the

interviews seemed. While they were often found to be minimizing some discrimination,

heteronormativity, and microaggressions, the men were generally happy and had found

acceptance within their organizations. When asked if he was happy with his decision to

join a fraternity JF lit up as he proclaimed, I wouldnt be where I am or have the

experiences or friendships that I have had without being in a fraternity (JF. Personal

communication, February 25, 2016).

GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 20

Further Research

In future research it may be of interest to look into the topic of lesbian sorority

women and their experiences in comparison to those of gay fraternity men. CA

mentioned that on his campus lesbian sorority women are secretive and less commonly

talked about when statistically the numbers should be proportionate. Seeing as women

patterns of development differ from men, the experiences may differ.

Similarly, continued research on treatment and development of gay fraternity men

based on region would be beneficial towards contributing knowledge to the topic. While

northern regions of the United States are commonly known for being more liberal, the

treatment of LGBTQ students in southern areas or other conservative regions of the

country may differ. Further research on these topics could lead to further actions being

taken to help speed up the process of acceptance for these groups.

Policy Recommendations:

New policies combatting the heightened heterosexism, microaggressions, and

minimization prevalent on college campuses are necessary in order to maximize the

development of gay fraternity men. While there are commonly diversity events around

college campuses, there is a need for new policies specifically affecting the ever-growing

Greek community. These changes are vital during the recruitment process, when training

chapter leaders, and to show support from the professional staff.

In order to enact positive social change during recruitment universities

InterFraternal Councils, (IFCs) or similar governing councils should ensure rush and

recruitment events occur in an atmosphere blind to the sexual orientation of potential

members (Hesp et al., 2009, p. 410). While this could be beneficial in preventing
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 21

discrimination in the recruitment process, it is crucial to pair this action with the creation

of support of the LGBTQ community. Research states that students who have had more

contact with gay students or individuals tend to have more positive attitudes towards gay

and lesbian students (Worthen, 2014). This being said, having students conceal their

identities permanently would be harmful for both the gay students and the heterosexual

peers. Fortunately, at this time social attitudes towards gay men are becoming more

positive and gay individuals are becoming more visible on college campuses, which may

be a positive influence on the levels of acceptance and student reception of the ideals of

inclusivity and understanding (Hesp et al., 2009).

In an effort to reach the majority of the Greek community, it may be most

effective to begin with the Greek leaders who serve as role models for the remaining

members. Chapter leaders should be trained in diversity, acceptance, chapter self esteem,

confidence, and member identity development in order to create change within the Greek

community (Hesp et al., 2009). These workshops or conversations can be incorporated in

leader training, IFC meetings, or mandated of each individual fraternal organizations

executive boards. Recently, professionals working with students have found that

educational outreach programs designed to encourage students to interact and share their

ideas about sexual orientation have positive effects on student attitudes toward LGBT

persons (Worthen, 2014, p. 183). These types of lessons are a great starting point in

creating a more accepting environment within the Greek community.

In terms of professional staff members, both fraternity staff and campus higher-

education professionals should undertake campaigns to highlight positive examples of

chapter diversity (Hesp et al., 2009, p. 411). One suggestion for an organized effort is
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 22

the creation of a confidential assistance group (Hesp et al., 2009). The professional staff

could organize a confidential aspect to the organization in which gay fraternity men could

reach out to older gay students within the Greek community. This could help create a

sense of belonging and validation as the men find others who have gone through similar

struggles and can offer advice and recognition of the difficulties the men face. The

demonstration and promotion of acceptance from higher levels will show the students

how important it is to take the topic seriously within their own chapters and day to day

lives. When the community becomes more aware of microaggressions or

heteronormativity it will be beneficial in helping gay fraternity men accept their sexuality

as a part of their identity. It may also help the men feel more connected with their

brothers.

The subculture of gay and bisexual fraternity men who come out within their four

years would benefit greatly with the creation and implementation of new policies

promoting acceptance of LGBTQ students within the Greek community. The largest

implications the students currently face are conscious and subconscious discrimination.

Regardless of the geographical or cultural area of a university, all universities should

participate in creating more inclusive environments for these students. The men will

benefit socially, psychologically, and academically from efforts of inclusion. It is the

responsibility of the professional staff to put this acceptance revolution into motion.
GAY AND BISEXUAL FRATERNITY MEN 23

Works Cited
Fine, L. E. (2011). Minimizing heterosexism and homophobia: Constructing meaning out

of campus LGB life. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 521-546.

Hesp, G. A., & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Heterosexism and homophobia on fraternity row: A

case study of a college fraternity community. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6, 395-415.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Longerbeam, S. D., Inklelas, K. K., Johnson, D. R., & Lee, Z. K. (2007). Lesbian, gay,

and bisexual college student experiences: An exploratory study. Journal of

College Student Development, 48, 215-230.

Nadal, K. L., Issa, M., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011). Sexual

orientation microaggressions: Death by a thousand cuts for lesbian, gay, and

bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 234-259.

Reed, E., Prado, G., Matsumoto, A., & Amaro, H. (2010). Alcohol and drug use and

related consequences among gay, lesbian and bisexual college students: Role of

experiencing violence, feeling safe on campus, and perceived stress. Addictive

Behaviors, 35, 168-171.

Worthen, M. G., (2014). Blaming the jocks and the greeks?: Exploring collegiate

athletes and fraternity/sorority members attitudes toward LGBT individual.

Journal of College Student Development, 55, 168-195.

Yeung, K., Stombler, M., & Wharton, R. (2006). Making men in gay fraternities resisting

and reproducing multiple dimensions of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and

Society, 20, 5-31. (Yeung et al., 2006)