Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________________________________
A Research Paper
Presented to the English Department
NAVOTAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
M. Naval St., Sipac-Almacen, Navotas City
______________________________________
By:
The researcher expresses her gratitude in the completion of her term paper to the
following individuals whose help contributed much in having made this study a success.
To Our Almighty God, whose grace and providence are always abounding; if not for
His consistent faithfulness and guidance, this work by the researcher will not be successfully
done. The researcher will always be grateful for His every day blessings and divine
intervention.
Dr. Maria Cusipag, the researcher’s Language Testing and Assessment Professor, for
her guidance and consideration during the preparation of this study. Her kindheartedness and
compassion helped the researcher in her difficult times during the school term.
Dr. Maria Cristina A. Robles, the Principal of Navotas National High School, for
Her students, for their willingness to participate in the researcher’s study and for their
Her family and friends, for their constant love and support to the researcher, for never
giving up, and for understanding the researcher especially during the most crucial times.
J.G.S.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT --------------------------------------------------- 2
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
CHAPTER 2 METHOD
Summary ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------ 45
Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------------- 46
References ------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
Table
Figure
Introduction
race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. However,
sexual orientation and gender identity have long been regarded as one of the most sensitive
subjects and the attitudes towards, and experiences of, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) individuals are not widely understood. Self-disclosure was defined by Collins and
Miller (1994) as the “act of revealing personal information about oneself to another” (p. 457),
and disclosures often involve surprising, if not stigmatizing, information such as criminal
activity, marital infidelity, or sexual orientation (see Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993;
Ludwig, Franco, & Malloy, 1986). Disclosing one’s sexual orientation is one of the toughest
issues that gay men and lesbians face because it involves considerable emotional turmoil and a
fear of retaliation and rejection (Bohan, 1996; Cain, 1991; Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Franke & Leary,
1991; Goffman, 1963; Kronenberger, 1991; Wells & Kline, 1987). The stigma and
discrimination lived by the LGBT population (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) have
resulted into serious human rights violations, hampering the eradication of violence and of
diseases such as AIDS. In the workplace, stigma and discrimination influence the levels of
efficiency and production, of workplace well-being and influence the access to and permanence
in decent work.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people face tremendous difficulties growing
up in a society where heterosexuality is often presented as the only acceptable orientation and
homosexuality is regarded as deviant. They continue to face discrimination and exclusion across
the world in all spheres of life. While the world is facing progress in several and diverse aspects,
many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people still worry that revealing their sexuality at
work will have negative consequences. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who are
'out' at work waste little energy hiding aspects of their personalities, meaning they feel more
confident and progress within the business. However, many remain in the closet. This is due to
homophobia (the fear or hatred of homosexuality). Some of the factors that may reinforce
homophobia on a larger scale are moral, religious, and political beliefs of a dominant group. In
Although many societies have made significant strides in human rights advocacy;
lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights struggle to find universal acceptance.
socioeconomic status for LGBT persons. Gay and transgender individuals suffer from
In the Philippines, the presence of the LGBT is recognized, but their acceptance in the
society is still vague. For decades, the LGBT in the Philippines want was to be respected and be
treated equally and these LGBTs continued to fight for the passing of laws that will protect their
rights as individuals (IGLHRC, 2013). As far as the workplace is concerned, various studies
have shown that LGBT employees face discrimination in the workplace. However, little is
Almacen, Navotas City, is no different from any other workplaces. This secondary school is
composed of 139 teachers from all the learning areas. The 15% of the teacher population of
Navotas National High School is composed of the teachers who already disclosed their gender
This study aims to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of
the teachers in Navotas National High School towards the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB)
This part is concerned with the related literature and studies regarding the moral
reasoning, particularly level of acceptance, towards LGB individuals that are used as a support
Self-disclosure was defined by Collins and Miller (1994) as the “act of revealing personal
information about oneself to another” (p. 457), and disclosures often involve surprising, if not
stigmatizing, information such as criminal activity, marital infidelity, or sexual orientation (see
Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Ludwig, Franco, & Malloy, 1986). Disclosing one’s
sexual orientation is one of the toughest issues that gay men and lesbians face because it involves
considerable emotional turmoil and a fear of retaliation and rejection (Bohan, 1996; Cain, 1991;
Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Franke & Leary, 1991; Goffman, 1963; Kronenberger, 1991; Wells &
Kline, 1987). At the same time, those who remain closeted report lower levels of psychological
well-being and life satisfaction (Garnets & Kimmel, 1993; Lane & Wegner, 1995; Savin-
Williams & Rodriquez, 1993), increased health risks (Cole, Kemeny, Taylor, & Visscher, 1996;
Kalichman & Nachimson, 1999), and extensive and energy-draining activities focused on
covering up their stigmatized identity (e.g., see Ellis & Riggle, 1996). Given this vulnerability to
discrimination, the stakes involved with disclosing a gay identity at work are quite high.
Disclosure has been found to result in reports of verbal harassment, job termination, and
even physical assault (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996). In fact, one
study of 416 gay men and lesbians revealed that 75% reported being attacked or physically
threatened as a result of disclosing their sexual identity (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001).
Today, businesses’ employees are increasingly diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, sex,
national origin, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation, among other characteristics.
The impact of that diversity is much discussed in the global economy, and the “business case for
diversity” has become a modern business mantra. In short, the business case posits that a diverse
workforce (or in more nuanced versions, a well-managed diverse workforce) will lead to lower
costs and/or higher revenues, improving the corporate bottom line. In recent years, businesses
have engaged in sustained efforts to implement policies aimed at creating safe and productive
workplace climate that appears to be unaffected by organizational policies and which varies by
the simplest indication that more work needs to be done to translate inclusive policies into an
inclusive climate. Hiding one’s LGBT identity is even more pronounced among younger
workers.
Only 5 percent of LGBT employees ages 18 to 24 say they are totally open at work,
compared to more than 20 percent in older age cohorts. Employees who are not open at work
experience more negative outcomes from their workplace environment that affect productivity,
retention and professional relationships. For example, 54 percent of LGBT employees who are
not open to anyone at work report lying about their personal lives, compared to 21 percent of
employees open about their LGBT identity. LGBT workers’ inability to participate honestly in
everyday conversations hinders trust and cohesion with their co-workers and superiors.
An employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often unavoidable in casual, non-
conversations about social lives come up at least once a week; 80 percent confront conversations
involving spouses, relationships and dating at least once per week; and, 50 percent say the topic
of sex arises at least once a week. These frequent conversations are the most likely to make
LGBT employees feel uncomfortable: Fewer than half feel very comfortable talking about any of
these topics.
Derogatory comments and jokes still happen at work and are a major indicator that it is
A total of 58 percent of LGBT workers say someone at work makes a joke or derogatory
comment about LGBT people at least once in a while. Similarly, jokes and derogatory comments
about other minority groups are equally indicative of a negative climate. About two-thirds (62
percent) of LGBT employees say negative comments about minority groups are made at least
Members of stigmatized groups are discredited, face negative social identities, and are
targeted for discrimination (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Goffman, 1963). Some individuals
have stigmas that are readily discernible, such as stigmatized racial identities, obesity, and
physical disfigurements (Jones et al., 1984). One of the most critical challenges faced by workers
with invisible stigmas is whether to disclose their stigmatized identity to others in the workplace.
Although this decision can be stressful for many individuals with invisible stigmas, it has been
identified as one of the most difficult career challenges faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual
(LGB) employees (cf. Button, 2001, 2004; ChrobotMason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001; Griffith
In the study conducted by Barrett and Lewis in 2012, the three most frequently reported
types of discrimination based on the respondent’s sexual identity were remarks (27%), ridicule
(27%) and jokes (25%). When more than one co-worker were involved discrimination consisted
of remarks (59%), ridicule (56%) and jokes (58%). Furthermore, single co-workers most
frequently carried out discrimination in written form with threats of physical abuse (100%), as
well as verbal threats (57%) and telephone threats of physical abuse (67%).
If respondents had experienced discrimination in their current workplace more than three
times, the types of discrimination were: death threats (80%), threats of physical abuse via
telephone (67%), property damage (33%), verbal threats of sexual abuse (30%), verbal threats of
physical abuse (29%) and verbal threats of sexual abuse via telephone (25%).
Work Environment
A recent comprehensive analysis, however, suggests that overt, formal displays of
discrimination are becoming less frequent (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). A field study by Hebl,
Foster, Mannix, and Dovidio (2002), for instance, found no differences in hiring rates but found
that employers spoke fewer words, terminated interactions, and engaged in more nonverbal
workplace may still exist, but may manifest itself in more subtle ways. Such results, coupled
with the fact that many organizations (e.g., over half of Fortune 1000 companies) are beginning
to include sexual orientation as a protected class and offer diversity training (e.g., see also Baker,
Strub, & Henning, 1995; Neely Martinez, 1993; Powers, 1996), establish the need to better
understand the changing workplace that gay and lesbian workers are experiencing.
At present, it seems that gay/lesbian workers face a double-edged sword when managing
their stigmatized sexual identity at work—they face problems if they don’t disclose, and they
face problems if they do. A study by Day and Schoenrade (1997) examined how communication
They found that “out” workers had higher job satisfaction, were more committed to their
organization, perceived top management to be more supportive of their rights, experienced less
conflict between work and home, and had lower role conflict and lower role ambiguity. Day and
their research focused primarily on the relationship between disclosure and work attitudes.
A number of studies have examined the psychological and work outcomes associated
with the disclosure of a gay identity at work (cf. reviews by Ragins, 2004; Ragins & Wiethoff,
2005; Welle & Button, 2004). These studies have tested the prediction that disclosure is
associated with positive outcomes, the rationale being that employees who disclose at work
should achieve congruence in their public and private identities (Ellis & Riggle, 1995), obtain a
sense of psychological wholeness and well-being (Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000), and be
relieved of the debilitating strain of secrecy involved with leading a double life (Fassinger, 1995;
Griffin, 1992). Although this view seems reasonable, the research has produced surprisingly
inconsistent results. Disclosure has been found to have positive, negative, and nonsignificant
effects on work attitudes, psychological strain, and compensation (cf. review by Ragins, 2004).
One reason for these puzzling findings is that researchers know little about the processes
underlying the disclosure of a gay identity at work. In part, this is because research on sexual
orientation in the workplace is a very new area of scholarship that needs theoretical guidance (cf.
It is promising that a number of new conceptual models have emerged that use stigma
theory as a unifying framework for understanding the disclosure dilemmas faced by employees
These models shed important new light on the disclosure process by proposing that fear
of negative repercussions affects disclosure and that this fear may lead to psychological distress
and decreased job performance even in the absence of actual discrimination (cf. Bowen &
Blackmon, 2003; Clair et al., 2005; Croteau, 1996; Ragins, in press, 2004). This perspective
reconciles the inconsistent research findings on the disclosure of a gay identity at work by
offering the idea that work attitudes may be affected not only by the degree to which individuals
disclose their sexual orientation but also by the underlying fears that may be associated with
disclosure. The role of fear in the disclosure of an invisible stigma has not been empirically
assessed but offers significant promise for understanding the experiences of LGB employees,
particularly those who have not disclosed, or not fully disclosed, their sexual identity at work.
In the Philippines, the governing law between employers and employees is known as the
Labor Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree 442. While several articles of
the Code have been amended, its main policy is the protection of workers. However, LGBT
people in the Philippines encounter discriminatory practices that affect their employment status.
Ocampo (2011) noted that there are no statistics to show the extent of employment-related sexual
A person’s negative attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and their sexualities, including
beliefs that being gay/ lesbian is wrong, unnatural, pathological, or sinful, is called heterosexism
(Herek, 1995). Heterosexual attitudes, sometimes called homophobia or anti-gay prejudice, are
often reflective of a larger, more cultural heterosexist ideology that privileges only heterosexual
forms of sexuality, relationships, and living. Heterosexism includes the belief that same sex
relationships are wrong or dysfunctional, that lesbians and gay men are less capable than
heterosexuals as parents or professionals, and that lesbians and gay men do not deserve the same
civil rights as heterosexuals, including marriage, adoption, and protection from discrimination.
A number of social psychological studies have shown that the construct of heterosexist
heterosexist attitudes, Kite and Whitley (1996) identified three factors (1) attitudes toward
lesbian/gay individuals, (2) attitudes toward same-sex sexual behavior, and (3) attitudes toward
A number of sources suggest that Filipinos have rather negative attitudes toward lesbians,
Observations made by activists and members of NGO sector, for example, point to prejudice and
discrimination against lesbians in many domains including healthcare, education, work, and
religion (Women’s
Feature No psychologist in her right mind could ignore (the topic of being gay Service
because) there is too much unnecessary anguish connected with being Philippines,
2001). different here in the Philippines. There is too much cruelty and hypocrisy Likewise, as
Holmes that takes place in a country that purports to be Christian. There are too (1993)
asserted: many families that cause unspeakable pain to their gay members in a
nation that claims that the family is the very bedrock and foundation of its
focus group and 13 in-depth interviews with Filipino adolescents in Metro Manila and Luzon,
Gastardo-Conaco, Jimenez and Billedo (2003) found that young Filipino lesbians and gay men
report experiences of heterosexism, especially in contexts like the home, school, and religion.
These experiences, according to one recent survey of gay male college students by Mostajo, Saz-
Page, and Rasing (2005), may include being called by terms like bakla instead of one’s name,
being subjected to anti-gay jokes, being forced to enter intimate relationships with others of the
Even research that does not specifically focus on gay and lesbian concerns points to the
pagkalalake/masculinity using interviews with 32 father-son pairs from various areas in the
Philippines, Aguiling-Dalisay and her colleagues (2000) found that being gay was considered by
participants as “sinful” and antithetical to being a “real” man. Similarly, in their field research on
sexual risks among Filipinos young adults in Manila and Iloilo, Tan, Ujano-Batangan, and
Cabado-Española (2001) noted that many participants held strongly negative views of being gay/
lesbian, with gay sex being described as “unnatural” or “filthy” (“baboy”). In the words of these
researchers: “On the surface, homosexuality seems to be tolerated (in Filipino society) but our
research shows that there is strong resentment of and discrimination against gay men and
Since the early 1990s, however, there has been a dramatic liberalization in attitudes
points through the 1990s. The percentage believing homosexuality is ‘always wrong’ dropped
from 76% in 1991 to 66% in 1993 and then to around 60% in the late 1990s (American
Enterprise Institute 2004). The most recent data show that in 2002 those considering
homosexuality to be ‘always wrong’ constituted just over 50% of the population, while over 30%
of the population now believe homosexuality is ‘not wrong at all’ (American Enterprise Institute
2004).
While the majority of the American population still finds homosexuality unacceptable, it
has become significantly more tolerant. Interestingly, the most recent data suggest that the
conservative politics of the George W. Bush administration have not (yet) reversed the trend
towards greater acceptance of homosexuality (American Enterprise Institute 2004). However, the
relatively stable level of acceptance since the mid-1990s suggests that the liberal trend may have
reached a plateau, with the American population roughly evenly split on acceptance of
homosexuality.
Dejowski (1992) and Loftus (2001) have shown that some of the shifts in attitudes
towards homosexuality can be attributed to two factors. The first is demographic change,
particularly the growth of a more educated population. The second is cultural ideological change,
the decreasing willingness to restrict the civil liberties of all unpopular groups. In addition,
Loftus suggests that the liberalization in attitudes can be attributed to the political activism and
visibility of queer communities; a possible backlash in the 1990s against the success of the
radical religious right in the 1980s; the role of other liberal movements, such as the civil rights
groups; and the expansion of media coverage of gay and lesbian issues (2001; see also Dejowski
1992; Scott 1998). Other factors that may have influenced attitudinal trends include the
declining influence of religion (Altemeyer 2001; Scott 1998) and shifts in attitudes towards
sexual morality generally (Ficarrotto 1990; Scott 1998; Simon 1995; Smith 1992).
With regard to the latter, however, it must be noted that while attitudes towards premarital sex
have undergone a dramatic liberalization, attitudes towards extramarital sex have remained
constant and negative attitudes towards homosexuality have only declined slowly (Scott 1998;
Smith 1992). Improved understanding of the AIDS risk may also have reduced hostility towards
International Social Surveys conducted in the 1990s show that there are stark national
Kelley (2001) show that people in the Netherlands are by far the most accepting of
homosexuality, with two-thirds of the population considering homosexuality ‘not wrong at all’.
Dutch liberalism may be attributable to a progressive church, a strong and long-standing gay
movement, a secular population, a strong public commitment to pluralism and frank discussion
Republic, Canada and Norway are also accepting of homosexuality. Australia, Britain and New
Zealand fall in the middle of the spectrum, with just over half the populations of these countries
considering homosexuality to be ‘always wrong’. The United States is among the least accepting
countries, sharing the honors with conservative religious nations such as Poland, Northern
Ireland and Ireland; Eastern European nations such as Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovenia; and the
Philippines.
The same demographic characteristics predict intolerance across the nations surveyed,
with those who are young, female, well-educated and less religious generally the most tolerant of
homosexuality. In terms of religion, Scott argues that attitudes vary across countries according to
the extent to which the organized church has retained its moral authority, rather than according to
the national religion per se (1998). However, by this measure, relatively secular countries such as
Britain and Australia should perhaps be more tolerant than they are (see Scott 1998: 839). Richer
countries tend to be more tolerant than countries which are less economically developed (Kelley
2001). Widmer et al have shown that attitudes towards homosexuality are not necessarily
predicted by attitudes towards other types of sexual behavior, such as premarital and extramarital
extramarital sex, but attitudes towards homosexuality are more varied across nations and more
For example, Germany and Austria are very permissive of teen and premarital sex, but
only moderately accepting of homosexual sex. For countries such as the Netherlands, the Czech
Republic and Canada, the relationship is reversed (Widmer et al 1998: 354). These variations
occur within nations as well. For example, women are generally more sexually conservative than
men but are more accepting of homosexuality (Scott 1998; Smith 1992). Kelley concludes that
Australia is ‘not as tolerant as some prosperous, irreligious nations (like the Netherlands), nor as
intolerant [as] some poor, religious nations (like Chile and the Philippines). Rather it is middle of
the road. Over time, Australian opinion, like that in other nations, is likely to shift slowly but
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who are 'out' at work waste little energy
hiding aspects of their personalities, meaning they feel more confident and progress within the
business. Research conducted outside the workplace has shown that those individuals who
disclose their identity to others tend to have higher psychological adjustment and life satisfaction
(e.g., see SavinWilliams & Rodriquez, 1993; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Ellis & Riggle,
1996; Garnets & Kimmel, 1993). Employees who disclose may be able to establish closer and
more honest relationships with coworkers and feel accepted for who they are. The supportiveness
gay supportive and recognizes the needs of workers will likely have a positive effect on workers’
attitudes and their general well-being (Croteau & Lark, 1995; Hallowell, Schlesinger, &
Zornitsky, 1996; Rynes, 1990). Button’s (2001) work showed initial evidence for this in that
policies affirming and recognizing sexual diversity in the workplace resulted in less workplace
discrimination.
Theoretical Framework
The study aims to determine the Moral Reasoning of Navotas National High School
Teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. This study is anchored on the profile of the
respondents, their work environment, their moral reasoning particularly level of acceptance of
the LGB individuals in the workplace, and how these variables connect with one another. The
assessment starts with the profile of the respondents as to: Age, Gender, Educational
Background, and Teaching Experience; and proceeds with the Homosexuality Attitude Likert
Scale by Kite, M.E., and Deaux, K. (1986), published in Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7,
137-162.
There are several theories that support this study. Among these are; Vivienne Cass’s
Identity Model, Erving Goffman’s Stigma Theory, and Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning
Theory
This theory was based on work with gay men and lesbians in Australia in 1979. It stated
that the process of movement of development in individual’s identity through stages- combines
personal needs with biological (sex drive) and variables such as class and race (Evans, Forney,
Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). However, this theory model emphasized that not all individuals
will progress through all stages. Individuals can either progress to the next stage or end in the
current stage. According to this theory, self-disclosure or “coming out” is a life – long process of
exploring one’s sexual orientation and gay men and lesbians’ identity and sharing it with family,
Out is about recognizing, accepting, expressing and sharing ones’ sexual orientation with oneself
and others.
This model was one of the first to treat gay people as "normal" in a heterosexist society
described a process of six stages of gay and lesbian identity development. While these stages are
sequential, some people might revisit stages at different points in their lives.
This is the "Who am I?" stage associated with the feeling that one is different from peers,
same-sex feelings or behaviors and to label them as such. It is rare at this stage for the person to
This is the rationalization or bargaining stage where the person thinks, "I may be a
homosexual, but then again I may be bisexual," "Maybe this is just temporary," or, "My feelings
of attraction are simply for just one other person of my own sex and this is a special case." There
is a heightened sense of not belonging anywhere with the corresponding feeling that "I am the
In this "I probably am" stage, the person begins to contact other LGBT people to
counteract feelings of isolation and alienation, but merely tolerates rather than fully accepts a gay
or lesbian identity. The feeling of not belonging with heterosexuals becomes stronger. Positive
contacts can have the effect of making other gay and lesbian people appear more significant and
more positive to the person at this stage, leading to a more favorable sense of self and a greater
There is continued and increased contact with other gay and/or lesbian people in this
stage, where friendships start to form. The individual thus evaluates other lesbian and gay people
more positively and accepts rather than merely tolerates a lesbian or gay self-image. The earlier
Coping strategies for handling incongruity at this stage include continuing to pass as
heterosexual, and limiting contacts with heterosexuals who threaten to increase incongruity (e.g.
some family members and/or peers). The person can also selectively disclose a homosexual
This is the "These are my people" stage where the individual develops an awareness of the
enormous incongruity that exists between the person's increasingly positive concept of self as
lesbian or gay and an awareness of society's rejection of this orientation. The person feels anger
at heterosexuals and devalues many of their institutions (e.g. marriage, gender-role structures,
etc.) The person discloses her or his identity to more and more people and wishes to be immersed
in the gay or lesbian subculture consuming its literature, art, and other forms of culture. For
some at this stage, the combination of anger and pride energizes the person into action against
perceived homophobia producing an "activist.
stage 5 -- softens at this stage to reflect a recognition that some heterosexuals are supportive and
can be trusted. However, those who are not supportive are further devalued. There remains some
anger at the ways that lesbians and gays are treated in this society, but this is less intense. The
person retains a deep sense of pride but now comes to perceive less of a dichotomy between the
heterosexual and gay and lesbian communities. A lesbian or gay identity becomes an integral and
Stigma Theory
Sociologist Erving Goffman wrote a book entitled Stigma: Notes on the Management of
Spoiled Identity. It is about the idea of stigma and what it is like to be a stigmatized person. It is
a look into the world of people considered abnormal by society. Stigmatized people are those
that do not have full social acceptance and are constantly striving to adjust their social identities:
physically deformed people, mental patients, drug addicts, prostitutes, etc. Goffman identifies
three types of stigma: stigma of character traits, physical stigma, and stigma of group identity.
Stigma of character traits are “blemishes of individual character perceived as weak will,
domineering, or unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid beliefs, and dishonesty, these being
inferred from a known record of, for example, mental disorder, imprisonment, addiction,
Physical stigma refers to physical deformities of the body, while stigma of group identity is a
stigma that comes from being of a particular race, nation, religion, etc.
These stigmas are transmitted through lineages and contaminate all members of a family.
What these types of stigma have in common is that they each have the same sociological
features: “an individual who might have been received easily in normal social intercourse
possesses a trait that can obtrude itself upon attention and turn those of us whom he meets away
from him, breaking the claim that his other attributes have on us.” When Goffman refers to “us,”
overlaps with moral philosophy or ethics. Prominent contributors to the theory include Lawrence
Moral Reasoning can be defined as being the process in which individual tries to
determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using
logic. This is an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right
thing. Every day for instance, people are faced with the dilemma of whether to lie in a given
situation. People make this decision by reasoning the morality of the action and weighing that
Moral Reasoning is a systematic approach to making ethical decisions. Like other forms
of intellectual activity, it takes the form of logical argument and persuasion. It is a structured
process, an intellectual means of defending our ethical judgments against the criticisms of others.
The process of moral reasoning can be carried out if moral actors have knowledge and skills in
three areas (1) the moral context, (2) the philosophical foundations, and (3) critical thinking.
Each of those ideas is important in its own way and plays an indispensable role in the moral
reasoning.
Conceptual Framework
The initial process involved in the present study included the following: First, the
researcher asked the respondents to answer a survey questionnaire that includes questions on
the respondents’ profile such as age, gender, educational background, and teaching experience.
Attitude Scale (HAS) is a Likert scale that assesses people’s stereotypes, misconceptions, and
anxieties about homosexuals; constructed by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986.
evaluation of homosexuals. The scale has excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). It has a
Lastly, is the presentation of the gathered results which aims to know if there is a moral
reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of Navotas National High School Teachers
This study aimed to analyze the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of
the Secondary School Teachers at Navotas National High School, situated at M. Naval St.,
1.1. Age;
1.2. Gender
2. What is the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB individuals in the
workplace?
3. What are the moral reasons of the respondents on their level of acceptance towards LGB
acceptance of Navotas National High School Teachers towards LGB individuals in the
School Administrators and Guidance Counselors. This study will help school
administrators formulate in-school policies that will benefit all employees regardless of their
gender preference.
Teachers. Through this study, teachers will be able to understand what most LGB
individuals are going through, most especially if these LGB individuals belong in their own
workplace. They will become more aware and sensitive with their dealings toward these LGB
LGB Individuals. This study will enable LGB individuals to be understood by the
people around them, particularly in their workplace. This study can help in preventing stigma
Future Researchers. Future researchers who will conduct similar studies will also
benefit from this paper. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the moral reasoning of
people within the work environment and their level of acceptance of LGB individuals in their
workplace.
This study aimed to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance of
Navotas National High School Teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. To define
the respondents, the researcher used a random sampling method using Slovin’s Formula with 5%
margin of error identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139) teachers
The study focuses on the following scope of topics throughout the whole research: The
Experience; The Moral Reasoning particularly the level acceptance of the respondents towards
The main instrument used in conducting the research is the Homosexuality Attitude Scale
(Kite and Deaux, 1986) answered by one hundred three (103) random Secondary School
Teachers at Navotas National High School which will serve as the data for knowing the result of
this study.
On the other hand, the researcher only defines moral reasoning in terms of five terms in
context; LGB, Acceptance; and the results gathered don’t affect the general character of the
teacher-respondents.
Definition of Terms
The following are the terms defined operationally and conceptually to give enlightenment
Moral Reasoning is defined as being the process in which individual tries to determine the
difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic. This is
an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right thing.
(Kohlberg, 1983)
1990s, the term is an adaptation of the initialism LGB, which was used to replace the term gay in
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
This chapter is concerned with the methodology that will be employed to carry out the
study. It provides a detailed description of the participants that will be sampled, the
instruments and procedures that will be used in collecting the data, the methods that were
employed in processing the data, as well as the statistical analysis which will be applied in the
study.
Research Locale
The study was conducted in Navotas National High School located at Navotas City,
The history of Navotas National High School dates to 1983 when Mayor Victor Javier
conceived of founding a school whose aim was to provide free but quality education to
children of Navotas. Formerly known as Navotas Municipal High School, the school found its
place into a 2,255-square meter land area near the police headquarters, where the National
Manpower Education Building was located. Through the quiet and relentless efforts of the
mayor and the community, classes were opened on June 1983 with only 180 students and
seven (7) faculty members headed by its first principal, Dr. Cecilia M. Saenz. Two years after
its opening, there was an overwhelming increase in student population. Mayor Javier extended
all the possible assistance to look after the welfare of the students. He ordered the construction
of four rooms at the sports complex to temporarily house the additional eight sections. Faculty
However, with the turn of events in the political system, Mayor Felipe C. Del Rosario, Jr.
took Mayor Javier’s post. The new OIC painstakingly continued all the objectives and hard
work left by the former mayor. A new four-room building was put-up. In 1987, the school
overflow of students to the school. The school’s population increased to 4,460. To help ease
the problem of lack of classrooms, Engr. & Mrs. Pascual Roque donated another four-room
building. In addition to this an eight-room elementary school building was turned over to
government put-up a ten-room building at Tangos (Tangos Annex). To cope with the growing
number of students, the school, with the support of LGU, NGO, and other organizations, the
creation of several annexes in Navotas namely NNHS Tulay Annex, NNHS San Roque Annex,
NNHS Kaunlaran Annex, NNHS San Rafael Annex, and NNHS Tanza Annex saw fruition.
All of these annexes eventually became independent national high schools under the leadership
When Dr. Saenz was promoted to principal IV, she was transferred to Malabon National
High School and Mrs. Lucila O.de Guzman took over her post. She retired from the service in
2000, Dr. Rosa G. Centeno was assigned as the new principal. She spearheaded the special
It was during this time when Dr. Saenz was assigned back to NNHS as principal while
Dr. Centeno was transferred to Malabon National High School. The retirement of Dr. Saenz in
November 24, 2008 paved the way for the designation of Dr. Maria Cristina A. Robles as the
Bayan Academy.
At present, NNHS has three thousand six hundred fifty-three (3,653) students and one
Research Design
The descriptive method of research, with the use of a Likert scale on Homosexuality
Attitude Scale, was used in conducting this study. According to an article by University of
South Carolina, a descriptive research design helps provide answers to the questions of who,
what, where, when, and how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study
information concerning the status of the phenomena and to describe “what exists” with respect
One hundred three (103) Secondary School Teachers in Navotas National High School
were used as respondents in this study. They were chosen by random sampling method using
Slovin’s Formula identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139)
Research Instrument
Scale. There were two sets of questionnaires. The first one is the Demographic Profile which
The second set measured their level of acceptance using the Homosexual Attitude
Scale which was constructed and validated by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986.
The researcher made a modification on the test particularly on the number assignment of the
responses. From 1 as STRONGLY AGREE, 2 as AGREE, 3 as NEUTRAL, 4 as DISAGREE,
and 5 as STRONGLY DISAGREE in the original scale by Kite and Deaux; the researcher
design. Participants rate each of the twenty-one items from 5 Strongly Agree to 1 Strongly
Disagree. The author has stated that the measure is reliable concerning either homosexual
males or females.
evaluation of homosexuals. The scale has excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). It has a
These two sets of questionnaires were used by the researcher in gathering data for this
study:
Part I. Demographic Profile of the Respondents- It consists of four items that identify their
structured items which focuses on assessing the level of acceptance of the respondents towards
Teachers in Navotas National High School. They were chosen by random sampling method
using Slovin’s Formula identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine
(139) teachers with 5% (0.05) margin of error. The researcher used fishbowl technique to
identify the one hundred three (103) respondents of this study. The purpose of this study is to
find out the moral reasoning of the teachers, particularly their level of acceptance towards
The researcher secured permission from the principal and guidance counselor of
Navotas National High School regarding her intent to conduct a survey to the selected teacher-
respondents. After finishing all the necessary letters to be presented, the researchers explained
the purpose and instructions to answer the survey questionnaires. The responses of the
participants were tallied and computed based on the Statistical Formula to identify the aligned
results.
The analysis of the result of the survey will be done to determine the moral reasoning as well
as the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB individuals in Navotas National
High School.
Statistical Treatment of Data
Percentage. The percentage is used to determine the quantitative relation to the whole
response. The process of gathering the percentage was dividing the frequency by the total
% = f / N * 100
Where:
Weighted Mean.
Where:
This chapter presents the analysis of data obtained through a survey using a
questionnaire pertaining the specific problems of this study. In this chapter, tables are being
Table 1
Age Frequency %
Below 21 22 21.35
21-30 37 35.92
31-40 31 30.09
41-50 7 6.79
Above 50 6 5.85
Total 103 100.00
Profile of the Respondents
Gender Frequency %
Male 22 21.36
Female 81 78.64
Total 103 100.00
This table shows the profile of the respondents. The total number of respondents is one
As to Age. The respondents whose age is below twenty-one (21) are twenty-two (22)
(37) teacher-respondents are within 21-30 age range comprise thirty-five-point ninety-two
percent (35.92%) of the total respondents. Meanwhile, there are thirty-one (31) respondents
within the age range of 31-40 which comprise thirty-point zero nine percent (30.09%) of the
total population. There are seven (7) teacher-respondents within 41-50 age range which
comprise six-point seventy-nine (6.79%) percent of the total population. Six (6) teacher-
respondents or at least five point eighty-five (5.85%) percent of the total population are above
50 years old. Thus, most of the selected teachers are between 21 to 30 years old.
twenty-one-point thirty-six percent (21.36%) of the total number of respondents. On the other
hand, there were eighty-one (81) female teacher-respondents, and they comprise seventy-eight-
point sixty-four percent (78.64%) of the total respondents. Therefore, most of the respondents
are female.
As to Educational Background. There were seventy-three (73) teachers who finished
Twenty-five point twenty five (25.25%) or twenty-six teachers (26) graduated with Master’s
Degree in Education, and four (4) teachers finished their degree in Master of Arts which
comprise the three point eighty-eight percent (3.88%) of the total population. In general, most
teaching experience are thirty-one (31) which comprise thirty-point zero nine percent
(45.63%) belong to the group with 6-10 years of teaching experience. There are thirteen (13)
experience. And, four (4) teachers with above 21 years teaching experience comprise
three-point eighty-eight percent (3.88%) of the total population. In general, most of the
Tabl
e2
Q1. WOULD NOT MIND HAVING A HOMOSEXUAL FRIEND
Agree
22%
Strongly Agree
78%
The table shows the tabulation of the responses of the participants in the survey
questionnaire. Each column shows the responses in percentage and how each response differs
It aims to identify whether the selected teacher-respondents has high level of acceptance towards
Figure 4 shows the response of the participants regarding an item (Q1) in the survey
questionnaire by Kite and Deaux (1986). 77.66% or 78% of the total number of participants with
a weighted mean of 4.78 would not mind having a homosexual friend. This result corresponds to
the participants’ responses on Q3 which states “I won’t associate with known homosexuals if I
can help it.”. Results of Q3 shows that 60.19% of the participants disagree with this notion, while
Strongly
Disagree
40%
Disagree
39%
Figure 5
illness” (Q5). Responses show with a weighted mean of 2.24 that 39.80% of the participants
strongly disagree with this notion, 38.83% of the participants disagree. However, 21.35% of
the participants responded strongly agree. Item Q5 in the survey can be associated with the
responses of the participants in Q16. Q16 states that “Homosexuals should be forced to have
psychological treatment.” With a weighted mean of 1.37, participants’ responses are gauged
toward 63.10% that is strongly agree and 36.89% that is disagree. Since, 39.80% strongly
agree and 38.83% disagree with the notion that homosexuality is not a mental illness, therefore
Results, as shown in Table 2, state that 100% of the total respondents strongly disagree
that homosexuals should be kept separate from society; that would still go ahead and form a
friendship with an LGB individual as stated in Q20 in the survey questionnaire, and they see
This ideological change, as mentioned by Dejowski (1992) and Loftus (2001) in their
studies, made some shifts in attitude towards homosexuality. Loftus suggests that the
liberalization in attitudes can be attributed to the political activism and visibility of queer
communities; a possible backlash in the 1990s against the success of the radical religious right
in the 1980s; the role of other liberal movements, such as the civil rights and women’s
expansion of media coverage of gay and lesbian issues (2001; see also Dejowski 1992; Scott
1998).
Figure 6
Heterosexual attitudes, sometimes called homophobia or anti-gay prejudice, are often
reflective of a larger, more cultural heterosexist ideology that privileges only heterosexual
In this study, as shown in Figure 6, results show that 95.14% of the total respondents
disagree with the notion that homosexuals are more likely to commit deviant sexual acts
compared to heterosexuals.
Disagree
95%
Figure 7
Since the early 1990s, however, there has been a dramatic liberalization in attitudes towards
through the 1990s. The percentage believing homosexuality is ‘always wrong’ dropped from
76% in 1991 to 66% in 1993 and then to around 60% in the late 1990s (American Enterprise
Institute 2004).
The most recent data show that in 2002 those considering homosexuality to be ‘always wrong’
constituted just over 50% of the population, while over 30% of the population now believe
Results of this study shows that 72.81% of the respondents strongly agree to the notion
that homosexuality is not sinful, while 27.18% merely agree to it (as shown in Figure 7).
Table 3
Q14. HOMOSEXUALITY
Agree IS NOT SINFUL.
27%
Disagree
73%
Table 3 shows the consolidated items with STRONGLY AGREE to find the general
number of acceptability of NNHS teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. Based
from the items that have 5 (STRONGLY AGREE) as their responses, the average of the
percentages was obtained to identify the number of acceptability. Results show that 67.23% of
the teacher-respondents in Navotas National High School strongly accepts LGB individuals in
the workplace.
CHAPTER 4
In this chapter, the results of the research work are presented, the conclusions drawn,
and the recommendations made as an outgrowth of this study. The data were collected and then
Summary
This study aimed to determine the moral reasoning, particularly the level of acceptance
of Navotas National High School teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace.
Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions: (1) What is the profile of
Experience? (2) What is the level of acceptance of the respondents towards LGB individuals in
the workplace? (3) What are the moral reasons of the respondents on their level of acceptance
The initial process involved in the present study included the following: First, the
researcher asked the respondents to answer the first part of the questionnaire which included
questions on the respondents’ profile such as age, gender, educational background, and
teaching experience. Afterwards, the Homosexuality Attitude Test was administered. The
second set measured their level of acceptance using the Homosexual Attitude Scale which was
constructed and validated by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986.
The descriptive method of research, with the use of a Likert scale on Homosexuality
Attitude Scale, was used in conducting this study. Descriptive research is used to obtain
information concerning the status of the phenomena and to describe “what exists” with respect to
One hundred three (103) Secondary School Teachers in Navotas National High School
were used as respondents in this study. They were chosen by random sampling method using
Slovin’s Formula identifying one hundred three (103) out of one hundred thirty-nine (139)
Scale. There were two sets of questionnaires. The first one is the Demographic Profile which
includes the Age, Gender, Educational Attainment, and Teaching Experience. The second set
measured their level of acceptance using the Homosexual Attitude Scale which was constructed
and validated by M.E. Kite and K. Deaux in their study in 1986. The researcher made a
modification on the test particularly on the number assignment of the responses. From 1 as
DISAGREE in the original scale by Kite and Deaux; the researcher modified it to 5 as
Participants rate each of the twenty-one items from 5 Strongly Agree to 1 Strongly Disagree.
The author has stated that the measure is reliable concerning either homosexual males or
females.
evaluation of homosexuals. The scale has excellent internal consistency (alphas >.92). It has a
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
First, female respondents are more than male respondents as the profile revealed. Most of
them belong to the group from 21-20 years old, majority of them finished Bachelor’s Degree,
Second, the researcher identified the weighted mean of each survey questionnaire item to
gauge the level of acceptability of the respondents towards LGB individuals in the workplace.
The consolidated items with STRONGLY AGREE determined the general number of
acceptability of NNHS teachers towards LGB individuals in the workplace. Based from the items
that have 5 (STRONGLY AGREE) as their responses, the average of the percentages was
obtained to identify the number of acceptability. Results of this study shows that 72.81% of the
respondents strongly agree to the notion that homosexuality is not sinful, while 27.18% merely
agree to it. Moreover, 77.66% or 78% of the total number of participants with a weighted mean
of 4.78 would not mind having a homosexual friend. This change in ideology, as discussed by
Dejowski (1992) and Loftus (2001) in their studies, can be attributed to the political activism and
National High School strongly agree or accept LGB individuals in the workplace. Workplace
acceptance is important for the LGBT. It allows them and their officemates to be more
productive at work (Rasirs, Singh and Cromwell, 2007). According to the survey conducted by
the Williams Institute, The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies, LGBT
employees who spend considerable time and effort hiding their identity in the workplace,
experience higher levels of stress and anxiety resulting in health problems and work related
complaints. Therefore, LGBT friendly workplace will lead to the improved health, increased job
satisfaction, better relationships with co-workers and supervisors, and greater work commitment
Recommendations
The following recommendations were made, especially for the teachers and
1. A work environment that can pledge its support to employees regardless of their gender
2. Every employee must actively participate in the Gender and Development advocacies or
programs of the government so that one must be fully aware of one’s gender preference,
conduct themselves according to the Code of Ethics set for the teachers.
4. Create policies that allow LGB individuals and their colleagues to be more productive at
work. These policies will have an immediate effect on individual people, resulting in less
References
Akker, H., Ploeg, van der, & R., Schepers, P. (2012). Dissapproval of Homosexuality:
access, 2012.
Alkire, S. & Foster, J. (2010). Designing the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index
(IHDI). United Nations Development Program: Research Paper. Date found: 20-04-
2015: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_28.pdf.
Berscheid, E., Boye. D.. & Darley, J. M. (1968). Effect of forced association upon voluntary
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Button, S. B. (2001).
Cain, R. (1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social Work, 36, 67–73.
Day, N.E. & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual
gay and lesbian employees. Persnonell Review, 29, 3, pp. 346 – 363.
Drydakis, N. (2008). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics,
Drydakis, N. (2011). Women’s Sexual Orientation and Labour Market Outcomes in Greece.
Drydakis, N. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the Cypriot labour market. Distastes
Market: A Field Experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8741. Date found 03-04-2015:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2544805.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and
mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal
Davidson, M., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). When excuses don’t work: The persistent injustice
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships
Deaux, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor
(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 302–323). San Diego: Academic Press.
Dipboye, R., Elsbach, K., & Paetzold, R. L. (Eds.). (in press). Stigma and stigmatization [Special
Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimination. In B. Dipboye
& A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases
Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital and
homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970s. The Journal of Sex Research, 15, 108-118.
(Eds.). The self in social interaction (pp. 115-136). New York: Wiley.
Gross, A. E., Green, S. K., Storck, J. T., & Vanyur, J. M. (1980). Disclosure of sexual
orientation and impressions of male and female homosexuals. Personality and Social
Herek. G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor-analytic study. Journal of
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia.
Karr, R. (1978). Homosexual labeling and the male role. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 73-83.
Kite, M. E.. & Deaux, K. (in press). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit
Neely Martinez, M. (1993). Recognizing sexual orientation is fair and not costly. HR Magazine,
38, 66–72.
Perkins, L. A., Thomas, K. M., & Taylor, G. A. (2000). Advertising and recruitment: Marketing
Rogers, A., & Hebl, M. R. (2001, June). To disclose or not to disclose: A micronarrative
account. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
the mental health of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Smith, N.G., & Ingram, K.M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian,
gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of
Tejeda, M.J. (2006). Nondiscrimination policies and sexual identity disclosure: Do they make a
4559.
Tilscik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in
Trau, R.N.C., & Härtel, C.E.J. (2007). Contextual factors affecting quality of work life and
career attitudes of gay men. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19, 207-219.
Tuten, T.L. (2005). The effect of gay-friendly and non-gay-friendly cues on brand attitudes: A
Walz, S.M., & Niehoff, B.P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to
Wang, P., & Schwarz, J.L. (2010). Stock price reactions to GLBT nondiscrimination policies.
health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93,
2002008.
APPENDIX A
Homosexuality Attitude Scale
1.1.AGE
Below 21 years 21-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years Above 50 years
1.2. GENDER
Male Female
1.3.EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Bachelor MA MS MaEd PhD EdD
1.4.TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Below 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years Above 21 years
1 5
1. I would not mind having a 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
homosexual friend. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
2. Finding out that an artist was gay 2 3 4
would have no effect on my Strongly Strongly
appreciation of his/her work. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
3. I won't associate with known 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
homosexuals if I can help it. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
4. I would look for a new place to 2 3 4
live if I found out my roommate was Strongly Strongly
gay. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
2 3 4
5. Homosexuality is a mental illness. Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
6. I would not be afraid for my child 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
to have a homosexual teacher. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
7. Gays dislike members of the 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
opposite sex. Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1 5
8. I do not really find the thought of 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
homosexual acts disgusting Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
Source: Kite, M.E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral
consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 137-162.
Thank you so much for answering this survey!
APPENDIX B
Raw
Data
of
Hom
osex
ualit
y
Attit
ude
Scal
e