Generational Perceptions of Campus Climate Among LGBTQ

Undergraduates

Jason C. Garvey, Laura A. Sanders, Maureen A. Flint

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 58, Number 6, September

2017, pp. 795-817 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/670084

Access provided by ACPA (17 Sep 2017 04:15 GMT)

Generational Perceptions of Campus Climate
Among LGBTQ Undergraduates
Jason C. Garvey Laura A. Sanders
Using data from the National LGBT Alumni
Survey, we examined generational perceptions
of campus climate for LGBTQ undergraduate
students who graduated from 1944 through
2013 (N = 3,121) with Renn and Arnold’s
(2003) reconceptualized ecological model as a
framework. Results demonstrate differences in
LGBTQ student campus climate perceptions
across generations and highlight academic
experiences, cocurricular experiences, and
institutional variables as important influences
on climate for LGBTQ undergraduates.
In recent years, climate studies examining
the narratives of underrepresented students
on campus have proliferated. Scholars have
documented the prevalence of institutional
resources and overall cultures of campus
environments in shaping perceptions for
historically marginalized communities (e.g.,
Huh & Kuh, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005; Sue, 2010; Umbach & Kuh, 2006).
Particularly in regards to the experience
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer
(LGBTQ) students, current research discourse
presents a grand narrative of progressive
change, greater access to resources, increased
programming, and growing multicultural
competence (Fine, 2012; Marine, 2011;
Rankin, Weber, & Garvey, 2015). Over the
past 50 years, events such as the formation of
the Student Homophile League in 1967 and
Jason C. Garvey is Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at the University of Vermont. Laura
A. Sanders is Director of Residential Communities at The University of Alabama. Maureen A. Flint is Graduate
Student in Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling at The University of Alabama.
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
Maureen A. Flint
the University of Michigan Lesbian–Gay Male
Programs office in 1971, as well as the sharp
increase in hate crime laws and LGBT centers
in the wake of the Matthew Shepard tragedy,
have facilitated progress and improved students’
perceptions of climate (Fine, 2012; Marine,
2011; Rankin et al., 2015). These sociohistorical
events as well as institutional contexts have
likely contributed to more welcoming and
supportive campus environments for LGBTQ
students, but scholars have yet to examine how
students’ perceptions of climate have evolved
across generations. Fine (2012) recommended
that to more fully understand LGBTQ students
in higher education, scholars must consider
analyses with particular attention to variability
in time and climate.
The purpose of this research was to
examine perceptions of campus climate
for LGBTQ students who completed an
undergraduate degree between 1944 and
2013. Drawing on responses of over 3,100
graduates from all 50 states and Puerto Rico,
we present a rich and varied analysis of factors
that influence how welcoming an institution
is to LGBTQ students. The following sections
illustrate how this research was grounded in
the study of campus climate, using Renn and
Arnold’s (2003) reconceptualized ecological
model to explain individual experiences
across students’ micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-,
and chronosystems.
795

CAMPUS CLIMATE PERCEPTIONS
AMONG LGBTQ STUDENTS
Campus climate can be described as “the cumu-
lative attitudes, behaviors, and standards of
employees and students concerning access for,
inclusion of, and level of respect for individual
and group needs, abilities, and potential”
(Rankin, 2005, p. 17). Campus climate is an
integral component of undergraduate student
experiences because of its strong relationship
with student success and persistence (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005; Umbach & Kuh, 2006).
For LGBTQ students, campus climate directly
impacts academic experiences and outcomes
(Gortmaker & Brown, 2006; Hill & Grace,
2009; Sue, 2010), student involvement
(Rankin, Hesp, & Weber, 2013), identity
development and outness (Garvey & Rankin,
2015; Gortmaker & Brown, 2006; Rankin,
Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010), and
wellness (Reed, Prado, Matsumoto, & Amaro,
2010; Woodford, Krentzman, & Gattis, 2012).
Because of the sociohistorical and environ-
mental complexities for LGBTQ undergraduate
students in higher education, campus climate
is best understood through the interactions of
students and their environments.
Generational and Cultural Contexts
Critical events in LGBTQ movements and
US history have shaped students’ campus
experiences and perceptions of climate.
Wartime policies, such as the Servicemen’s
Readjustment Act of 1944, the Vietnam
War draft, and the federal Don’t Ask Don’t
Tell policy, created isolating experiences for
LGBTQ students with regard to identity
disclosure and the criminalization of LGBTQ
people in the armed forces. LGBTQ activism
and legislation, including the 1969 Stonewall
riots (Gillespie, 2008; Renn, 2010), the
untimely death of Matthew Shepard in 1998,
and the passing of the Hate Crimes Prevention
796
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
Act in 2009 (Dunn, 2010), have also had a
great influence on the narratives of LGBTQ
undergraduate students.
Colleges and universities have also
responded to the needs of LGBTQ students
with an increase in resources across time,
mostly established through student organizing
and activism. Hallmark sociohistorical events
include the formation of the Student Homo-
phile League in 1967 as the first established
student organization for sexual minorities
(Rankin et  al., 2015), the creation of the
University of Michigan Lesbian–Gay Male
Programs office in 1971 (Fine, 2012; Marine,
2011), and the sharp increase in hate crime
laws and LGBT centers in the wake of the
Matthew Shepard tragedy (Fine, 2012).
Chronologically, critical campus and
national cultural events have greatly affected
the experience of LGBTQ students in post-
secondary education. Although higher educa-
tion historians have provided detailed reviews
of these sociohistorical cultural contexts
for LGBTQ students (see Marine, 2011),
few scholars have empirically examined
the influence of these events on LGBTQ
student experiences.
Individual Experiences
The more involved in and integrated into an
environment students are, the more likely they
will feel supported and successful (Renn &
Arnold, 2003). In particular, LGBTQ students’
academic and cocurricular microsystems and
interactions across contexts are critical for
determining perceptions of campus climate.
These individual experiences are also largely
influenced by a complex interaction of social
identities because of the interplay between
power, privilege, and marginalization across
and within multiple identities (Garvey, 2014).
Classroom experience and interactions
with faculty have a strong relationship with
LGBTQ students’ perceptions of the college
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
environment (Garvey & Inkelas, 2012;
Garvey, Taylor, & Rankin, 2014). Faculty
who silence LGBTQ voices, tokenize LGBTQ
students, or do not include LGBTQ-related
course content inhibit LGBTQ student
learning and involvement, therefore causing
students to have a negative perception of their
college environment (Rankin et  al., 2015).
Faculty who listen and encourage students
to participate in the classroom environment
foster a positive perception of campus climate
for LGBTQ students (Evans, 2000).
Peer interactions and cocurricular environ-
ments also have a strong impact on LGBTQ
students’ campus climate experiences (Evans
& Herriott, 2004). Rankin (2005) found
that 79% of LGBTQ students who were
harassed were done so by their peers, and
nearly 60% of these LGBTQ students chose
to hide their identity because of harassment
and intimidation. Conversely, establishing
and developing a social group helps LGBTQ
individuals develop a sense of purpose and
create positive self-esteem (Gray & Desmarais,
2014). Students who are out are more likely
to utilize LGBTQ institutional resources and
attend LGBTQ events than are their peers
who do not disclose their identity (Garvey
& Rankin, 2015).
Institutional Influences
The region in which an institution is located
may also shape LGBTQ success because
of pervasive cultural attitudes within an
environment. Certain geographic areas are
more progressive and welcoming toward
LGBTQ people (Fine, 2012), and the institu-
tional structure and cultural context likely
influence how students perceive their local
environment (Renn & Arnold, 2003).
Regarding rurality, Swank, Fahs, and
Frost (2013) wrote, “Rural-living LGBs
overwhelmingly described living in bleak and
inhospitable social climates . . . that forced
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
sexual minorities into silence, social isolation,
and fear of hate crimes” (p. 240). Conversely,
individuals in urban settings tend to have
more support because cities generally have
more people who are liberal in their thoughts
and more accepting of diversity (Swank et al.,
2013). An institution’s geographic region also
impacts LGBTQ students’ experiences. For
example, if a college or university is centered in
a region that is considered to be more accepting
of LGBTQ people, it is more likely to have an
LGBT resource center; compared to the South,
institutions in the West, Midwest, Great Lakes,
and Mountain regions are all more likely to
have LGBT student services (Fine, 2012).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
For our study, we used Renn and Arnold’s
(2003) reconceptualized ecological model
of development. Renn and Arnold applied
Bronfenbrenner’s (1995) model to post-
secondary environments and theorized that
students’ experiences are a result of the
interaction between unique environmental
systems in which they live and interact,
emphasizing peer culture and student environ-
ments. These environments are conceptualized
in terms of nested systems, and include micro-,
meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems.
Microsystems include influential groups in which
students belong, such as family, peer groups,
and roommates. Mesosystems are created through
the interactions of students’ microsystems.
Exosystems include laws, policies, and structure
by which students interact but of which they
have little control in their lives. Students’
macrosystems incorporate pervasive cultural
norms and systems, including oppression and
marginalization of historically underrepresented
groups. Across all environmental systems
is the chronosystem, which is defined by
Bronfenbrenner as being “embedded in and
powerfully shaped by conditions and events
797

FIGURE 1. Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Year of Graduation
occurring during the historical period through
which the person lives” (p. 641).
The structure of Renn and Arnold’s
(2003) reconceptualized ecological model
aligned well with our examination of gener-
ational perceptions of campus climate for
LGBTQ undergraduates for two particular
reasons. First, Renn and Arnold postulated
that to understand student development,
researchers must look at the interaction
between individuals and campus culture,
from the nature of mesosystems and ecological
niches to microsystem formation and access.
Second, the overarching orientation of Renn
and Arnold’s model is defined through the
stability and change in experiences of people
across generations and accounts for the
particularities of time, place, and culture, as
well as differences and similarities in individual
student backgrounds and college experiences.
798
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
PURPOSE AND
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Understanding LGBTQ students’ perceptions of
campus climate requires a multifaceted approach.
To more fully examine the complexity of LGBTQ
students’ campus climate perceptions, researchers
should attend to differences within students’
environmental interactions (Renn & Arnold,
2003). As such, this study approached LGBTQ
students’ campus climate experiences through
the lenses of generations (i.e., macrosystems
and chronosystems), students’ academic and
cocurricular experiences (i.e., microsystems and
mesosystems), and institutional variables (i.e.,
exosystems and macrosystems). The purpose
of this study was to examine perceptions of
campus climate for LGBTQ students who
graduated from 1944 through 2013 guided by
the following research questions:
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
● Are there generational differences in campus
climate perceptions among LGBTQ
students?
● To what extent do academic and cocur-
ricular experiences (i.e., microsystems and
mesosystems) and institutional variables
(i.e., exosystems and macrosystems)
influence perceptions of campus climate
for LGBTQ students across generations
(i.e., macrosystems and chronosystems)?
METHOD
Data Collection and Sample
Data for this study originated from the
National LGBT Alumni Survey (Garvey,
2016). We employed various sampling tech-
niques, including nonprobabilistic chain-
referral (Semaan, Lauby, & Liebman, 2002),
point people (Miles & Huberman, 1994),
and snowball (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997),
methods commonly used when sampling-
related information is lacking (i.e., sexual and
gender identities). We used an electronic flyer
to advertise the online survey instrument with
financial remuneration ($1.29 Amazon.com
coupon) for all participants.
In total, we used 3,121 cases from the
national data survey for this study. Partici-
pants represented all 50 United States and
Puerto Rico. The study population included
individuals who identified as LGBTQ or
another minoritized sexual or gender identity
and who received an undergraduate degree
from an accredited nonprofit college or
university. Graduation dates for participants
spanned 70 years from 1944 through 2013,
with the median graduation year for the entire
sample at about 2000 (Figure 1). We used year
of graduation as a proxy for shared generational
experiences based on the years in which
respondents experienced their undergraduate
education rather than using age and assuming
a traditional-age student population.
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
All 9 institutional geographic regions
were represented in the sample population as
coded in the National Center for Education
Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS). Regarding urbanization,
about 58% of graduates completed their
undergraduate degree in a city, 26% in a sub-
urban institution, and 13% in a town/rural
environment. Regarding sector, 52% of respon-
dents graduated from public 4-year institutions
and 46% from private 4-year institutions.
Within the sample, over half (56%) of
respondents identified as men, about 30% as
women, and 7% as another gender identity.
The sample population consisted of the
following sexual identities: 71% LGB; 19%
queer, pansexual, and fluid; and 3% another
sexual identity (e.g., heterosexual, asexual,
questioning). Regarding racial identities,
about 79% of all respondents were White
and 21% were People of Color. Religious/
spiritual affiliations of respondents were
as follows: 39% organized religion, 28%
spiritual, and 25% none.
Survey Instrument
The National LGBT Alumni Survey asked
closed-ended and open-ended questions to
allow respondents to provide quantitative and
narrative insights regarding their experiences
as LGBTQ undergraduate students and
graduates. Within the survey, there are five
major latent factors related to LGBTQ
graduates. These latent factors were developed
through empirical testing (Garvey, 2016) and
were grounded in literature about LGBTQ
graduates (Garvey & Drezner, 2013) and
LGBTQ campus climate (Rankin et al., 2010).
Study Constructs
Independent variables and factors were selected
based on our theoretical and empirical under-
standing of LGBTQ undergraduate student
campus climate (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011;
799
 Garvey, Sanders, & Flint

TABLE 1.
Descriptive Statistics and Coding for Independent and Outcome Variables
Mean /
Variablea Coding Frequency SD / %
Year of Graduation 1999 12.6

Demographics
(Gender Identity: Man) 0 = Not selected; 1 = Man 1,789 56.4
Gender Identity: Woman 0 = Not selected; 1 = Woman 935 29.5
Gender Identity: Another 0 = Not selected; 1 = Another 211 6.6
(Sexual Identity: LGB) 0 = Not selected; 1 = LGB 2,253 71.0
Sexual Identity: Queer, 0 = Not selected; 1 = Queer, pansexual, fluid 604 19.0
Pansexual, Fluid
Sexual Identity: Another 0 = Not selected; 1 = Another 79 2.5
Outness “As an undergraduate student, how ‘out’ 0.0 1.0
were you with your LGBTQ identity” around
various groups (i.e., close friends, close
family, at work); standardized composite
score; higher score = higher outness
Race/Ethnicity 1 = White 2,306 78.9
Race/Ethnicity 2 = Person of Color 616 21.1
(Religion: Organized Religion) 0 = Not selected; 1 = Organized religion 1,229 38.7
Religion: Spiritual 0 = Not selected; 1 = Spiritual 872 27.5
Religion: None 0 = Not selected; 1 = None 783 24.7
Political Views 1 = Extremely liberal; 7 = Extremely 2.2 1.1
conservative

Academic Experiences
Transfer Student 1 = Yes; 0 = No 596 18.8
GPA 1 = 3.50 or higher; 2 = 3.00–3.49; 3 = 2.50– 1.8 0.8
2.99; 4 = 2.00–2.49; 5 = 1.99 or lower
(Major: Arts and Humanities) 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 1,188 37.4
Major: STEM 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 542 17.1
Major: Social and Behavioral 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 926 29.2
Sciences
Major: Professional Programs 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 503 15.8
Academic-Related Activities 1 = Yes; 0 = None selected 2,788 87.8
Academic Training Standardized factor score; higher 0.0 1.0
score = higher agreement
LGBTQ Faculty/Staff Known 1 = none; 2 = 1–2; 3 = 3–5; 4 = 6–8; 2.2 1.2
5 = 9–11; 6 = 12+
table continues

800 Journal of College Student Development

Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate

TABLE 1. continued

Mean /
Variablea Coding Frequency SD / %

Cocurricular Experiences
Cocurricular Activities 1 = Yes; 0 = None selected 2,984 94
Leadership 1 = Yes; 0 = No 1,924 60.6
Work 1 = Yes; 0 = No 2,620 82.5
(Living: Campus Housing) 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 1,675 52.8
Living: Fraternity/Sorority 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 139 4.4
Living: Off-Campus Housing 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 1,345 42.4
LGBTQ Students Known 1 = none; 2 = 1–2; 3 = 3–5; 4 = 6–8; 4.2 1.8
5 = 9–11; 6 = 12+
(LGBTQ Student Services: 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 299 9.4
None Available)
LGBTQ Student Services: 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 2,066 65.1
Used at Least One
LGBTQ Student Services: Did 1 = Yes; 0 = Not selected 653 20.6
Not Use Any

Institutional Variables
(Geographic Region: New 1 = Yes; 0 = No 385 12.1
England)
Geographic Region: Mideast 1 = Yes; 0 = No 711 22.4
Geographic Region: Great 1 = Yes; 0 = No 562 17.7
Lakes
Geographic Region: Plains 1 = Yes; 0 = No 199 6.3
Geographic Region: Southeast 1 = Yes; 0 = No 696 21.9
Geographic Region: 1 = Yes; 0 = No 178 5.6
Southwest
Geographic Region: Rocky Mtns 1 = Yes; 0 = No 60 1.9
Geographic Region: Far West 1 = Yes; 0 = No 319 10.1
(Urbanization: City) 1 = Yes; 0 = No 1,854 58.4
Urbanization: Suburban 1 = Yes; 0 = No 838 26.4
Urbanization: Town/Rural 1 = Yes; 0 = No 426 13.4
Sector 1 = Public, 4-year or above 1,647 51.9
Sector 2 = Private not-for-profit, 4-year or above 1,471 46.3

Outcome Variable
Campus climate for LGBTQ Standardized factor score; higher 0.0 1.0
students score = higher agreement
a Reference groups listed in parentheses.

September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6 801


Garvey et al., 2014; Rankin et al., 2010). The
empirical model for this study was based on
Renn and Arnold’s (2003) reconceptualized
ecological model and includes year of graduation
(macrosystems and chronosystems), academic
and cocurricular experiences (microsystems
and mesosystems), and institutional variables
(exosystems and macrosystems). Institutional
variables were determined based on information
from IPEDS. We also controlled for various
demographic variables (e.g., gender identity,
sexual identity) in our model. Means, standard
deviations, and coding schemes for all inde-
pendent variables are detailed in Table 1.
We developed factors to represent major
constructs related to LGBTQ graduates using
principal axis factoring (Thurstone, 1935,
1947) with oblique rotation to improve
the meaningfulness and interpretation of
the extracted factors while recognizing the
interrelatedness of the factors. Cronbach’s
(1990) coefficient alphas were calculated
to assess the reliability of factors. LGBTQ
undergraduate campus climate (α = 0.827)
was used as the outcome variable and mea-
sured how welcoming an institution was
for LGBTQ people when the respondent
was an undergraduate student. Scores were
standardized so that low scores on the LGBTQ
undergraduate campus climate factor indicated
negative perceptions of campus climate and
high scores corresponded to positive campus
climate perceptions. Academic training
(α = 0.750) measured the extent to which
respondents felt prepared academically by
their undergraduate experiences, with scores
standardized so that low scores represented
poorer perceptions of academic preparedness.
The results from principal axis factoring,
including item loadings and coefficient alphas
for both factors, are detailed in Table 2.
Data Analysis
For this study we used a quantitative design to
802
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
explore LGBTQ student perceptions of campus
climate. To explore generational differences in
climate perceptions among LGBTQ under-
graduates, we first ran a bivariate correlation
utilizing Pearson’s cor re la tion to measure
the relationship between campus climate
perceptions and year of graduation. To better
understand the influences of independent
variables on perceptions of campus climate for
LGBTQ undergraduate students, we employed
linear regression analyses with four groupings:
year of graduation, academic experiences,
cocurricular experiences, and institutional
variables. We included demographics as an
additional grouping to control for variance
across social identities. Within our regression
analysis, we used categories with the most
respondents as reference groups to maximize
analytic predictability relative to our sample size.
We supplemented quantitative analyses
with participants’ narrative responses to
open-ended questions to further illuminate
results. This approach is what Creswell (2009)
identified as a concurrent triangulation
strategy: “when a researcher uses two different
methods in an attempt to confirm, cross-
validate, or corroborate findings in a single
study” (p. 217). To contextualize quantitative
findings, we analyzed one open-ended question
from the survey that read, “If you would like
to elaborate on your undergraduate experi-
ence, please do so here.” Of the 3,121 total
respondents, 786 answered this question. We
used deductive coding and intercoder agree-
ment to illuminate key themes and narrations
based on regression results (Creswell, 2009).
LIMITATIONS
As with all empirical studies, there were limita-
tions to the research design. First, the findings
cannot be generalized to all LGBTQ graduates,
as (a) the sample was not representative of all
individuals, and (b) as there currently is limited
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate

information about the true population of complex relationship between sociohistorical

LGBTQ students, we have no way of identifying
if our sample was representative. Although we
could not determine representativeness, we
acknowledge the limitations in our sample
dataset in being majority White respondents,
men, and recent graduates. Such sampling
demographics may reflect the poor outreach
efforts to People of Color, women and trans*
graduates, and older LGBTQ graduates among
advancement offices and LGBTQ centers
(Garvey & Drezner, 2013), as these offices were
key partners in soliciting research participants.
Also regarding data collection, we distributed
the survey via an anonymous link and cannot
ensure, beyond checking duplicate responses
and IP addresses, that participants took the
survey only once.
Second, our examination focused on
sociohistorical contexts of LGBTQ students’
experiences as a result of using Renn and
Arnold’s (2003) ecological model as a frame-
work. There are numerous ways to empir-
ically examine generational contexts for
undergraduate students, and there is likely a
contexts and developmental processes (i.e.,
social identity, psychological, moral, cognitive).
However, the constructs we used in our
analyses did not allow for us to control for
developmental differences for respondents
retrospectively or currently. In addition,
there were some aspects of Renn and Arnold’s
theoretical model that we were not able to
include in our study. For example, although
we used year of graduation as an indicator
of the meso- and chronosystems, this is but
one part of the complex relations and web of
involvements that make up effects within and
across systems. By approaching our topic from
a systems-based framework, we could begin to
understand the generational complexity for
LGBTQ undergraduate student experiences.
Lastly, because participants graduated as
many as 70 years ago, there may have been
systematic errors in memory recall. Individuals’
identity and experiences may be fluid and may
have changed throughout their college years,
which would add to complications recalling
how they identify and experience campus

TABLE 2.
Principal Axis Factoring and Coefficient Alphas
Item Loading
Academic Training (α = .750)
Thinking about my time as an undergraduate student, I am disappointed with my .890
academic experience.
I am displeased with my academic training at my college/university. .633
Looking back, I feel that I had a positive academic experience as an undergraduate .615
student.
Campus Climate for LGBTQ Students (α = .856)
When I was a student, my campus was uninviting for people who were LGBT. .787
I believe my undergraduate alma mater was hostile for people who were LGBT. .759
LGBT students felt safe on my campus when I was a student. .811
I felt open to disclose my LGBT identity on campus without fear of repercussions. .736
I feared for my physical safety because of my LGBT identity. .604

September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6 803


FIGURE 2. Scatter Plot of Bivariate Data Visualizing Relationship Between
Campus Climate for LGBTQ Students and Year of Graduation
climate perceptions at a specific moment in
time. Because the data were analyzed post hoc,
we were unable to control for other factors or ask
probing questions that would give additional
information on LGBTQ student experiences.
For example, we were unable to control for
developmental processes that may have altered
respondents’ perceptions of campus climate.
Although there are limitations regarding
sampling and construct operationalization, our
study provides important preliminary results to
understand differences generationally and with
regard to individuals’ identities and experiences.
RESULTS
Our results are divided into two main sections:
generational and cultural differences in
perceptions of campus climate (i.e., macro-
804
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
systems and chronosystems) and the influence
of variables and factors on campus climate
perceptions (i.e., micro-, meso-, exo-, and
macrosystems). We integrate both quantitative
and open-ended results within subsections to
illuminate key themes and insights.
Generational and Cultural Contexts
(Macrosystems and Chronosystems)
Results from the bivariate correlation analysis
revealed a positive and strong relationship
between LGBTQ student campus climate
perceptions and year of graduation, r(3,119) =
.46, p < .001 (Figure  2). The year 1998
marked a dramatic shift in LGBTQ students’
perceptions of campus climate, as this was
the first year that the mean standardized
score for campus climate perceptions was
a positive value.
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
Participants’ open-ended responses provide
further evidence of the importance of gradu-
ation year and its influence on campus
climate perceptions, especially when placed
during sociohistorical events that happened
during respondents’ duration in college.
Several graduates, gay men in particular,
discussed campus contexts through their
experiences during times of war. A gay man
who graduated in 1945 stated, “In the wartime
Navy, anyone openly gay would have been
given a dishonorable discharge and lost the
support of his college education.” For a gay
Hispanic man at an Ivy League school in 1970,
coming out could have meant mandatory
conscription to the Navy during the Vietnam
War. He wrote, “Had I revealed my sexuality,
I most likely would have lost [my] scholarship
and would have immediately been inducted
into the U.S. Navy as a Seaman recruit.” A
gay man who graduated in 1994 noted, “I
was closeted and in ROTC, so discussing my
orientation was not an option during the era
of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. . . . The pressure
from being closeted had a direct effect on my
academic performance.”
During the end of the 1960s and the
beginning of the 1970s, social movements
emerged, providing heightened visibility to
civil rights for LGB (and to a lesser extent,
trans*) people. One gay/lesbian woman who
graduated in 1970 noted, “It was the late
1960s. Pre-Pride. Pre-Stonewall. Very different
times. . . . It was life so inside the closet with
a lot of fear.” Whereas the 1970s saw the
development of LGB rights and activism in
the wake of Stonewall, the 1980s saw the
beginning of the AIDS crisis. A gay man who
graduated in 1983 observed:
My undergraduate years were Fall 1979
to Spring 1983, which was a challenging
time for LGBT people for a number of
reasons: (1) There was no protection for
LGBT (e.g., hate crimes legislation), (2)
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
the AIDS crisis was just showing its ugly
head, [and] (3) society did not yet embrace
the LGBT culture the way it does now.
A gay man who graduated from an Ivy
League school in 1990 noted that “in the
1980s there was very little visibility for LGBT
students . . . aside from Act-Up, a related
AIDS organization.”
Increased support for LGBTQ students
continued to expand into the 1990s as more
LGBTQ centers and organizations were
founded on college campuses. A woman who
graduated in 1991 noted, “Things seemed
to be improving for LGB students—campus
programming, new LGB student service
office opened—but there was still plenty of
abuse on campus, though I was never a target
personally.” In the late 1990s, the murder of
Matthew Shepard increased national attention
to the experiences and challenges of LGBTQ
youth. One gay man at a Southeast school
observed, “I started at [my institution] in 1999
. . . and the Matthew Shepherd story had just
hit the country. . . . I did find more resources
to support me, but there were no out role
models and any LGBT faculty/staff were very
quiet about their identities.”
LGBTQ students’ experiences varied in
the 21st century. Whereas one student who
graduated in 2006 believed, “My academic
experience was not affected at all by my
sexuality,” another who graduated in 2007
stated, “[My institution] still prohibits
homosexual behavior.” One lesbian/bisexual/
queer woman who graduated in 2012 observed,
“My college was very LGBT friendly and was
open to a diverse population of students.”
Individual Experiences (Microsystems
and Mesosystems) and Institutional
Influences (Exosystems and
Macrosystems)
The linear regression analysis model with all
independent variables explained 46.0% of
805

the variance in campus climate perceptions
for LGBTQ students (p < 0.001; Table  3).
To check multicollinearity between variables
in the model, we confirmed that variance
inflation factor values did not exceed 10
(Table 3) and that correlations between each
of the independent variables did not exceed .70
(Table 4). We inspected the normal probability
plot of the regression standardized residual
and observed that the points lay in a straight
diagonal line, suggesting no major deviations
from normality (Figure  3). We confirmed
linearity by inspecting the scatterplot of
standardized residuals and observed that the
residuals were distributed rectangularly with
most of the scores centered along the 0 point
(Figure 4). Together, Figures 3 and 4 confirm
homoscedasticity, or the assumption that
the standard deviations of the error terms
are constant and independent. To assess
independence of residuals, we determined that
there were fewer than 0.5% of cases that had
standardized residual values above 3.0 or below
–3.0. The largest value for Cook’s distance
was .01, suggesting no major problems for
independence (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Not surprisingly, year of graduation
positively correlated with perceptions of campus
climate in the regression model (ß = .25,
p < .001). In other words, students who
graduated more recently had higher perceptions
of climate than did those who graduated in
earlier years. The following sections discuss key
results across each model category for LGBTQ
student campus climate perceptions.
Academic Experiences. Academic training
was the most significant academic predictor
for LGBTQ campus climate perceptions
among graduates (ß = .24, p < .001). In other
words, the extent to which respondents felt
prepared academically by their undergraduate
experiences positively correlated to a healthier
view of campus climate for LGBTQ people.
Respondents who knew more LGBTQ faculty/
806
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
staff had higher perceptions of climate (ß = .06,
p < .001), and students who participated
in more academic-related activities (e.g.,
professional clubs, honors program, study
abroad) had more negative campus climate
perceptions (ß = –.03, p < .01).
In open-ended responses, participants
discussed their relationships with faculty and
staff as well as their experiences generally
in their academic majors. For example, one
lesbian woman who graduated in 2009
commented that “many of the faculty and staff
were very sensitive/supportive to the needs of
GLBTQ students” and an asexual/bisexual
woman who graduated in 1996 wrote, “The
faculty adviser for the LGBT club was one of
our Jesuit priests. I think that sent a strong
message.” A student who graduated in 2003
with a degree in social and behavioral sciences
noted, “I had an incredible undergraduate
experience due to my major and the professors
who mentored me. While the campus climate
was not extremely welcoming, they managed
to create and foster a safe environment.”
One 1963 graduate wrote, “It was primarily
LGBT faculty that brought me out, as they
understood me before I understood myself.”
Some respondents experienced hostile or
negative interactions with faculty and staff.
A woman who graduated in 1998 described,
“A close friend of mine . . . went from 2-year
starter to bench warmer when the coach
found out she was a lesbian.” Many students
experienced a campus climate that was a
combination of both support and hostility.
A gay man who graduated in 1993 wrote,
“Some administrators and professors openly
communicated to me in front of others that I
was ‘living in sin’ . . . others, however, helped
me find campus work so I could afford to eat
and continue my studies.”
Another area that affected LGBTQ stu-
dents’ undergraduate experience was their
choice of major. A woman who graduated in
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate

TABLE 3.
Linear Regression With Campus Climate for LGBTQ Students as Outcome
Predictor Group and Variable ß p VIFa
Year of Graduation .25 *** 1.66
Demographics
Gender Identity: Woman .02 1.21
Gender Identity: Another –.06 *** 1.28
Sexual Identity: Queer, Pansexual, Fluid –.01 1.41
Sexual Identity: Another –.01 1.05
Outness .23 *** 2.00
Race/Ethnicity –.01 1.11
Religion: Spiritual –.03 1.21
Religion: None .00 1.24
Political Views .04 * 1.13
Academic Experiences
Transfer Student .02 1.14
GPA .03 1.14
Major: STEM .02 1.27
Major: Social and Behavioral Sciences .00 1.29
Major: Professional Programs .00 1.31
Academic-Related Activities –.03 * 1.16
Academic Training .24 *** 1.14
LGBTQ Faculty/Staff Known .06 *** 1.68
Cocurricular Experiences
Cocurricular activities –.04 * 1.22
Leadership –.07 *** 1.25
Work .01 1.07
Living: Fraternity/Sorority .01 1.10
Living: Off-Campus Housing .01 1.47
LGBTQ Students Known .22 *** 2.41
LGBTQ Student Services: Used at Least One .03 2.78
LGBTQ Student Services: Did Not Use Any .04 2.11
Institutional Variables
Geographic Region: Mideast –.09 *** 2.30
Geographic Region: Great Lakes –.12 *** 2.27
Geographic Region: Plains –.08 *** 1.57
Geographic Region: Southeast –.20 *** 2.56
Geographic Region: Southwest –.12 *** 1.56
Geographic Region: Rocky Mountains –.06 *** 1.19
Geographic Region: Far West –.06 *** 1.76
Urbanization: Suburban –.01 1.18
Urbanization: Town/Rural –.05 *** 1.13
Sector .01 1.33
R² .46 ***
Note. Reference groups included for gender identity (Man), sexual identity (LGB), religion (Organized religion),
major (Arts and humanities), living (Campus housing), LGBTQ student services (None were available),
geographic region (New England), and urbanization (City).
a Variance inflation factor. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6 807

 Garvey, Sanders, & Flint

TABLE 4.
Correlation Matrix Between Independent Variables table continues →
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Year of Graduation —
2 Gender Identity: Woman .07 —
3 Gender Identity: Another .09 –.17 —
4 Sexual Identity: Queer, Pansexual, Fluid .17 .19 .36 —
5 Sexual Identity: Another .04 .07 .07 –.08 —
6 Outness .46 –.01 .08 .14 –.02 —
7 Race/Ethnicity .18 .01 .03 .07 .00 .11 —
8 Religion: Spiritual .03 .06 .03 .06 .01 .04 .01 —
9 Religion: None .06 .00 .06 .08 .00 .07 –.08 –.35 —
10 Political Views .05 –.06 –.10 –.20 .01 –.07 .03 –.08 –.11 —
11 Transfer Student .02 .04 –.03 –.01 .02 .10 .01 .01 –.01 –.01 —
12 GPA –.10 –.04 –.01 –.05 .04 –.04 .08 .01 –.07 .07 .02 —
13 Major: STEM .03 –.02 .03 –.06 .07 –.03 .02 –.02 .06 .07 –.03 .03 —
14 Major: Social and Behavioral Sciences .07 .05 .01 .04 .00 .05 .05 .03 –.02 –.03 .01 –.01 –.29 —
15 Major: Professional Programs –.04 –.07 –.07 –.12 –.01 –.05 –.01 .01 –.06 .08 .09 .04 –.20 –.28
16 Academic–Related Activities .18 .01 .04 .09 .00 .06 .03 –.02 .02 –.03 –.05 –.19 .02 .01
17 Academic Training .04 .01 –.02 .02 –.05 .05 –.01 –.03 .01 .01 –.08 –.22 .01 .03
18 LGBTQ Faculty/Staff Known .33 –.01 .10 .22 –.02 .47 .09 .03 .03 –.10 –.03 –.06 –.08 .08
19 Cocurricular Activities .03 –.06 .05 .08 –.03 .02 .04 –.03 .01 –.01 –.15 –.04 .00 .01
20 Leadership .18 –.03 .07 .15 –.03 .07 .05 .00 .04 –.04 –.14 –.07 –.01 .03
21 Work .17 .05 .05 .09 .01 .13 .05 .06 –.01 –.05 .07 .03 –.02 .02
22 Living: Fraternity/Sorority –.09 –.09 –.01 –.03 –.01 –.07 .01 –.03 .00 .09 –.02 .05 .01 –.03
23 Living: Off-Campus Housing .07 –.02 –.04 –.08 .00 .16 .02 .04 .00 .03 .27 .07 –.01 –.02
24 LGBTQ Students Known .48 .04 .10 .23 .00 .61 .08 .03 .08 –.10 –.05 –.06 –.01 .06
25 LGBTQ Student Services: At Least One .42 .12 .11 .24 .01 .48 .09 .09 .12 –.12 .00 –.06 .01 .11
26 LGBTQ Student Services: Did Not Use –.25 –.07 –.07 –.17 .02 –.41 –.05 –.03 –.05 .14 .02 .04 .03 –.06
27 Geographic Region: Mideast –.06 –.03 –.02 –.02 –.04 –.03 .01 –.03 .00 .00 –.07 –.03 .01 .01
28 Geographic Region: Great Lakes .00 –.05 .01 –.01 .00 .00 –.09 .01 .02 –.04 –.02 .02 –.01 –.01
29 Geographic Region: Plains .03 –.02 .01 .01 .01 .03 –.08 –.02 .03 .00 .02 .00 –.01 .00
30 Geographic Region: Southeast .06 –.01 –.04 –.05 .03 –.05 –.02 –.01 –.03 .07 .01 .05 –.02 –.04
31 Geographic Region: Southwest .00 .02 –.03 –.04 .02 –.02 .03 .02 –.04 .05 .05 .05 .01 .01
32 Geographic Region: Rocky Mountains –.01 .01 –.02 .00 .01 .00 .01 .04 .01 .01 .03 –.03 .01 .00
33 Geographic Region: Far West .03 –.02 .05 .06 .00 .05 .14 .03 .02 –.02 .09 –.01 .01 .02
34 Urbanization: Suburban –.04 .06 .00 .01 –.03 –.03 .00 –.01 .00 –.03 –.05 –.01 .01 .00
35 Urbanization: Town/Rural .01 .02 .02 .00 .03 –.04 –.08 .00 .00 –.01 .01 .05 –.02 –.01
36 Sector –.08 .03 .01 .05 –.02 –.06 .00 –.04 .02 –.07 –.15 –.15 .00 –.01

table continues →

808 Journal of College Student Development

 Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate

TABLE 4. continued

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
— 15
–.04 — 16
–.04 .15 — 17
–.12 .11 .14 — 18
–.12 .24 .12 .13 — 19
–.07 .19 .16 .19 .29 — 20
.01 .00 –.05 .10 –.01 .02 — 21
.06 –.03 .02 –.02 .05 .08 –.04 — 22
.13 –.13 –.14 –.07 –.21 –.26 .08 –.18 — 23
–.14 .16 .14 .59 .17 .21 .12 –.06 –.02 — 24
–.15 .17 .10 .44 .16 .19 .13 –.04 –.03 .58 — 25
.13 –.13 –.05 –.32 –.15 –.14 –.11 .05 .06 –.43 –.69 — 26
–.04 .01 .00 .01 .03 .03 –.05 –.01 –.08 –.02 .00 .02 — 27
.06 –.01 .01 –.01 .01 .00 .03 .08 .03 .00 .04 –.03 –.25 — 28
.02 .02 .00 .00 .00 .01 .06 .00 .04 .01 .02 –.03 –.14 –.12 — 29
.03 .00 –.03 –.07 .01 –.01 –.06 –.04 .04 –.04 –.10 .07 –.29 –.25 –.14 — 30
.03 –.01 –.05 –.08 –.04 –.02 .01 –.01 .13 –.05 –.08 .03 –.13 –.12 –.06 –.13 — 31
–.02 .00 –.02 –.02 .02 –.02 .04 –.01 .04 –.02 –.01 –.01 –.08 –.07 –.04 –.08 –.03 — 32
–.02 .00 .00 .05 –.06 –.03 .03 .00 .06 .02 .06 –.03 –.18 –.16 –.09 –.18 –.08 –.05 — 33
–.06 .01 .06 .02 .02 .05 –.07 –.02 –.20 –.02 –.01 .00 .13 –.12 –.14 .02 –.06 –.07 .01 — 34
.03 .03 –.01 –.03 .03 .05 .00 .00 –.06 –.05 –.03 –.03 –.07 .13 .09 –.03 .01 .01 –.06 –.24 — 35
–.14 .06 .10 .03 .09 .10 –.05 –.02 –.35 .00 .00 –.08 .15 –.07 –.07 –.18 –.12 –.05 .00 .12 .00 36

September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6 809

 Garvey, Sanders, & Flint

FIGURE 3. Normal Probability Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

FIGURE 4. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals

810 Journal of College Student Development

Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
1999 reflected on her major, saying, “In arts/
humanities, queer theory was in full bloom
and those areas always felt less unsafe, if not
more welcoming. In all likelihood, I avoided
majors where I would have felt unsafe.” This
experience was echoed by a gay man who
graduated in 2005 from an institution in
the Great Lakes region. He discussed, “It
felt safe and ‘normal’ to be a gay student in
Theatre and Music, but there was a clear line
between those experiences in my department
and experiences outside of them.” A woman
who graduated in 1995 wrote, “I had some
uncertainty about being out within my major
department because of how it might affect my
career and the somewhat more conservative
nature of the field (chemistry).” Other students
reported changing majors or career paths due
to negative experiences in their major classes.
One respondent who graduated in 1979
wrote, “I witnessed severe homophobia at [my
institution] to GBT students by faculty and
decided to not practice architecture.”
Cocurricular Experiences. Results from
the regression analysis indicated that within
cocurricular experiences, graduates who knew
more LGBTQ students had higher perceptions
of campus climate (ß = .22, p < 0.001).
Holding leadership positions negatively
correlated with perceptions of climate for
respondents (ß = –.07, p < 0.001). There was
also a negative relationship between campus
climate perceptions and cocurricular activity
involvement (ß = –.04, p < 0.05).
Open-ended responses further supported
the importance of cocurricular experiences for
campus climate perceptions among LGBTQ
students. Formal resources were noted as
symbolically important, emphasizing institu-
tional and cultural progress for supporting
LGBTQ students. One lesbian Hispanic
woman who graduated in 2005 noted:
Although my undergraduate university
wasn’t LGBT friendly, I loved my time
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
there because of the overwhelmingly
strong sense of community I got from
the university and from the LGBT com-
munity there. Being involved with the
LGBT student groups at my alma mater
was the best part of being an undergrad.
A gay man who graduated from an Ivy League
school in 2006 noted the value of LGBTQ
resources at his college stating, “The LGBT
Center at [my institution] was very prominent
in my experiences and programs like Safe
Spaces and the RA trainings made it very clear
that LGBT students were safe and had support
networks around campus.”
Informal interactions with peers and
the visibility of recognized LGBTQ symbols
on campus also played a role in students’
perception of their campus climate. A gay
Black man who graduated in 2009 from an
institution in the Great Lakes region reflected,
“I saw a rainbow flag in one of the windows
next to the front steps of the Student Union,
and that made me very happy to see our
ubiquitous symbol in plain sight and made
me feel very welcomed.” Other respondents
also noted the role that straight allies played
in their perception of the campus climate. A
2009 graduate wrote:
When a social fraternity on campus
actively recruited me because of my heavy
involvement with the school I told them,
“Hey, I’m gay so if that isn’t cool, let’s just
stop this now.” They replied that doesn’t
matter at all. Even if it did matter or
people were uncomfortable, they said they
were cool with it, which was really great.
Students who did not have supportive
resources or peers generally had more negative
experiences. One respondent who graduated
in 2009 wrote, “Most friends I met were
homophobic; this made me feel lonely and
depressed.” And a gay man who graduated
from a Southwest institution in 2010 wrote,
“School would have been welcoming, but
811

there were so few out students that many still
felt uncomfortable.” The lack of resources
also factored into students’ experiences.
An Asian woman who graduated from a
Southeast region institution in 2012 observed,
“I was closeted trans in undergraduate, and
my experience at my school was that there
were no real accommodations or acknowl-
edgement of transgender people outside of
the LGBT center.”
Institutional Variables. Regression results
demonstrated that LGBTQ graduates who
attended town/rural institutions had more
negative campus climate perceptions compared
to graduates who attended city institutions
(ß = –.05, p < .001). Compared to those from
New England, LGBTQ graduates from South-
east institutions had the poorest campus climate
perceptions (ß = –.20, p < .001). LGBTQ
graduates from other regions had overall lower
perceptions of climate compared to New
England graduates: Great Lakes (ß = –.12,
p < .001), Southwest (ß = –.12, p < .001), Mid
East (ß = –.09, p < .001), Plains (ß = –.08,
p < .001), Far West (ß = –.06, p < .001), and
Rocky Mountains (ß = –.06, p < .001).
Throughout the open-ended responses,
participants noted their institution’s geograph-
ical region when describing their experiences
with campus climate. One queer woman who
graduated in 1998 noted:
I went to a progressive women’s college
in western Massachusetts, so the campus
climate was very supportive. I know I was
lucky to be in a supportive environment
and that this was not the norm across the
country or at more conservative women’s
colleges.
A woman who graduated in 1981 from a
college in the Plains region stated:
I couldn’t stay at the dorms without
a lot of bad experiences. Moving off
campus was difficult. I was abandoned
by my family. I became very poor. It was
812
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
difficult to overcome it. It limited my
career options. I was too poor to move
to the coasts.
This experience was echoed by a student
who graduated over 30 years later from an
institution in the Southeast region. He stated,
“I wasn’t openly gay as an undergraduate. I
didn’t feel comfortable coming out until I
moved out of North Carolina to a place that
felt more accepting and supportive of LGBTQ
people.” A student who graduated from an
institution in the Rocky Mountain region
in 2006 observed, “While my campus was
inviting and I felt safe there, I did not feel safe
in the community around the school or the
state of Idaho.” Another student who graduated
in 2002 noted, “I was pleasantly surprised to
see how progressive [my institution] was given
the political climate at the time and because it
was a university in the Deep South.”
Some LGBTQ students noted the influ-
ence of urban and rural environments on their
college experience. One multiracial pansexual
genderqueer student who graduated from
a New England college in 1997 asserted,
“Myself [sic] and my transgender girlfriend felt
emotionally safer on the streets of New York
than at [my institution]. It was such a small
community that it felt like the repercussions of
being ‘out’ would last forever.” A genderqueer
student who graduated from an institution in
the Plains region in 1999 wrote:
Part of the hostility or negative experience
associated with undergraduate institution
as LGBT student was due to the small
town that we were located in. Felt safer
on campus than off campus. Was harassed
off campus [and] in town for being LGBT,
but not on campus.
Whether describing differences across
regions or within urban/rural environments,
LGBTQ students’ perceptions were shaped by
the geographical location of their institutions,
with a small but meaningful effect.
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
DISCUSSION
Our results highlight the influence of genera-
tional and cultural contexts (i.e., macrosystems
and chronosystems), individual experiences
(i.e., microsystems and mesosystems), and
institutional influences (i.e., exosystems and
macrosystems) on LGBTQ undergraduate
student campus climate perceptions. The
most important finding from this study is
empirical evidence that demonstrates gener-
ational progress and improved perceptions
of campus climate for LGBTQ students. In
using LGBTQ graduates as research parti-
cipants, we were able to retroactively capture
perceptions of campus climate broadly across
70 years and highlight the relevance of
students’ macrosystems and chronosystems
on campus experiences sociohistorically.
Results from the bivariate correlation and
linear regressions demonstrate that LGBTQ
students who graduated more recently have
more positive perceptions of climate than
do individuals who graduated earlier. In
fact, year of graduation was the strongest
predictor among all variables in the overall
regression analysis. Sociohistorical markers
among LGBTQ communities illuminate the
relevance of cultural norms and the importance
of generational contexts in the warmth or
chilliness of postsecondary institutions (Renn
& Arnold, 2003). Participants’ open-ended
responses about campus climate experiences
described sociohistorical events such as the
Stonewall riots, creation of the Student
Homophile League, LGBTQ resource offices,
the death of Matthew Shepard, passing of the
Hate Crimes Act, and recent media coverage
of LGBTQ teen suicides, among others.
Results from the bivariate correlation
and scatter plot demonstrated a positive
generational shift in 1998 for LGBTQ stu-
dents’ campus climate perceptions. In 1998,
the murder of Matthew Shepard sparked
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
widespread national attention to homophobia
and violence against LGBTQ people. What
resulted was a boom in the late 1990s and early
2000s in the number of on-campus resources
for LGBTQ students (Fine, 2012). The lens
through which LGBTQ graduates remembered
their undergraduate experiences was in the
context of LGBTQ sociohistory and culture
(i.e., macrosystems and chronosystems; Renn
& Arnold, 2003). In other words, the gradual
acceptance and affirmation of LGBTQ people
in mainstream society are inextricably linked
to increasingly progressive social policies for
LGBTQ people and more positive perceptions
of campus climate in higher education.
Colleges and universities still foster and
perpetuate oppressive forces of homophobia,
transphobia, heterosexism, and cisgenderism
(Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Garvey et al., 2014;
Rankin et  al., 2010); yet the narratives of
participants in this study chronicle a gradual
progressivism and acceptance for LGBTQ
individuals and issues in higher education and
a key generational shift in the late 1990s.
Classroom experience, majors, and faculty
interaction are important aspects of stu-
dents’ micro- and mesosystems (Renn &
Arnold, 2003). Graduates who reported
more positive perceptions of their academic
training as undergraduate students reported
significantly higher perceptions of campus
climate. Additionally, graduates who knew
more LGBTQ faculty and staff also had more
positive experiences with campus climate
as undergraduate students. Open-ended
responses illuminated the centrality of formal
advising and informal mentorship from
faculty and staff in shaping undergraduate
students’ campus environments. These find-
ings mirror a recent study by Garvey and
colleagues (2014), which found that classroom
experiences and interactions with faculty have
a strong relationship with LGBTQ students’
perceptions of the college environment at
813

2-year institutions. Other respondents noted
the chilly conditions experienced from dis-
criminatory faculty and hostile departments.
In the classroom, LGBTQ students may feel
silenced or harassed, which can limit learning
and involvement (Rankin et al., 2015).
Regarding the influence of cocurricular
involvements and peers, regression analyses
documented a strong relationship between
campus climate perceptions and knowing more
LGBTQ students on campus. Open-ended
responses further substantiated the importance
of peers as a microsystem for LGBTQ students
(Renn & Arnold, 2003). Respondents noted
the necessity of community and informal
relationships with peers as influential to
their campus experiences. Having positive
relationships with peers helps LGBTQ students
feel more positive about their experience in the
college setting. Establishing and developing a
social group helps LGBTQ individuals develop
a sense of purpose and creates a positive
self-esteem and self-actualization (Rankin
et  al., 2015). Conversely, students who
reported chilly climate experiences discussed
homophobic and transphobic interactions
with other students, resulting in negative
academic and social outcomes. Harassment
by peers is a major factor contributing to
negative campus climate experiences for
LGBTQ students, which often results in
students hiding or not disclosing their identity
out of fear (Rankin et  al., 2010). Formal
programs and institutional commitment were
other salient themes discussed throughout
respondents’ narratives, including signature
programs such as Lavender Graduation and
Safe Space/Zone trainings. Students who are
out are more likely to visit LGBTQ resource
centers and attend events focused on LGBTQ
content than are their peers who are not
(Garvey & Rankin, 2015). Connecting with
resource centers or student groups focused
on LGBTQ support helps students develop
814
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
the relationships they need to be successful
in college. Both quantitative and open-ended
results about curricular and cocurricular
experiences highlight the importance of
LGBTQ students being integrated into their
collegiate environment because of the positive
relationship between involvement and student
success (Renn & Arnold, 2003)
The region in which an institution is
situated can have a direct impact on the
experiences of LGBTQ students. Regression
results revealed that, compared to New
England, all other geographic regions in the
United States had more negative perceptions of
campus climate for LGBTQ undergraduates.
In addition, LGBTQ students who graduated
from urban institutions had overall more
positive campus experiences than did those
who completed their undergraduate degree
in a town or rural environment, with a small
but meaningful effect. These results highlight
the relevance of institution-specific structures
and cultural attitudes (i.e., exosystems and
macrosystems) on student experiences (Renn
& Arnold, 2003). Fine (2012) found that a
college or university’s geographic location is
a predictor of a school having an LGBTQ
resource center: if the school is centered in a
region that is considered to be more accepting
of LGBTQ people, it is more likely to have a
center. Regarding social climates and urban
institutions, Swank and colleagues (2013)
discussed that urban settings have warmer
climates because cities generally have more
highly educated and liberal people and
therefore are more accepting of diversity.
IMPLICATIONS
As previously discussed, LGBTQ student
campus climate experiences are greatly shaped
by generational and cultural contexts, academic
and cocurricular experiences, and institu-
tional influences. Campus experiences can be
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
improved for LGBTQ students across three
broad facets of higher education: practice,
policy, and research.
Practice
The findings of this research provide
a description of the importance of space,
particularly academic and cocurricular micro-
systems, where LGBTQ students feel welcomed,
safe, and affirmed as they negotiate outness
and explore their identities. These spaces
are constructed through relationships and
connections with LGBTQ and allied faculty,
staff, and peers; through identifiable symbols,
such as the presence of LGBTQ material in
academic environments; and through physical
space, such as an LGBTQ center, office, or
organization that provides resources and
services. In attending to students’ microsystems
and mesosystems, practitioners may promote
more inclusive environments through culturally
affirming decisions, programs, and services.
Given the positive significant relationship
between campus climate and year of graduation
for LGBTQ students, institutional staff may
consider ways to improve their relationship with
LGBTQ graduates (Garvey & Drezner, 2013).
Such efforts demonstrate that institutions care
about addressing sociohistorical exclusion and
improving campus climate for LGBTQ people.
Policy
Faculty, staff, and administrators should
consider reviewing institutional exosystems
(i.e., structures and policies) at their institutions
to facilitate change for LGBTQ communities.
Our research showed that students who felt
connected to faculty and staff in and out of
classroom microsystems were more likely to
be more comfortable on campus. Adding
sexual identity and gender identity/expression
to nondiscrimination policies would allow
departments to recruit a more diverse pool
of candidates while also ensuring equitable
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
channels for LGBTQ students, faculty, and
staff to report incidents of discrimination.
Increasing the number of faculty and staff
who identify as LGBTQ would offer more
resources and connections to students who
identify as LGBTQ. Attending to structural
environmental elements will likely translate
to more culturally inclusive microsystems
and mesosystems for LGBTQ students (Renn
& Arnold, 2003).
Research
Insights from our study reveal the necessity for
further examination of specific campus contexts
and student experiences. Future scholars
should more closely investigate how geographic
regions and urbanization affect campus climate
perceptions across intersecting and multiple
identities. Such examinations may consider
cultural undercurrents, political landscapes,
and sociohistorical influences related to the
warmth or chilliness of campus environ-
ments (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). Additionally,
researchers should more closely examine the
availability of resources (LGBTQ centers,
designated staff, scholarships, LGBTQ alumni
associations) and policies (nondiscrimination,
same-gender marriage recognition, gender-
inclusive housing) and their influence on
campus climate and exosystems. One perplex-
ing finding that warrants further attention is
the negative relationship between curricular
and cocurricular involvements and leadership
on perceptions of campus climate for LGBTQ
people. In future studies scholars may consider
deconstructing student involvements and
leadership opportunities to understand the
relationship with campus climate experiences.
Methodologically, researchers should
continue to embrace all research designs and
approaches when examining the experiences
of LGBTQ individuals in higher education.
In her seminal article examining queer theory
uses in higher education research, Renn (2010)
815

wrote, “I call for increased use of queer theory
and new research approaches at the same time
that I call for continuation of large-scale
studies” (p. 138). Scholars should consider the
use of critical quantitative research designs
with large-scale studies about LGBTQ people
to advance policy decisions and practice in
higher education while also employing quali-
tative inquiry to develop rich narratives from
participants’ voices (Garvey, 2014). Scholars
may consider using a nested model, under-
standing that national, regional, state, city/
town, institutional, and individual variables
are inextricably related to each other. Further-
more, scholars should continue to advocate for
sociohistorical and developmental analyses of
marginalized student populations to under-
stand generational influences on campus climate.
CLOSING
In this article, we presented findings from 3,121
LGBTQ graduates across 70 graduation years
in regard to their experiences as undergraduate
REFERENCES
Beemyn, B. J., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender
people. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through
space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H.
Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context:
Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619-647).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dunn, T. R. (2010). Remembering Matthew Shepard: Violence,
identity, and queer counterpublic memories. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 13, 611-651.
Evans, N. J. (2000). Creating a positive learning environment
for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students. In M. B. Baxter
Magolda (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning:
No. 82. Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturity:
Incorporating students’ worldview and identities into the
learning process (pp. 81-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
816
Garvey, Sanders, & Flint
students. We focused on generational contexts
(i.e., macrosystems and chronosystems)
individual experiences (i.e., microsystems and
mesosystems), and institutional influences (i.e.,
exosystems and macrosystems) that influenced
campus climate perceptions for LGBTQ
undergraduate students. Through examining
campus climate experiences across generational
and sociohistorical contexts, we have gained
insight into the unique contexts for LGBTQ
people across graduation year and within
varied individual experiences and institutional
environments. These findings illuminate
the centrality of academic and cocurricular
involvements as well as geographic elements for
colleges and universities. Implications highlight
potential avenues for change and progress within
higher education practice, policy, and research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to
Jason C. Garvey, Assistant Professor of Higher Education
and Student Affairs, Department of Leadership and
Developmental Sciences, University of Vermont, 210B
Mann Hall, Burlington, VT 05405; jcgarvey@uvm.edu
Evans, N. J., & Herriott, T. K. (2004). Freshmen impressions:
How investigating the campus climate for LGBT students
affected four freshmen students. Journal of College Student
Development, 45, 316-332.
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach
populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 790-797.
Fine, L. E. (2012). The context of creating space: Assessing the
likelihood of college LGBT center presence. Journal of College
Student Development, 53, 285-299.
Garvey, J. C. (2014). Demographic information collection in
higher education and student affairs survey instruments:
Developing a national landscape for intersectionality.
In D. Mitchell, C. Simmons, & L. Greyerbiehl (Eds.),
Intersectionality and higher education: Research, theory, and
praxis (pp. 201-216). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Garvey, J. C. (2016). Conceptualization and validation of factors
for LGBTQ alumni philanthropy. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(6), 748-754.
Garvey, J. C., & Drezner, N. D. (2013). Alumni giving in the
LGBTQ communities. In N. D. Drezner (Ed.), Expanding
Journal of College Student Development
Generational LGBTQ Campus Climate
the donor base: Critical issues for higher education philanthropy
and fundraising (pp. 74-86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Garvey, J. C., & Inkelas, K. K. (2012). Exploring relationships
between sexual orientation and satisfaction with faculty and
staff interactions. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1167-1190.
Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. R. (2015). The influence of campus
experiences on the level of outness among trans-spectrum and
queer-spectrum students. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 374-393.
Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2014). An examination
of campus climate for LGBTQ community college students.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39,
527-541. doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.861374
Gillespie, W. (2008). Thirty-five years after Stonewall: An
exploratory study of satisfaction with police among gay,
lesbian, and bisexual persons at the 34th annual Atlanta pride
festival. Journal of Homosexuality, 55, 619-647.
Gortmaker, V. J., & Brown, R. D. (2006). Out of the college
closet: Differences in perceptions and experiences among
out and closeted lesbian and gay students. College Student
Journal, 40, 606-619.
Gray, A. & Desmarais, S. (2014). Not all one and the same:
Sexual identity, activism, and collective self-esteem. The
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23, 116-122.
Hill, R., & Grace, A. P. (Eds.). (2009). Adult and higher
education in queer contexts: Power, politics, and pedagogy.
Chicago, IL: Discovery Association.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college
student learning and personal development. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 320-334.
Marine, S. B. (2011). Stonewall’s legacy: Bisexual, gay, lesbian,
and transgender students in higher education. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 37(4). San Francisco, CA: Wiley Periodicals.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook. San Francisco, CA: SAGE.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects
students, Volume 2. A third decade of research. San Fransisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rankin, S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities.
In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), New Directions for Student Services: No.
111. Gender identity and sexual orientation: Research, policy,
and personal (pp. 17-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rankin, S. R., Hesp, G. A., & Weber, G. N. (2013). Experiences
and perceptions of gay and bisexual fraternity members from
1960 to 2007: A cohort analysis. Journal of College Student
Development, 54, 570-590.
September 2017 ◆ vol 58 / no 6
Rankin, S., Weber, G. N., Blumenfeld, W. J., & Frazer, S.
(2010). State of higher education for LGBT people. Charlotte,
NC: Campus Pride.
Rankin, S., Weber, G., & Garvey, J. (2015). LGBTQIAA:
From invisibility to visibility: Queer-spectrum and trans-
spectrum college students. In P. A. Sasso & J. L. DeVitis
(Eds.), Today’s college students: A reader (pp. 165-182). New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
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.
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher
education: The state and status of the field. Educational
Researcher, 39, 132-141.
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing
research on college student peer culture. Journal of Higher
Education, 74, 261-291.
Semaan, S., Lauby, J., & Liebman, J. (2002). Street and
network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction
interventions. AIDS Reviews, 4, 213-223.
Sue, D. W., (2010). Microagressions in everyday life: Race, gender,
and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Swank, E., Fahs, B., & Frost, D. M. (2013). Region, social
identities, and disclosure practices as predictors of heterosexist
discrimination against sexual minorities in the United States.
Sociological Inquiry, 83, 238-258.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of the mind. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with
diversity at liberal arts colleges: Another claim for distinctive-
ness. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 169-192.
Woodford, M., Krentzman, A., & Gattis, M. (2012). Alcohol
and drug use among sexual minority college students and
their heterosexual counterparts: The effects of experiencing
and witnessing incivility and hostility on campus. Substance
Abuse and Rehabilitation, 3, 11-23.
817