NASPA Journal

ISSN: 0027-6014 (Print) 1559-5455 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarp19

On Being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual in Student

Affairs

James M. Croteau & Julianne S. Lark

To cite this article: James M. Croteau & Julianne S. Lark (1995) On Being Lesbian, Gay, or
Bisexual in Student Affairs, NASPA Journal, 32:3, 189-197

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.11072384

Published online: 02 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarp20
 NASPAJOURNAL, VOL. 32, No.3, SPRING 1995

On Being Lesbian, Gay, or

Bisexual in Student Affairs:
A National Survey of
Experiences on the Job
James M. Croteau and Julianne S. Lark

•
The authors present results of a study surveying lesbian, gay,
and bisexual student affairs professionals about work
experiences related to their sexual orientation.

Over the past several years, the student affairs literature has begun to
attend to lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns (e.g., D' Augelli, 1991; Evans &
Levine, 1990; Evans & Wall, 1991; Liddell & Douvanis, 1994). Only two
sources, however, provide any information about student affairs profes-
sionals who themselves are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Cullen and Smart
(1991) presented an overview of this group's concerns, while Croteau and
von Destinon (1994) offered the only empirical research published to date,
focusing specifically on their experiences searching for jobs. Of particular
relevance to the study presented below, Croteau and von Destinon found
that lesbian, gay, and bisexual professionals who were more open about
their sexual orientation reported more discrimination in job searches.
This study surveys lesbian, gay, and bisexual student affairs professionals
about work experiences related to their sexual orientation. Its primary pur-
pose is to provide the first descriptive information available about this
group's job experiences. Additionally, the research extends examination of
the relationship between discrimination and one's openness about sexual
orientation to actual employment.

James M. Croteau, Assistant Professor, Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology,

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5195. Julianne S. Lark, Doctoral Student,
Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
MI 49008-5195.

189
NASPAJoURNAL

METHODS
Instrument and Procedures
The survey instrument constructed for the study contained: (a) demo-
graphic questions; (b) multiple-choice questions and Likert-scale items con-
cerning work experiences related to being lesbian, gay, or bisexual; and (c)
open-ended questions asking for descriptions of homophobic discrimina-
tion encountered while working in student affairs. Additional information
about the specific content of questions appears in the Results section.
All student affairs professionals who were members of the American
College Personnel Association's (ACPA) Standing Committee on Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Awareness were mailed the survey instrument; nonre-
spondents were sent two follow-up mailings. Two-hundred and seventy out
of 408 professionals responded, a return rate of 66%. It is important to note
that sent along with the survey questions were four other questions
requiring open-ended responses for another unrelated survey (Croteau &
Lark, 1994). Thus, given the instrument's length, the return rate was rela-
tively high.

Participants
Sixty-four percent of the 270 respondents identified themselves as lesbian,
gay, or bisexual (n=174); the data collected and reported below concern only
those individuals. Table 1 presents demographic information on individual
respondents. Table 2 provides details about the respondents' campuses and
specific jobs.

TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE

Gender (11=174) Education (11=174)

Female 49% Doctorate 20%
Male 51% Master's Degree 76%
Bachelor'slOther 4~'~

Sexual Orientation (11=174) Degree obtained # years ago (11=114)

Lesbian women 42% M=6.5 S0=5.2
Gay men 45%
Bisexual Women 8%
Bisexual men 6% Number of Years Employed (n=173)
M=8.24 S0=5.6

Race (n=172) Age (11=172)

White 90% M=34.1 S0=7.8
African American 5%
Hispanic or Latino 2%
Native American 1%
Other 2%

Note: The n's for each variable differ due to missing data from respondents.

190
 CROTEAU, LARK

TABLE 2
DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS' CURRENT EMPLOYMENT/INSTITUTION

Current Position (n=173) Institution Type (n=174)

Entry level 18% State university or college 67%
Mid-level 51% Private, nonreligious college 18%
Director/Ass!. V-P 15% Community college 6%
Other (faculty, etc.) 16% Private, religious college 8%
Other 2%

Functional Area (n=173) Size of Institution (n=173)

Residence Life 47% Range=400 to 58,000
Counseling 12% M=17,883
Student Activities 12% 80=14,256
Multiple Area 9% Mdn=14,000
Student Affairs Admin. 5%
Career Services 4% Geographic Area (n=174)
No other area has >2% of sample. Southwest 18%
Northwest 5%
Midwest 30%
Southeast 14%
Northeast 33%

Note: The n's for each variable differ due to missing data from respondents.

RESULTS
In the first part of this section, we report quantitative data under two
subheadings: (a) descriptive data on responses to each question, and
(b) relationships among the degree of openness about sexual orientation,
satisfaction with that degree of openness, discrimination, and overall job
satisfaction. In the second part, we report qualitative data on respondents'
descriptions of homophobic discrimination, also under two subheadings:
(a) discrimination in employment decisions and personnel policies, and (b)
discrimination during regular work activities.

Quantitative Data
Descriptive Data on Responses to Each Question. When asked to rate
their agreement with the statement, "For now, I ,am satisfied with my job,"
three-quarters of the professionals in this study either agreed (49%) or
strongly agreed (26%). Eleven percent were undecided, 8% disagreed, and
6% strongly disagreed. Forty-seven percent reported that all or most people
in their work setting know about their sexual orientation, 32% that some
know, 15% that only close friends in the work setting know, and 6% that no
one knows. Seventy-two percent reported being satisfied or very satisfied
with the degree to which they are open about their sexual orientation at
work, 15% reported being neutral about their openness, and 14% were dis-
satisfied or very dissatisfied. Forty-five percent of the sample reported that
the degree of support in their work environment very much influences job
satisfaction, 41 % reported support somewhat influences job satisfaction,
and 14% indicated such support influences job satisfaction little or none.
191
NASPAJOURNAL

Thirty-eight percent reported having experienced discrimination or

harassment at work more than twice, 8% reported two incidents, 14%
reported one, and 41 % reported never having been discriminated against or
harassed. Respondents were asked whether they expect harassment or dis-
crimination at work in the future because of their sexual orientation. Eleven
percent responded "definitely yes," 33% "probably yes," 44% "probably
not," and 12% "definitely not."
Relationships Among the Degree of Openness about Sexual
Orientation, Satisfaction with That Degree of Openness, Discrimination,
and Overall Job Satisfaction. Due to the categorical nature of these four
variables and their measurement by single items, chi-square analyses
seemed the most appropriate means of examining relationships among cer-
tain pairs. In order to have adequate cell counts, levels within each variable
were collapsed to reduce the number of levels/ cells involved (see note in
Table 3).

TABLE 3
PERCENTAGES OF RESPONDENTS COMPLETELY OPEN VS. NOT COMPLETELY OPEN
ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION ACROSS LEVELS OF DISCRIMINATION,
JOB SATISFACTION, AND SATISFACTION WITH OPENNESS

Percentage of Respondents Reporting Being

Variable Completely Open (Open) vs. Not Completely Open (Not) df n x'
Within Each Level of the Variable

Level of Never OncelTwice More than Twice

Discrimination 34% (Open) vs. 66% (Not) 49% (Open) vs. 51% (Not) 62% (Open) vs. 38% (Not) 2 168 10.36'

Job Satisfied Not satisfied/Unsure

Satisfaction 51% (Open) vs. 49% (Not) 35% (Open) vs. 65% (Not) 1 171 3.27

Satisfaction Satisfied Not satisfied/Unsure

with Openness 63% (Open) vs. 37% (Not) 4% (Open) vs. 96% (Not) 1 172 49.58'

Note: Categories for openness about sexual orientation were collapsed into completely open
(everyone knows) versus not completely open (some, a few, or noone knows). Categories for
the extent of discrimination were collapsed into never, once combined with twice, and more
than twice. Categories for overall satisfaction with the job and satisfaction with the degree of
openness at work were collapsed into those satisfied and those not satisfied (neutral, unsure.
or dissatisfied).
*p<.01.

Table 3 presents findings concerning the relationship of degree of

openness about sexual orientation to (a) discrimination, (b) overall job
satisfaction, and (c) satisfaction with degree of openness. The statistically
significant relationship between degree of openness and discrimination
indicates that those who reported never having been discriminated against
are less likely to be those who reported being completely open about their
sexual orientation. Those reporting more than two instances of discrimina-
tion are more likely to be those who reported being completely open. The
statistically significant relationship between degree of openness and satis-
faction with that degree of openness indicates that those who reported being
192
 CROTEAU, LARK

satisfied with their degree of openness are more likely to be those who
reported being completely open. Those who reported not being satisfied are
almost never those who reported being completely open. The relationship
between degree of openness and overall job satisfaction is not statistically
significant. One further chi-square analysis not reported in Table 3 was per-
formed, which found that the relationship between overall job satisfaction
and the extent of reported discrimination is not statistically significant
(X2(2, 166)=2.14, p>.05).

Qualitative Data on Descriptions of Discrimination

Of the 174 lesbian, gay, and bisexual professionals who responded to the
survey, 106 (61%) gave descriptions of homophobic discrimination or
harassment they had experienced on the job. The qualitative data were
analyzed to "develop larger categories, patterns, or themes" (Whitt, 1991,
p. 412), and to describe, not quantify, those themes. The goal of the analysis
was to develop a description that categorizes and illustrates the variety of
forms such discrimination takes in the student affairs workplace. Incidents
are grouped into two general categories: (a) discrimination in employment
decisions and personnel policies, and (b) discrimination during regular
work activities.
Discrimination in Employment Decisions and Personnel Policies.
Incidents of discrimination in employment decisions involve job evalua-
tions, salary increases, and promotions. For instance, one respondent wrote,
"[The chief student affairs officer] gave me an unsatisfactory evaluation
after I was 'outed.' One month earlier I was given a five-year contract and
I'd had three excellent evaluations before then." Another respondent
reported the following:
When I was about to be promoted to Director of Training some
staff raised issues about whether an "open lesbian" could attract
prospective intern applicants (especially ethnic interns). In spite of
this concern, I was promoted. I felt tremendous hurt/loss when this
homophobic concern was raised by colleagues.
Discrimination in employment decisions also involves incidents of actual
or threatened job loss. One respondent reported, "A chief student affairs
officer asked me to resign immediately, or at least seek counseling to change
my lifestyle, after I confirmed his suspicions about my sexuality."
Respondents also mentioned personnel policies that are discriminatory,
such as those failing to recognize partners for the purpose of benefits (e.g.,
insurance, retirement packages, campus facility privileges). Discriminatory
policies mentioned most frequently are those prohibiting live-in staff from
living with their same-sex partners in the residence halls. One respondent
explained:
At four different institutions where I have worked, the policy for
live-in staff positions has been that you must be "legally married"
in order to have someone live with you. This excludes gay, lesbian,
or unmarried heterosexual couples from these living accommoda-
tions and, therefore, the jobs themselves in some cases.
193
NASPAJoURNAL

Incidents involving discrimination during interviewing and hiring are

excluded from this summary due to space constraints and Croteau and von
Destinon's (1994) previous study describing job search discrimination in detail.
Discrimination During Regular Work Activities. Reports of discrimina-
tion during work activities are discussed within four subcategories: (a) overt
expressions of homophobic sentiment, as well as harassment or violence; (b)
actions perceived to arise out of homophobia but not involving direct
expressions of homophobic sentiment; (c) attempts to interfere with respon-
dents' choices on how open to be about their sexual orientation; and (d)
actions that exclude lesbian, gay, or bisexual professionals or their concerns.
Incidents of overt expressions, harassment, or violence include the case
reported by one professional whose "office was vandalized with several
comments, graffiti, objects, etc." The words fag, homo, and bugger were
written and a "condom covered with chocolate sauce" placed on the door. A
resident director reported receiving "notes under my door calling me
'dyke,' 'bitch,' and 'lezzie.'" While these notes were from students, the
source of harassment is sometimes other staff members. One respondent
wrote, "I was harassed by other staff members after I came out in a live-in
residence hall job. They said insulting things to my face and tried to get me
fired because [they thought] it was 'inappropriate' that I have a live-in job."
Other respondents reported hearing derogatory comments directed at
lesbian, gay, or bisexual people in general rather than any particular profes-
sional. One whose colleagues did not know the person's sexual orientation
wrote, "I hear comments that people around me make about gays and les-
bians when they think they are in a straight group. There are really some
nasty attitudes towards gays and lesbians from people we expect to be more
accepting of diversity and differences." Another professional said,
"Homophobic remarks are made constantly, followed by 'We don't mean
you' or 'Please don't get offended. If
'

Discrimination in everyday activities perceived to arise out of homopho-

bia though not containing direct expressions of such sentiment involves
actions in which a gay, lesbian, or bisexual professional is denigrated,
excluded, or otherwise treated badly. Respondents reported a variety of
such actions, with varying levels of certainty that they were due to sexual
orientation. They included: colleagues "refusing to work with me or my
programs (even after 7 years)," being excluded from professional "net-
works" or formal meetings, not being appointed to committees, being
told "You're not a good role model," having one's "views of diversity dis-
counted," being denied financial resources previously allocated for one's
program or area, and having one's general competence questioned. One
respondent explained that discrimination is often "subtle, it has more to do
with opportunities which are not extended, than overt discrimination or
blockage of career path." There were also reports of being treated like a
"token." One respondent described herself as the "token dyke on staff" who
is "required to be the spokesperson for the department without considering
my willingness or interest."
The third subcategory concerns supervisors or colleagues attempting to
interfere with respondents' choices on how open to be about their sexual

194
 CROTEAU, LARK

orientation. One professional reported "being asked not to discuss my 15-

year [same-sex] relationship" while at work. The rationale for such a request
was that mentioning her relationship "would make some individuals
uncomfortable." Other incidents in this subcategory involve lesbian, gay, or
bisexual professionals being outed-colleagues, supervisors, or students
telling others of their sexual orientation when they did not want such infor-
mation disclosed.
The final subcategory involves exclusion of lesbian, gay, or bisexual
professionals or their concerns. In fact, one respondent said, "Most of the
discrimination I have felt is under the category of having lesbian, gay, or
bisexual issues ignored." Examples include avoiding lesbian, gay, or bisex-
ual issues and persons; noninclusive language; and the "heterosexual
assumption" (assuming all persons are heterosexual). Several respondents
also cited social examples in which their same-sex partners are not recog-
nized or included. "Although my staff and colleagues are aware of my
sexual orientation," revealed one, "I am never asked to bring my partner to
events even though [heterosexual] spouses are invited."

DISCUSSION
Key Findings and Their Implications for
Eliminating Discrimination and Increasing Support
Homophobic discrimination appears to be a frequent occurrence in the
work lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual professionals. Sixty percent of this
sample reported experiencing it at least once. Thirty-eight percent reported
two or more such incidents. Forty-four percent thought they will definitely
or probably be discriminated against in the future. The level of discrimina-
tion reported was not related to job satisfaction to a statistically significant
extent. This should not, however, discourage student affairs professionals
from working to eliminate homophobic job discrimination. It may be a neg-
ative factor in job satisfaction but be counterbalanced by other factors in a
manner that would not yield a direct relationship between the two vari-
ables. Those who face discrimination may, for instance, be more open about
their sexual orientation, as was consistent with the data in this study. Being
open may bring fulfillment or satisfaction (as discussed in the following
section). Thus, the positive effect of openness on job satisfaction may
counterbalance the negative effect of discrimination. Perhaps, student
affairs professionals should simply work to eliminate homophobic discrim-
ination because it is ethical to do so (ACPA, 1990).
Results for the qualitative analysis of reported incidents of discrimination
can serve as a self-examination tool for professionals interested in identify-
ing and reducing such incidents. The qualitative data provide an overview
of the specific forms discrimination can take in student affairs work envi-
ronments. Professionals can compare those forms with what happens in
their own work environments and identify needed change.
Although there was no statistically significant relationship between
discrimination and job satisfaction, over 86% of the sample indicated that

195
NASPA JOURNAL

lesbian, gay, and bisexual support in the work environment affects job satis-
faction. The majority of another sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual profes-
sionals reported that the degree of such support would affect their decisions
during a job search (Croteau & von Destinon, 1994). Student affairs divi-
sions wishing to recruit and retain lesbian, gay, and bisexual student affairs
professionals may need to work toward increasing support, as well as elim-
inating discrimination, in job environments.
This study's purpose is mainly descriptive. Thus, with the exception of
the qualitative data concerning discrimination that can indicate what should
be avoided, it does not provide prescriptive information for creating more
supportive environments. In fact, future research focusing on transforming
work environments is much needed. Case study methods (Stage &
Associates, 1992) of student affairs divisions that have become more sup-
portive could provide useful information on what constitutes support for
lesbian, gay, and bisexual professionals and how it can be achieved.
At present, a few resources provide some suggestions on creating more
supportive work environments. Wall and Washington's (reproduced in
Cullen & Smart, 1991) student affairs environment self-assessment ques-
tionnaire lists several concrete factors important to such environments. The
recent ACPA book by Evans and Wall (1991) contains a number of chapters
on how to provide better services to lesbian, gay, and bisexual students in
specific functional areas. Although focused more on services to students, the
suggestions sometimes have relevance or can be applied to making student
affairs work environments more supportive as well. Furthermore, Croteau
and Lark's (1994) qualitative study of student affairs practice includes
descriptions of exemplary and/ or biased practices in regard to lesbian, gay,
and bisexual professionals.

Key Findings and Their Implications for Professionals' Choices on

How Open to Be about Their Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual Orientation
The results of this study indicate that lesbian, gay, and bisexual profes-
sionals make a variety of decisions on how open to be on the job about their
sexual orientation. Those open to all people in their work setting tended to
report experiencing more discrimination in their careers than those less
open. The same seemed to hold true for job searches-professionals made a
variety of choices about how open to be and those who were more open
reported more discrimination (Croteau & von Destinon, 1994).
If professionals who are more open about their sexual orientation have
broader definitions of discrimination than those who are less open, they
might be expected to report more discrimination for that reason alone. It
seems reasonable, however, that those who are more open may face more
discrimination because they are more visible targets. Although openly les-
bian, gay, and bisexual professionals may experience more discrimination,
Croteau and von Destinon (1994) offered strong caution against concluding
it is better to remain secretive about minority sexual orientation. They sug-
gested there may be other factors that merit consideration in a profession-
al's decision about how open to be.

196
 CROTEAU, LARK

This study provides information about two such factors. First, being more
open (and reporting more discrimination) does not mean less job satisfac-
tion. Second, those who are more open are more satisfied with their level of
openness than those who are more closeted. One can speculate that the sat-
isfaction openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual professionals feel about their
choice to be "out" may relate to such factors as freedom from the burden of
keeping a secret; the rewards of serving as role models for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual students; and the gratification of seeing others come to greater
acceptance of homosexuality through knowing an openly gay, lesbian, or
bisexual professional. An informative future study would be one that focus-
es on the advantages and disadvantages of various levels of openness about
sexual orientation.
This study does not explore many of the individualized factors that
lesbian, gay, and bisexual professionals need to consider in making deci-
sions about how open to be on the job (e.g., an individual's personality or
interpersonal style or the level of homophobia in a student affairs division
or office). But the generic portrait of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual student
affairs professionals painted by the study's data may give hope to individ-
uals desiring to be more open in their professional lives. The portrait shows
they may have to struggle with homophobic discrimination, but they are
also likely to feel content with their jobs and satisfied with their choice to be
"out" in student affairs.

References
American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1990). Statement of ethical principles and
standards. Journal of College Student Development, 31(3),197-202.
Croteau, J.M., & von Destinon, M. (1994). A national survey of job search experiences of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual student affairs professionals. Journal of College Student Development, 35(1),
40-45.
Croteau, J.M., & Lark, J.S. (1994). A qualitative investigation of biased and exemplary student affairs
practice concerning lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cullen, M., & Smart, J. (1991). Issues of gay, lesbian, and bisexual student affairs professionals.
In N. Evans & V.A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus
(pp. 179-194). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
D' Augelli, A.R. (1991). Gay men in college: Identity processes and adaptations. Journal of College
Student Development, 32(2),140-146.
Evans, N.J., & Levine, H. (1990). Perspectives on sexual orientation. In L.Y. Moore (Ed.),
Evolving theoretical perspectives on students (New Directions for Student Services, No. 51,
pp. 49-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N.J., & Wall, Y.A. (Eds.). (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus.
Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Liddell, D.L., & Douvanis, c.J. (1994). The social and legal status of gay and lesbian students:
An update for colleges and universities. NASPA Journal, 31(2), 121-129.
Stage, EK., & Associates. (1992). Diverse methods for research and assessment of college students.
Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Whitt, E. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of College
Student Development, 32(5), 406-415.

197