Discrimination Against LGBTQ Students in United States Higher Education:

A Qualitative Case Study

Dissertation Manuscript

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by

KAMRAN SHOAEI

La Jolla, California

July 2021



 




Approval Page
Discrimination Against LGBTQ Students in United States Higher Education:
A Qualitative Case Study

By

KAMRAN SHOAEI

Approved by the Doctoral Committee:

PhD 09/08/2021 | 15:08:18 MST

Cary Gillenwater
Dissertation Chair: INSERT NAME Degree Held Date

Phd 09/08/2021 | 16:54:29 MST

Committee Member: Thomas

INSERTPucci
NAME Degree Held Date

09/08/2021 | 15:05:35 MST

PhD

INSERT NAME
Committee Member: MICHAEL SHRINERDegree Held Date
 Abstract

The importance of understanding diversity in higher education is fundamental to minimizing

discriminatory practices and behaviors against LGBTQ students by other students and faculty on

campuses and in classrooms. The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher

education often mirror and reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender

systems that make up larger societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence

of them that engender discrimination against LGBTQ students. The purpose of this qualitative

case study was to examine LGBTQ students’ experiences and perceptions in higher education

institutions to understand if policies, or even an absence of policies, might be directly or

indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards these students and what affected them

academically. The target population was LGBTQ higher education students. In this case study,

the sample was 10 LGBTQ students. The theoretical framework for this study was “the other.”

The findings indicated how conduct and behaviors of faculty and other students due to the fear of

the other leads to discrimination of LGBTQ students who consequently struggle in their

academic journey due to having a different sexual orientation. The findings also provided a

connection between having ineffective policies and lack of enforcing it which creates an

environment where LGBTQ students feel isolated and unwelcomed in classrooms and on

campuses. This study provides an opportunity for other researchers and higher learning

institutions to use it to further understand the existence of discrimination against LGBTQ

students in classrooms and campuses.

i
 Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the constant and endless support of my true other half when

I faced many challenges while working on my academic journey especially the last two years of

dealing with the pandemic. I also would like to give my highest level of gratitude to my sons

whose presence in my life gave me the positive view in life no matter how difficult it got at

times. It has been a tough and enduring but rewarding journey to go through to reach a point

where I can be able to make a difference in my life and other people’s lives. I am grateful for

this opportunity that different people at Northcentral University granted me, particularly my

Chair, Dr. Cary Gillenwater whose high level of expertise guided me and Subject Matter Expert

Dr. Thomas Pucci whose encouraging and positive tone of communication made my academic

journey achievable. I promise to share my knowledge and experiences with all my present and

future students in my academic endeavors to help them become successful.

ii
 Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 3

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 4
Conceptual Framework Overview ............................................................................................ 5
Nature of Study ......................................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 8
Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................................... 9
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 11

Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 13

United States Higher Education and Diversity ....................................................................... 16
Diversity in Decline ................................................................................................................ 20
Non-Minority Discrimination ................................................................................................. 22
Gender Biases ......................................................................................................................... 23
Sexual Orientation Biases ....................................................................................................... 24
Microaggressions .................................................................................................................... 26
Bystander Intervention ............................................................................................................ 29
Institutions of Higher Education ............................................................................................. 30
Campus Policies ...................................................................................................................... 31
Campus climate ...................................................................................................................... 33
Diversity - The Economic Argument ...................................................................................... 34
Diversity - Politics as a Driver to Change .............................................................................. 35
Diversity Education ................................................................................................................ 36
Multicultural Education .......................................................................................................... 38
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 39

Chapter 3: Research Method ......................................................................................................... 42

Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 42

Research Methodology and Design ........................................................................................ 43
Population and Sample ........................................................................................................... 45
Materials/Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 46
Study Procedures .................................................................................................................... 47
Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................................. 48
Assumptions............................................................................................................................ 48
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 49
Delimitations ........................................................................................................................... 50
Ethical Assurances .................................................................................................................. 51
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 51

iii
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 53

Trustworthiness of the Data .................................................................................................... 54

Findings................................................................................................................................... 56
Evaluation of the Findings ...................................................................................................... 80
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 93

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions .................................................... 96

Implications............................................................................................................................. 98
Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................................. 115
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................ 117
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 117

References ............................................................................................................................. 120

Appendix A: Interview Guide............................................................................................... 134
Appendix B: Survey Questions ............................................................................................. 135
Appendix C: Sample Codes .................................................................................................. 136
Appendix D: Sample Participants’ Responses to Survey ..................................................... 137
Appendix E: IRB Approval Letter ........................................................................................ 139

iv
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Heteronormativity teaches that the only normal way to engage in sexual and romantic

relationships is to be heterosexual, often erasing other possibilities (Boyer, & Lorenzo, 2020). In

other words, heteronormativity is based on accepting sexual attraction among opposite sexes as

the only acceptable normal behavior. School culture and climate, including policies and

practices, reinforce these norms in many ways, including normative assumptions of

heterosexuality embedded in language and evident in curricular materials that reinforce this

conclusion (Watson & Miller, 2012). These beliefs unequally distribute advantages for students

who are gender conforming and heterosexual, including a sense of being normal and valued

(Reynolds & Bamford, 2016). Heteronormativity leads to discrimination of those who do not

conform to this (Steck & Perry, 2018; Burke & Greenfield, 2016).

Discrimination has repercussions for LGBTQ students that can adversely affect them in

the long-term. For example, Woodford, Kulick, Garvey, Sinco, and Hong (2018) argued that

experiencing heterosexist discrimination can contribute to poor psychological well-being. There

were many factors involved in teacher student relationships including teachers' use of biased

language. These associations held for both heterosexual/cisgender as well as LGBTQ students.

Therefore, supportive interventions designed to support and empower LGBTQ young people

may have wider ranging impacts on student success and school climate (Dessel, Goodman, &

Woodford, 2017).

The act of discrimination against diverse populations of students by other students and

faculty can negatively impact the campus environment (Woodford et al., 2018). Conversely,

when students feel safe on campus, it helps them develop capabilities necessary for their

successful social integration that includes academic quality, leading to equal opportunities for
 2

social advancement (Pfeffer, 2015). Although interest in measuring diversity has grown and

institutional definitions of diversity have become increasingly complex, higher education

institutions have continued to rely on magnitude and proportion to represent the role diversity in

learning environments (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). In other words, diversity related

issues have only been addressed where the magnitude and level of impact on learning

environments have become too obvious in a way that its proportion can be measured.

While many U.S. universities and colleges have made concerted strides to improve their

campus diversity representation, discriminatory practices at different institutions had led to a loss

of equal opportunities for minorities (Heilpern, 2015). There seem to be a continuous struggle to

meet diversity requirements outlined in affirmative action and equal opportunity legislation and

policies involving higher education institutions (Means, 2016). According to Pfeffer (2015),

there is a need to protect diverse students against threats and harassments by other students at

their campuses. The role of diversity in the success of creating an environment where diverse

students feel safe depends on establishing more positive attitudes towards acceptance of

differences (Warikoo & de Novais, 2015). Leaders on campus are integral in ensuring a safe

climate for all students; however, creating a climate for learning that supports and safeguards

equal opportunities for all students regardless of their diverse backgrounds is a complex and

multifaceted issue (Enyeart-Smith, Wessel, & Polacek, 2017; Steck & Perry, 2018).

Campus climate entails the attitudes, behaviors, standards, and practices of employees

and students of an institution, particularly those that related to access, inclusion, and respect for

individual and group needs, abilities, and potential (Rankin & Reason, 2017). A negative school

climate for LGBTQ students continues to be a serious concern for communities and educators

(Swanson & Gettinger, 2016; Taylor, Kumi-Yeboah, & Ringlabert, 2016). Furthermore, feeling
 3

victimized by teachers may directly impede LGBTQ students' ability to engage in classroom

learning (Tavarez, 2020; Chiu, Chow, McBride, & Mol, 2016). In other words, having a negative

environment because of discriminatory behaviors by faculty and students could lead to feeling

unwelcomed and isolated lowering students’ engagement in an academic environment (Steck &

Perry, 2018; Linley & Nguyen, 2015). In this case study, data collected from participants helped

address the disparity between policies in place to protect LGBTQ students against discrimination

and effectiveness of those policies in real life applications.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirror and

reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that make up larger

societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender

discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck &

Perry, 2018). This discrimination creates many problems for LGBTQ students ranging from

personal, to social, to academic (Pryor, 2020). Discriminatory practices against LGBTQ students

can leave these students with very few options for establishing meaningful relationships, finding

peers who affirm their experiences, or connecting with others who shared aspects of their

identity (Duran, 2018). Consequently, these students feel isolated and frustrated, which has been

found to negatively affect LGBTQ students’ academically (Reddy, 2018). For example, Dessel et

al. (2017) indicated the important role that sexuality, gender, and race play in shaping academic

and psychosocial outcomes for LGBTQ students in educational settings.

Despite recent improvements for the LGBTQ students in higher education, research is

still needed that explores the connection between discrimination and academic performance

(Reddy, 2018). Also, research is needed to further examine the intersection of campus policies
 4

and LGBTQ students (Dessel et al., 2017). The consequence of not conducting this study was

LGBTQ students’ academics may continue to be affected by discriminatory behaviors against

them while attending higher education institutions.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’ experiences

and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an absence of

policies, might be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards these students

and what affected them academically. The target population was LGBTQ higher education

students. In this case study, the sample was 10 LGBTQ students. Ten participants were

sufficient to achieve data saturation because after data was collected and analyzed, redundancy

was noted. Yin (2015) noted that data saturation is reached when there is high level of

duplication or recurrence of responses from participants. Participants were selected based on

criteria such as being an LGBTQ student, enrolled in college or university in Northern

California.

The data was collected using a survey and phone interviews via zoom. For this study

interviews were conducted via Zoom and included open ended questions to increase the quality

of data received from interviewees. To understand the impact of discriminatory behaviors against

LGBTQ students by other students, faculty and staff, collecting data through interviews and

survey questions appeared as the best logical method since it involved all stakeholders’

perceptions of diversity and LGBTQ students on campus. Having LGBTQ students to share their

experiences provided a direct opportunity for them to express their concerns. After they

completed a survey which was made available through Qualtrics systems about possible

misconduct and discriminatory behaviors to help develop a comprehensive understanding of the

 5

issues involved and to allow a more personal viewpoint to be expressed, participants were

invited to complete their interviews via Zoom.

Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. All surveys and transcriptions of

interviews were entered into NVivo Pro 12 software for coding and data analysis. This analysis

involved a process call coding. Coding in qualitative research was comprised of processes that

enable collected data to be assembled, categorized, and thematically sorted, providing an

organized platform for the construction of meaning. In other words, specific sentences were

assigned a code (see appendix F) so that they could be used as a category to establish related

material into a container called a Node. Therefore, all the references in the project that were

coded to the node could be used.

Conceptual Framework Overview

The conceptual framework supporting this study was the concept of the other (Wasik,

2017). The other is used to define anyone other than oneself. This explanation assumed that

perceiving oneself as like others was more threatening to one’s sense of uniqueness than the

perception of others as similar to oneself. Following this reasoning, one would expect people to

be motivated to reaffirm their uniqueness when they knew they were like others rather than vice

versa (Dang & Mao, 2017). This term can be applied to LGBTQ students by other students that

happen to be heterosexual. Fear of the other was a mental formation that underpins stereotypes

(Ahmed, 2013). Fear of losing identity due to loss of uniqueness could lead to discriminatory

behavior against those who were different. Accordingly, self-other similarity judgment

asymmetry was only found in individuals with a strong need for uniqueness, but not in

individuals with a low need for uniqueness (Dang & Mao, 2017). This concept of othering plays

the role of a psychological defense mechanism that separates individuals from what they fear,
 6

thus removing the psychological danger outside of themselves and rendering it manageable

(Ahmed, 2013).

Since discrimination is a widespread phenomenon affecting nearly everyone who differed

in the slightest from the idealized majority, clearly, surface elements of race, gender, and sexual

orientation are only excused for a deeper motivation for division (Arismendi & Penaluna, 2016).

The other can be applied to any group which was being stereotyped and used as a psychological

scapegoat for root issues. As Ahmed (2013) illustrated, the others were a label often given to

those who could pose a threat to the status quo. This narrative of threat to status quo worked

through othering; the LGBT students on campus who were not us, endanger normalized beliefs

because these individuals did not belong to the acceptable lifestyle and mindset.

Those groups who embraced fear of the other through discrimination became part of a

collective group with shared ideas. When those with a shared group mindset encountered the

chosen other, the result was systemic discrimination and institutionalized prejudice (Fiske,

2018). For instance, in previous studies examined the influence of knowing heterosexual students

view LGBT students as stereotype threats to their beliefs especially when they were with their

own peers leading to discriminatory behaviors (Dessel et al., 2017). Some of the factors

associated with intended discriminatory behaviors against LGBT students by heterosexual

students involved stereotyping of this group that were considered as different peer-familiarity

likely influential given the severity of these concerns (Dessel, et al., 2017). When this type of

conforming occurs, stereotypes and the discrimination which fuels them, were reinforced in

vicious cycles of threats and violence (Duran, 2018).

 7

Nature of Study

Qualitative methodology was used to collect data because it provided an opportunity to

gain an understanding of underlying reasons and motivations, provided insights into the setting

of a problem, generated ideas and/or hypotheses for later research, and uncovers prevalent trends

in thought and opinion (Park & Park, 2016). Furthermore, qualitative methodology helped

understand and explore the perspectives and experiences of participants in their lived context

(Park & Park, 2016). This methodology was appropriate for this study because the study was

premised on participants’ experiences and perspectives of discrimination on their campuses.

Case study design was the specific qualitative design chosen. Yin (2015) proposed that

case study design should be considered when the focus of the study was to answer “how” and

“why” questions. In this case study, I tried to find answers for both how and why discrimination

against LGBTQ students happen in higher education institutions by creating specific questions

for interviews and surveys. Furthermore, case study was chosen because it allows for multiple

perspectives of a phenomenon using multiple data collection methods (Yin, 2015). This

qualitative case study facilitates exploration of a phenomenon involving discrimination against

LGBTQ students in higher education by other students, faculty, and staff within its context using

a variety of data sources such as interviews and completion of survey questions. Therefore, this

ensures that the issue was not explored in one dimension, but rather a variety of ways where

LGBTQ students got to share their experiences with the researcher allowing for multiple facets

of the phenomenon to be revealed and understood.

Thematic analysis was the method analysis employed in this study. Theme was the main

product of data analysis that yields practical results in the field of study (Kiger, & Varpio, 2020).

Theme could be used as attribute, element, and concept (Kiger, & Varpio, 2020). As an implicit
 8

topic that organized a group of repeating ideas, it enabled researchers to answer the study

question. It is considered a thread of underlying meaning implicitly dis-covered at the

interpretative level and elements of subjective understandings of participants.

Research Questions

The research questions for this case study were:

RQ1. How do campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’

experiences in higher education?

RQ2. What were LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their higher education experience as it

related to their sexual orientation?

RQ3. What influence, if any, did LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in

higher education have on their academic success?

Significance of the Study

This case study was important because the consequences of discrimination continue to

grow more extreme even as the reality of the growth of diversity continued to grow more

pervasive and unavoidable (Dotson, 2018). While much research has been done on the

phenomenon, and much training and methodology for improvement based on that research, little

improvement has been seen on U.S. college campuses involving LGBT students’ campus

experiences (Waling & Roffee, 2018). There was a persistent need for incisive and in-depth

understanding on the roots of discrimination across all lines of difference especially sexual

orientation to protect all student’s rights, academic outcomes, and to address violence on campus

(Worthington et al., 2014).

This study could empower students, collegiate administrators, and researchers to cultivate

insightful methods of diversity training to advocate more engagements which had the potential to
 9

improve relations between all students on campus regardless of their sexual orientation. More

research could be conducted to better understand and address the challenges of LGBTQ student

discrimination in higher education institutions, so university leaders were able to better ensure a

safe environment where there was learning parity for all students (Patel, 2017; Sugimura, 2015).

Definitions of Key Terms

Cisgender. The term "cisgender" refers to an individual whose gender identity was the

same as their sex assigned at birth (Wichaidit, Assanangkornchai, & Chongsuvivatwong, 2021).

Cisnormative. Cisnormative was the assumption that all, or almost all, individuals were

cisgender. Although transgender-identified people comprise a fairly small percentage of the

human population, many trans people and allies considered it to be offensive to presume that

everyone was cisgender unless otherwise specified (Kosciw et al, 2013).

Heteronormativity. Heteronormativity was a concept developed within queer theory that

deconstructed heterosexuality from a 'natural' entity (Klittmark, Garzón, Andersson, & Wells,
2019).

Heterosexism. Discrimination or prejudice against non-heterosexual people based on the

belief that heterosexuality was the only normal and natural expression of sexuality (Woodford,

Kolb, et al., 2014).

Rawlsian. Rawlsian pertains to John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) who was an American

political philosopher in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as fairness described a society

of free citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system

(Adashi et al., 2018).

Stereotype Threat. Stereotype threat was when a person in a stereotyped group

unconsciously begun to emulate the characteristics projected upon them (Cragun et al., 2016).
 10

Summary

As diverse populations of students with many different cultures and backgrounds in

higher education grew, the need for tolerance and acceptance towards diverse students becoming

more apparent (Dessel et al., 2017). For example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

(LGBTQ) college students at campuses. The problem addressed by this study was institutes of

higher education often mirror and reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary

gender systems that make up larger societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an

absence of them that engender discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020;

Dessel et al. 2017; Steck & Perry, 2018). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to

examine LGBTQ students’ experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to

understand if policies, or even an absence of policies, might be directly or indirectly contributing

to any discrimination towards these students and what affected them academically. The

conceptual framework supporting this study was the concept of the other. The other was used to

define anyone other than oneself (Ahmed, 2013). This explanation assumes that perceiving

oneself as like others was more threatening to one’s sense of uniqueness than the perception of

others as like oneself (Ahmed, 2013). The significance of this study was to provide an

opportunity for other researchers and higher learning institutions to use it to further understand

the existence of discrimination against LGBTQ students in classrooms and campuses. Chapter

two presents the literature review.

 11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

There are many different forms of discrimination against diverse population of students

attending higher education institutions. The discriminatory behaviors could be based on

students’ cultural, socioeconomic, and sexual orientations as well as ethnicity and personal

beliefs (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017). The problem addressed by this study was

institutes of higher education often mirror and reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity

and binary gender systems that make up larger societal norms leading to policies and practices,

or even an absence of them that engender discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer &

Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck & Perry, 2018). While overt instances of harassment and

violence towards LGBTQ individuals have decreased in recent years, subtler forms of

heterosexism still shape the social and academic experience of students in higher education

contexts (Amodeo, Esposito, & Bacchini, 2020). Furthermore, encountering discrimination on

campus can interfere with the academic development of sexual minority students. In fact, due to

the psychological stress associated with discrimination LGBTQ students might withdraw, both

psychologically and physically, from their institution, and thus developed negative interactions

on campus, damaging perceptions of the overall academic experience, and negative overall

perceptions of campus climate (Amodeo et al., 2020).

Historically, much of the progress for LGBTQ inclusion and equity work on college

campuses could be attributed to the success of college students advocating for inclusion as

organized student groups (Linder, 2019). Yet, strategies to advocate for LGBTQ equity among

faculty and staff were underexplored or unrepresented in scholarship (Pryor, 2020). The purpose

of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’ experiences and perceptions in

higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an absence of policies, might be

 12

directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards these students and what affected

there might be on them academically. Although this case study focused on discrimination against

LGBTQ students by other students and faculty, the objective of this literature review was to

demonstrate the relationships and connections between discrimination in different forms and

other related issues including changing campus perception, role of faculty and gender biases

against students. Conducting research required finding related and credible sources including

other research papers to accomplish the literature review.

The literature reviews involved utilization of many different search engines and databases

including Northcentral University’s library, scholarly peered reviewed journals, articles to

support the case study. Key terms used in the search engines were diversity, LGBTQ students,

academic performance, violence against minorities, campus safety, higher education,

discrimination, multiculturalism, learning environments, student learning. Therefore, references

related to diversity in higher education were selected as the basis to not only do comparison of

different points of view while presenting and demonstrating the importance of understanding the

role of diversity in the higher education, but also show how discriminatory practices against

students of different sexual orientation could have negative impact on their ability to achieve

their academic goals. The article and journals of mainly peer reviewed nature were used to

demonstrate how different forms of discrimination in higher education could be identified while

the focus remains in mistreatment and discrimination against LGBTQ students by other students

and faculty on campus and in classrooms.

 13

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework supporting this study was based on the concept of the other.

The other is the term to define anyone other than oneself (Wasik, 2017). This explanation

assumed that viewing oneself as like others is more problematic to one’s sense of uniqueness

than the perception of others as the same to oneself. Following this reasoning, one would expect

people to be encouraged to confirm their uniqueness when they knew they were like others rather

than vice versa (Dang & Mao, 2017). This term could be implemented in cases like LGBTQ

students by other students that happen to be different (heterosexual). Fear of the other was a

mental formation that underpins stereotypes (Ahmed, 2013). To fear others just because they are

different could influence both aggressors and victims. For instance, many LGBTQ people could

not be themselves in their daily lives (Tillman et al., 2016). Tests of racial differences in fear for

others showed substantial differences (with Whites having higher fear for others than Blacks),

but there were relatively smaller differences in fear of crime and risk of crime (with Blacks

reporting higher averages) and fear of mistreatment due to gender differences (with male

homosexuals have more fears than female homosexuals) (Rader & Cossman, 2011; Ray &

Parkhill, 2021; Sprong, Chowdhury, Dallas & Buono, 2017). Constrained behaviors where

Whites reported more participation demonstrates the level of fear towards others (Rader &

Cossman, 2011). However, the overall victimization status demonstrated that one in five

individuals reported having been a victim of a crime including physical violence or sexual

assault (Rader & Cossman, 2011). Interestingly, as part of connection between lower memory

capacity and ability to accomplish inhibition of fear involved in discrimination, there seemed to

be a greater degree of manifesting fear of others in anxious individuals leading to their illogical

behaviors towards people that were different from them (Laing, Burns & Baetu, 2019).
 14

Furthermore, anxiety in individuals particularly associated with poorer learning. Such

relationships suggest that the connection between anxiety and fear of others as a complex issue

leading to discriminatory behaviors warrants mediation of higher-order cognitive faculties

(Laing, et al., 2019).

Individuals with discriminatory behavior and deficits in responding to emotional

stimuli, particularly fear-related stimuli lead to judgments about behaviors that cause fear of

others (Marsh & Cardinale, 2012). Such issues are associated with impairments in identifying

behaviors that cause fear and in judging the moral acceptability of these behaviors (Marsh &

Cardinale, 2012). For example, disgust might be an emotional response to gay men’s violation

of heteronormativity and lead to hostile conduct toward gay men to advocate intergroup

boundaries and obstacles (Ray & Parkhill, 2021). Ratings of emotional consequences and moral

acceptability also correlated, as such that individuals who less accurately identified behaviors

leading to fear also judge these behaviors to be more morally acceptable (Marsh & Cardinale,

2012; Ray & Parkhill, 2021).

Understanding that frightening others was unacceptable relied on understanding this type

of behavior's emotional consequences, and had significance for understanding the relationship

between psychopathy, empathy, and antisocial behavior (Marsh & Cardinale, 2012). Rader and

Cossman (2011) examined U.S. college students' fear of crime for others which overall,

suggested that younger individuals' fear of crime for others was gendered, associated with living

status for men and personal fear for women linked to racial differences. The cognitive models

indicated that people with social phobia and paranoia shared a common fear of others (Stopa,

Denton, Wingfield, & Taylor, 2013). Current cognitive models assume that people with social

phobia hold beliefs about the self as flawed, which are activated in social situations, and trigger
 15

anxiety (Ray & Parkhill, 2021; Stopa et al., 2013). Cognitive models of paranoia also assume

that problematic core beliefs about the self and about others contribute to an enduring

vulnerability to paranoia (Sellers, Emsley, Wells & Morrison, 2018; Stopa et al., 2013).

According to Sellers et al. (2018), it was rapidly recognized that cognitive paranoia and its

severity could be observed among general population base on psychological factors leading to

distress and negative effects linked to anxiety and depression.

The best evidence of these models proposes that for vulnerable individuals, stressful

situations trigger arousal and generate anomalous cognitive experiences, such as thoughts being

heard as voices and actions experienced as unintended (Stopa et al., 2013). The paranoid belief

was reached as an attempt to make sense of these experiences (Stopa et al., 2013). People with

social phobia described a sense of imminent danger and corresponding desire for immediate

safety (Stopa et al., 2013). Those individuals with paranoia and fear of others had tendency to

develop elaborate constructions such as their beliefs around their fears which was not unusual

(Stopa et al., 2013). According to Neel (2014), a functional approach to understand how

members of different groups perceived emotional expressions on others could demonstrate the

how individuals were afraid of others in relation to those individuals’ looks and appearances.

For example, prejudice toward Black men was driven largely by fear, whereas prejudice toward

obese people was driven largely by disgust. Members of these groups might thus come to be

'expert' in perceiving fear or disgust in others' faces, depending on the specific emotional

prejudices others felt toward their group (Neel, 2014).

The stereotype (us versus other) that a group posed a particular threat emerges from an

interplay of evolved mechanisms with the current cultural environment (Neel, 2014). For

example, perceiving that a target posed a violence threat likely emerges from an evolved
 16

sensitivity to, evolutionarily stable cues such as outgroup maleness (Neel, 2014). To better

manage their own outcomes, people who were often targets of threat-based prejudice would

benefit from being prepared to respond to such prejudices. Since threat-based prejudices differ

in their emotional content, and perhaps emotional expressions as well, different target groups

might come to be attuned to perceiving specific emotional expressions including fear towards

others (Neel, 2014). According to Ray and Parkhill (2021), researchers tried to create a

theoretical framework to demonstrate the specific function of behaviors like extreme discontent

towards others with different sexual preferences like gay individuals, suggesting that as part of

evolutionary process, humans have developed a behavioral pattern to protect against threats.

The conceptual framework is based on the concept of the other, which appears to be the

basis for discriminatory behaviors and conducts toward others who could be viewed as different

in terms of race, cultures, and sexual orientation. In other words, seeing other individuals as

outside of normative mindset or their comfort zone was the basis for individuals to view the

differences as a threat to their beliefs leading to aggressive and unwelcoming behaviors. Such

conduct and behavior towards individuals of different beliefs and sexual orientation could lead to

aggressive behavior based of fear of the other.

United States Higher Education and Diversity

In the U.S., the concept of diversity has a long history given the fact that it was a nation

of immigrants. However, higher education in the U.S. has come a long way since 18th century

where religion provided guidelines for the making of colonial colleges as it was demonstrated in

the 1st Great Awakening of the 1730s that continues all the way to 1770s by incorporating many

Protestant churches when they all wanted their own brand of education. However, the perception
 17

and views towards religious views and its roles changed in a way that higher education

transformed under separation of church and state (Fang-Yi & Hendrix, 2016).

Between 1941 and 1945 colleges and universities in the United States took part in a

complicated World War II. This track led to long-term changes and restructuring of the higher

education where in 1947, the President's Commission on Higher Education in a Democracy

proclaimed that funding from federal agencies for research should continue. Nevertheless,

higher education institutes must follow federally mandated rules and regulations to be qualified

as the recipient of federal funds including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits

institutions and employers including higher education from discriminating against one’s sex,

ethnicity, national origin, and personal beliefs. It generally applied to employers with 15 or more

employees, including federal, state, and local governments (Hogan, 2021).

Now-a-days, the U.S. post-secondary, or higher, education system was one of the most

diverse in the world, if not the single most diverse in the world. Levels of diversity, were of

course, not equal between educational institutions, especially when it came to post-secondary

education and the factor of free choice of college and university students was factored into

enrollment decisions (Núñez, Crisp, & Elizondo, 2016). These challenges included a lack of

diverse education staff which supports isolation and division (Fang-Yi, 2016; Kaltenbaugh,

Parsons, Brubaker, Bonadio & Locust, 2017). In other words, some campuses in the United

States appeared more segregated than others, whether such segregation was purposeful, by

chance, or a result of location and/or specialization. For the most part, however, the majority of

United States post-secondary education institutions were relatively diverse compared to decades

of the nation’s past and compared to other nations.

 18

There were multiple ways of measuring diversity, some statistically complex, and others

more simplified; some measurement methods took years and great degrees of complex study to

design (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Every university, whether public, private, liberal

arts, technical, or specialized in some other manner, was actually ranked each year by

organizations such as US News, to showcase each organization’s level of inclusive diversity in

their student body (Campus ethnic diversity, 2018). This list was utilized by students and staff

alike to vet institutions that an individual might be most interested in attended, often due to the

desire of inclusion according to their individual demographic characteristics (McLaughlin &

McLaughlin, 2015). Students might not enjoy the full educational experience if they did not feel

comfortable approaching their professors. Next, a lack of diversity in the curriculum which

inadequately represents diverse populations, and encourages lack of empathy between cultures

(Miles, Henrichs-Beck & Bourn, 2014). Some students and faculty might also seek more diverse

organizations concertedly to widen his/her own admittedly sheltered cultural views and sexual

orientations where LGBTQ students were not targeted for their sexual preferences.

The top five diverse public national universities were as followed: Rutgers University in

Newark, New Jersey, the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Andrew University in

Berrien Springs, Michigan, the Stanford University in Stanford, California, and the University of

Houston in Houston, Texas (Campus ethnic diversity, 2018). The top five least diverse national

universities were: St John Fisher College in Rochester, New York, Miami University – Oxford in

Oxford, Ohio, East Tennessee University in Johnson City, Tennessee, Clarkson University in

Potsdam, New York, and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah (Levin, 2015). It was also

important to note that, right, wrong, or indifferent, such diversity rankings excluded

predominantly African American post-secondary educational institutions from its calculations, so

 19

as not to skew the data (Cabrera et al., 2016). Thus, institutions that were predominantly

Caucasian were included in the listing of the least diverse organizations, while predominantly

African American institutions were not included in that same list (“Campus ethnic diversity”,

2018).

It was not surprising that the most diverse universities were stationed in the most diverse

states of the U.S. Specifically, the top universities for diversity rankings of student inclusion

were in the states of Texas and California (Levin, 2015). The least diverse institutions were then

found in the least ethnically diverse states (Levin, 2015). Thus, the study of diversity and

discrimination in higher education was worthy of being streamlined even further according for

where an educator or potential educator likely planned to live out the rest of his/her career. It is

hypothesized that those who work in the more diverse states would benefit in the greatest

degrees from study around the subjects of diversity and decreasing discrimination in higher

education, whereas those who planned to live and work in the less diverse states would likely

benefit most from studying the benefits of diversity existing in higher education to begin with,

with the aim of seeking to increase diversity through concerted initiatives (Levin, 2015). It was

also important to note that, right, wrong, or indifferent, such diversity rankings excluded

predominantly African American post-secondary educational institutions from its calculations so

as not to skew the data. Thus, institutions that were predominantly Caucasian were included in

the listing of the least diverse organizations, while predominantly African American institutions

were not included in that same list (“Campus ethnic diversity”, 2018)
 20

Diversity in Decline

Most researchers agree that diversity within higher education institutions is declining and

has been doing so for years (Bourabain & Verhaeghe, 2021; Harris & Ellis, 2020; Núñez et al.,

2016). The implementation of diversity policies has a positive effect on redistribution of power;

however, the initial goal of these policies was answered by empty promises (Bourabain &

Verhaeghe, 2021). Núñez et al. (2016) asserted that this decline had been occurring as a push has

occurred in the higher education market to garner the greatest amount of prestige necessary,

while also striving greatly for high international and domestic scores amongst several ranking

systems that had been established. This tendency had been regarded to as striving, named for the

behavior of all post-secondary institutions to seek to mimic the behaviors, policies, and practices

of the most successful, prestigious universities (Núñez et al., 2016). While this might not be an

ill-regarded shift on the surface, beneath the surface, the practice marginalizes and excluded

minority of statistically representative traits of said minorities.

Yet, additional researchers also discussed the phenomenon of internationalism as it

related to post-secondary education (Bourabain & Verhaeghe, 2021; Harris & Ellis, 2020; Pryor,

2020), which Patel (2017) touted as being a trendy buzzword used to garner attention and

shallow-level respect on behalf of the institutions. Diversity in education happens in

universities, but research has demonstrated diversity training has failed to utilize practical

advances in related fields (Ragins & Ehrhardt, 2021; Wei & Liu, 2019). Patel discussed how the

concept of intentionalism had become a public focus for many post-secondary educational

institutions, while seeking to publicize international education from a corporate standpoint to

gain political, financial, and social reward. Certainly, while seeking to internationalize post-

secondary education, members of minority groups were certain to be increasingly included in

 21

enrollment numbers as a result, however the motivations were not general, thus still exhibiting a

minority barrier in relation to the majority of such marginalized populations (Patel, 2017).

Another viewpoint on failed diversity inclusion initiatives by post-secondary education

institutions was outlined by Ozturgut et al. (2017), who pointed to a problem of most institutions

attempting to frame diversity efforts into one of only two frames: a social justice initiative or a

strategic business decision. Perhaps the most effective experience with diversity was the

experience of having friends of another race to improve one’s mindset towards other individual

and decrease prejudice (Ragins & Ehrhardt, 2021). Both framings created a greater degree of

social divide leading to a counter-intuitive result and a greater degree of discrimination was

present at the tail end of the diversity efforts (Ozturgut et al., 2017). For example, when a

university leaned on diversity efforts as a strategic means of doing good business, it resulted in

placing the university’s economic fruits over that of social justice; this only sought to create

greater degrees of privilege, some in facets of society where privilege arguably did not exist

before (Ozturgut et al., 2017). In other words, engaging in diversity actions for the driving goal

of growing a business or a business’ reputation, or engaging for the purpose of advancing social

justice, only seeks to alienate and discriminate further by turning group against group and often

creating brand new discourse in place or in addition to discourse that had already existed

(Ozturgut et al., 2017). In this discussion, many different aspects of discriminatory behaviors and

conduct towards other individuals with different race, ethnicity, and cultural backgrounds were

mentioned. However, the focus of this case study was on discrimination against LGBTQ students

who had a different sexual orientation by faculty and other students in classrooms and campuses.

Nevertheless, the discussion is still applicable.

 22

Non-Minority Discrimination

Phipps (2017) argued that stark political polarization in the United States was the main

driver to inequality within United States society, as well as starkly within college campuses. In

the current political climate of the United States, non-minorities and minorities alike were

beginning to feel unwelcome, as students, educators, and institutional staff point fingers at one

another regarding taking opportunities away from each other, thus creating an unwelcomed

environment (Heilpern, 2015). As an example of non-minority individuals now feeling

unwelcome, potential post-secondary students now report being passed up for educational

opportunities because of colleges and universities needing to meet diversity criterion (Means,

2016). To add more evidence involving the rise of diversity among our students’ population, we

could bring up the fact that about 58% of educators in our public schools were made of white

females at the rate of 83.5% while Hispanic educators occupied only 6.6% and Black 6.9%. Such

a disparity among educators versus students can have implications and consequences that

widened the gap between the rising non-white population of students and White educators

creating opportunities for discriminatory practices (Taylor, Kumi-Yeboah, & Ringlabert, 2016).

Caucasian staff members were reporting the same perceptions and feelings (Broadhurst et al.,

2018). Thus, discriminatory practices, or at least the perception of such, have led to negatively

impactful feelings and perceptions among students and staff of different backgrounds and sexual

orientations. This has reportedly led to an increase in harmful environments that were not

conducive to learning, nor psychologically, emotionally, and physically safe post-secondary

school environments (Convertino, 2016).

Students with different sexual orientations could experience the similar kinds of

discrimination that ethnic students experience by being different (Levy, 2014). In other words,
 23

discriminatory practices against LGBTQ students have been found to be similar to discrimination

against students that had different race and ethnicities (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018; Pryor, 2020;

Taylor, 2016). Interestingly, researchers have found that much of the lack of acceptance of

members of the LGBT community occurs because of a lack of acceptance from religious groups

(Graybill & Proctor, 2016; Levy, 2014). For example, campuses with strong Christian presences

amongst the student body tended to be more discriminatory of and less accepting of LGBT

students (Levy, 2014). Discrimination against LGBTQ students due to having different sexual

orientation seemed is more prevalent in religious environments. Furthermore, gender identity

and bias also affect campus environments.

Gender Biases

Perhaps one of the most challenging obstacles associated with diversity in higher

education institutions is sexual bias that treats students unfairly because of their gender (Dogra,

2017; Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). Developing in them a self-awareness of their own life

situations could be accomplished by a critical analysis of their backgrounds and the socio-

cultural, economic, and political causes of their situational awareness (McShay, 2017). Helping

students in their empowerment journey could improve self-awareness (Dogra, 2017). These

preconceived ideas dictate the focus of learning in a way that men and women receive different

preferences simply based on their gender (Dogra, 2017).

Gender discrimination in higher education involving students has many different levels.

(Steck & Perry, 2018). For instance, according to Medley (2016), as women applied to colleges

and universities in higher numbers with better grade point averages compared to their male

counterparts in liberal arts implemented a process in their admissions called gender balancing or
 24

affirmative action for males to maintain gender parity at their institutions. Furthermore, many

higher education institutions were proactively preferring male applicants even if they had to

lower their admissions standards (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Medley, 2016;).

Diversity has many different layers and variables that could impact how students are

treated based on their gender. Based on correlational and experimental research, it is noted that

gender biases towards females in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) field remain

problematic (Lane & Hennes, 2017). Early evidence demonstrating such discrimination includes

analysis of peer reviewed scores from Swedish postdoctoral fellowship applications collected as

late as 1990s requiring three extra papers in topics like nature and science as well as additional

papers in specialized journals for female applicants to get the same level of competence as their

male counterparts in the same field (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). STEM faculty seemed to be

likely to see male students as more competent and capable than an identically qualified female

student (Lane & Hennes, 2017).

Despite the increase in the number of women attending college, the most prestigious

institutions resist the longest, both in admitting female students and hiring female faculty

(Medley, 2016). However, studies have reported that bias against females may be isolated to

institutions where the great number of faculty were male (Kiekkas et al., 2019; Medley, 2016).

There are many bases for discriminatory behaviors involving one’s gender. Gender

discrimination is akin to sexual orientation bias due to heteronormativity (Steck & Perry, 2018).

Sexual Orientation Biases

Gender bias against students and faculty could evolve into discriminatory practices

against students due to their sexual orientation including LGBTQ since they have the same bases
 25

in gender (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). This discrimination could range from ugly jokes, slurs,

and verbal harassment to physical threats, unfair treatments, and many other forms of

mistreatment (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). According to Klunt et al. (2021), hostility towards

sexual minorities could lead to elevated risk factors involving students with severe negative

results and consequences such as mental and physical health problems, which in turn produced

lower academic performances and student engagement. On average, men were more prejudiced

than women particularly with regard to prejudice toward homosexuals (Medley, 2016).

Historically, anti-homosexual prejudice had not been unfirming in nature: gay men had been

evaluated more negatively than lesbians and evaluated more negatively by heterosexual men than

by women, across many studies (Kiekkas et al., 2019; Taylor 2016; Waling & Roffee, 2018).

The literature suggested that, overall, heterosexual men's attitudes toward gay men were typically

the most negative evaluations, relative to men's attitudes toward lesbians and women's attitudes

toward gay men or lesbians (Dessel, Goodman, & Woodford, 2017; Kiekkas et al., 2019;

Tavarez, 2020).

LGBTQ students experience substantial discriminatory behavior in post-secondary

institutions with climates that allow it and/or that have not taken steps to educate and thus

decrease such behavior (Amodeo et al., 2020; Dessel et al., 2017; Waling & Roffee,

2018;).Discriminatory practices and mistreatment such as physical, emotional, or mental

harassment of LGBT students because of their appearance or sexual orientation leads to isolation

and frustration among students (Reddy, 2018; Tavarez, 2020). Even worse, allowing

discriminatory practices to continue can impact these students in a negative way leading to

isolation and lowering their academic performances (Tavarez, 2020; Yao & Wang, 2021). Stopa

et al. (2013) found that at least 60% personally experienced negative comments or conduct at
 26

school because they were LGBTQ. As a result, many LGBTQ students hide their identity and

suffer isolation or even fear because they experience discrimination, and even violence, when

being themselves (Tillman et al., 2016). These fear-based behaviors could lead to isolation

impacting their academic performances (Amodeo et al., 2020; Sumerau, 2017). There are also

other forms of discrimination that are less obvious. One type are microaggressions.

Microaggressions

Microaggressions are subtle degradations from one party or parties against another party

or parties (Cabrera et al., 2016). These behaviors could be conducted against different students

with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and sexual orientation like LGBTQ students on campus or in

classrooms. The degradations might be conscious or unconscious, and most typically asserts

forceable action, but might also occur in verbal form (Cabrera et al., 2016). Examples of

microaggression could vary wildly, as a number of discriminatory conscious and unconscious

actions and verbalizations fall under its umbrella. The failure to recognize diversity in any regard

is one motivator of microaggressions. (Johnson et al., 2016, Nadal et al., 2016) or lack thereof of

attending students within university settings (Cragun et al., 2016).

Interestingly, the most common form of discrimination as microaggressions occurred

with the religion of students on college campuses (Cragun et al., 2016). Cragun et al. (2016)

found non-religious students received a greater deal of microaggression treatment than students

who identified with a specific religion. In fact, they concluded that a growing number of post-

secondary students were identifying with specific religions than ever before, especially as

conservative movements were taking place throughout many of America’s most elite

universities. Given that this shift had been a newly occurring one and that the realization of
 27

microaggression against non-religious individuals was also a somewhat new revelation. Cragun

et al. (2016) called for more research into the area of marginalization and microaggression

towards non-religious individuals on post-secondary campuses across the nation. In many

instances where LGBTQ students have been mistreated by other students and faculty, the logic

was associated with their religious beliefs where homosexuality was considered as sin (Heiden-

Rootes, Wiegand, Thomas, Moore, & Ross, 2020).

Consistently being subjected to microaggressions could have incredibly negative effects

on minority members of post-secondary education systems, including physical, psychological,

economical, and physiological effects (Cabrera et al., 2016). Warikoo and de Novais (2015)

labeled instances of the aforementioned acts of unconscious microaggression as being that of a

color-blind frame. Although the discourses of students and faculty of color might serve to

disrupt dominant ideology, their ability to do so might be undermined by limited means to

become formalized within the institutional discourse. Instead, antiracist discourse risks being

subverted by institutional discourses that too often normalize colorblindness (Lewis, Chesler, &

Forman, 2000). Microaggressions toward minority groups also includes those with different

sexual orientation such as LGBTQ. One reason has been found to be religious intolerance

Cragun, Blyde, Sumerau, Mann & Hammer, 2016).

Microaggression was also reported as commonly occurring around the religion or lack

thereof of attending students within university settings (Cragun et al., 2016). For example,

students that identify as atheist, or as free thinkers that did not identify with any one specific set

of religious beliefs, reported being stifled from admitting their true manner of atheism for fear of

being marginalized or degraded by other students (Rockenbach et al., 2015). Such atheist

students reported being and feeling stigmatized at the hand of microaggression behaviors,
 28

especially when attending schools that rely heavily on the context of Christianity (Rockenbach et

al., 2015). Similar to prior mentioned research, additional study also concluded that non-religious

students receive a greater deal of microaggression treatment than students who identify with a

specific religion (Cragun et al., 2016). LGBTQ students have been found to be discriminated

against due to others religious beliefs (Amodeo et al., 2020; Nadal et al., 2016).

It is not uncommon for minority undergraduate and graduate students alike to fall victim

to the phenomenon known as racial fatigue, which essentially causes the targeted minority

individual to question his or her own mental and physical health as the result of the

microaggression behavior he/she was subjected to (Cabrera et al., 2016). In fact, some

researchers argued that becoming the victim of racially targeted microaggression could lead to a

decline in academic performance, a decrease in overall well-being, and trigger mental health

issues, such as anxiety and depression (Cabrera et al., 2016). LGBTQ students as minority

population with different sexual orientation could experience mental health challenges like stress

and anxiety due to encountering discriminatory behaviors by faculty and other student the same

was as minority populations in undergraduate and graduate students could fall victim to the

phenomenon known as racial fatigue (McCann & Brown, 2018).

To prevent and minimize such problems Case, Hensley, and Anderson (2014) suggested

the bystander approach, which was an intervention based on students and others observing any

discriminatory practices by other individuals and intervening on behalf of the student. The idea

of having bystanders intervening was based on training and educating individuals to look for

specific signs such as noticing the event, identifying the situation as intervention appropriate and

take responsibility to intervene (Case et al., 2016). Perhaps one of the ways to prevent

discriminatory behaviors against LGBTQ students is the role of bystander intervention.

 29

Bystander Intervention

Bystander intervention has been found to be an effective method to prevent

discrimination against LGBTQ individuals (Dessel, Goodman, & Woodford 2017). The idea of

education and training individuals to identify situations where they could intervene is based on

having the ability to recognize the actual event taking place, having a willingness to take the risk

to step in and decide what the best course of action is to help (Case, Hensley, & Anderson,

2016). Furthermore, it was found that bystanders of LGBT discrimination could be influenced

by many individual characteristics (Medley, 2016). For example, sex and gender were

considered as factors involved in how bystanders intervene (Dessel et al., 2017). Such

characteristics and their roles have demonstrated that research on bystanders in dangerous

situations revealed different responses (Medley, 2016). They found females were viewed as

having different physical strength than males, which led to receiving more supportive attitudes

than their male counterparts on campuses.

Bystanders to LGBT discrimination might be impacted by number of individual

characteristics (Steck & Perry, 2018). Sex/gender has been related to bystander intervention. For

example, research on bystander effects in dangerous situations suggested that being a woman as

compared to a man might increase the bystander effect, which might be due differences in

physical strength Boyer & Lorenz, 2020. Other research suggested that female youth hold more

supportive attitudes toward bullying victims than their male peers (Heiden-Rootes, Wiegand,

Thomas, Moore, & Ross, 2020). However, bystander research indicated that a lack of confidence

to intervene or feeling intimidated could lower one’s likelihood of intervening (Dessel et al.,

2017).
 30

This phenomenon was represented and supported by many studies which might be related

to elevated sense of sympathy and social justice between female (Amodeo, 2020; Case et al.,

2016; Nadal et al., 2016). Furthermore, when sexual abuse and assaults took place on campuses

to students of different sexual orientations, female students seemed to be more empathetic and

more supportive toward LGBT students than their male peers (Dessel et al., 2017). Also,

bystander Case et al. (2016) demonstrated that an absence of confidence to intervene combined

with feeling of being intimidated could decrease the likelihood for students to intervene.

Changing perceptions could develop more positive learning environments where all students get

the equal opportunity to have a safe and welcoming learning space while attending colleges and

universities to earn their degrees (Case et al., 2016). Such policies and practices could impact

both academia and societal values based on culture of tolerance (Dessel et al., 2017).

Institutions of Higher Education

Throughout the post-secondary education market in the United States, there has been a

failure of accomplishing quality and equality (Bourabain & Verhaeghe, 2021). Pfeffer (2015)

stated the United States post-secondary educational system sought to meet two main goals: to aid

individuals in becoming educationally capable to be successful upon social integration after

graduation, and to provide equal opportunities for such success. Thus, educational institutions

should not only be judged on the quality of their educational provisions, but on the equality of

such provisions. It could reasonably be argued that many United States post-secondary

educational institutions were failing in both aspects. Furthermore, adversaries to this ideal, such

as from within the institutions themselves, argued that the provision of increased equality within

their four-walls would consequently decrease the institution’s quality (Dessel et al., 2017).

These higher education institutions argued that they cannot win; they argued that there was no
 31

possible way for institutions to meet both goals of quality and equality to measure up to the

expectations of society and researchers alike. Pfeffer (2015), however, asserted quite the

opposite, showing via data and research that quality and equality were not at all correlated within

the post-secondary educational arena. As long as equality in education referred to the equality of

opportunity for all, rather than to the equality of opportunity, it was highly possible for higher

education institutions to provide both quality and equality and met both standard goals (Pfeffer,

2015).

Concerns regarding diversity that did not appear as widespread and common in past

decades; however, as the populations of post-secondary institutions became more diverse, the

issues concerning diversity became more apparent (Harris & Ellis, 2020). Course instructors,

veteran and new, were finding themselves faced with new areas of competencies that some, if

not many, were not prepared for when they entered the field (Murray, 2016). Such competencies

failing to exist to support the minority population students’ education resulted in a lack of a

quality and equality (Harris & Ellis, 2020). Such failing of instructors could range from the

failure to seek out training and help in the areas of language barriers, cultural competency, and

lingua-cultural variability (Murray, 2016). To create a learning environment free of

discriminatory practices, higher education institutions could benefit from creating effective and

practical policies.

Campus Policies. Patel (2017) argued as the population of students with diverse

background grows, the need for understanding diversity and its impact on global scale is

increased, so leaders of higher education must understand that policies and practices can no

longer be based on one-dimensional culture in colleges and universities. Some anti-

discrimination efforts are more effective than others, whereas one effort that works well for one
 32

higher education institution might not work effectively for another institution (Heilpern, 2015).

This phenomenon was observed by Heilpern (2015) whose research focused, at least in part, on

anti-discrimination policies as they related to club and extracurricular activity admissions.

Helipern concluded that while policies certainly were necessary, jumping to an all were allowed

to join or come regardless of affiliation was also not typically the best option, likely to the

surprise of many. The come one, come all approach had long been thought of as the only clear

answer within a nation that had been struggling to determine what the answer was to the problem

of rampant discrimination occurring throughout multiple facets of society (Woodford et al.,

2018). Many higher education institutions might have policies designed to advocate diversity and

protect minorities like LGBTQ students against discriminatory practices by faculty and other

students in classrooms and at campuses; however, there are two important elements involved in

accomplishing equity and equality for minority students - effectiveness and enforcement

(Woodford, Kulick, Garvey, Sinco, & Hong, 2018).

Simply having policies that are outdated and out of touch with reality of what LGBTQ

students need was not enough to accommodate them (Battle and Wheeler, 2017). Policies and

resources were a pivotal part of the college and university environment as well as important

component of heterosexism to be more inclusive among LGBTQ collegians (Woodford, Joslin,

& Renn, 2016). When considering how to address the biases that damage college campuses,

exposing biases towards minorities needs to be part of the equation by providing training

(Applebaum, 2019).) According to Applebaum (2019), training for overcoming biases towards

targeted populations could not be effective unless the focal point was to become aware of biases

especially when such associations deemed to be harmful and discriminatory. According to Battle

and Wheeler (2017), policy changes such as removing federal protections for LGBTQ students
 33

combined with an overall anti-LGBTQ political practice reinforces the value of doing more

research on effectiveness of campus policies at higher education institutions. The effectiveness

of policies that were designed to protect LGBTQ students against discriminatory practices by

faculty and other students could lead to affecting the campus climate. However, these policies

must be enforced.

Campus climate. According to Amodeo (2020), the term campus climate refers to how

individuals and groups are able to experience a sense of belonging regardless of their sexual

orientation or beliefs. Despite noticeable steps towards improvements to protect LGBTQ

students in higher education institutions, minimizing policies and climates for members of

LGBTQ community appears to be still very present on campuses (Broadhurst, Martin, Hoffshire,

& Takewell, 2018). LGBTQ students still deal with exclusionary campus climates and

unwelcoming learning environments that preference heterosexual students (Broadhurst et al.,

2018). As indicated by Garvey et al. (2017), campus environment represents the image,

behaviors, standards, and conducts of faculty and students of an institution especially when it

comes to inclusion of minority populations like LGBTQ students laying the foundation to

develop respect to reach their potentials.

Academic quality improvements considering students’ backgrounds could accommodate

student retention and graduation rates in campuses while creating a safe and welcoming

environment for diverse population of students (Woodford et al., 2018). The importance of

creating policies designed to protect LGBTQ students against discriminatory practices by faculty

and other students could go beyond providing a learning environment based on equity and

equality. However, diversity has other dynamics sometimes overlooked – economic and political.
 34

Diversity - The Economic Argument

The student population has evolved on campuses across the United States and future

employers increasingly demanded students had both knowledge and skills to meet the global

challenges of dealing with a more diverse client-oriented market (Vos & Çelik, 2018). For

instance, as indicated by Vos and Çelik (2018), the results of interviews involving 19 members

of six educational teams demonstrated many teams acknowledged that they needed a higher

degree of knowledge base training to acquire proper skills to meet the requirements in global

market. Especially teams that prepare students for international careers foster integration and

learning perspective. As job criteria represented dominant norms and values of the majority

members within organizations, the possibility of minority populations was as important for the

job as majority populations (Jansen, Kröger, Van der Toorn, & Ellemers, 2021). The teams were

open for recruiting diverse lecturers and found it important, especially to meet the needs of the

diversity in students. They also found value in the interaction and mutual learning in their team

but saw no extra value of diversity based on colorblind perspective. Many organizations

implemented diversity statements and used them to enhance their public image by declaring their

appreciation and commitment to workforce diversity as well as showing how diversity enhanced

innovation (Jansen et al., 2021).

Vos and Çelik found that the diversity practices of organizations were more effective

when they were in line with their diversity perspective, the differences between teams suggested

that when dealing with diversity issues, universities could best work toward a common

understanding of the importance of diversity, while leaving room for team differences in

diversity practices. Most studies on diversity management assume or argue that organizations

adopted one diversity perspective, but Vos and Çelik’s study showed that flexibility based on the
 35

needs of the organizations was effective. As discussed in this section, many factors are involved

in accomplishing a diverse environment where discrimination could be lowered. However, such

accomplishment would not happen without having proper political climate discussed in the next

section.

Diversity - Politics as a Driver to Change

Politics within the post-secondary education institutions themselves is an additional political

arena by which change can be fostered. McMonigle and Grijalva (2018) noted, faculty women

of color or of other ethnic minority status have long faced a tough road to receiving university

employment, in a variety of settings. While these roadblocks had not always been legal, they

had more so been the result of internal politics within each individual university or college. Such

institutions systematically made changes within themselves in order to embrace a greater degree

of diversity, which was necessary on many levels (McMonigle & Grijalva, 2018). In other

words, internal political shifts could not only be made within the government itself, but within

the entire arena of education as a whole. Such political shifts would be quite painful for each

particular institution, as well as complete policy overhauls in some cases, and might logically

require a complete overhaul in leadership at institutions, but the painful political shifts were

likely to yield a great deal of positive results surrounding diversity and diversity (Gibson et al.,

2016). The importance of recognizing diversity at higher education institutions could encompass

different student populations beyond just LGBTQ students. Including other diverse populations

based on students cultural, socioeconomic, and racial backgrounds could lead to enrichment of

campus climate and culture.

 36

Diversity Education

An array of general education courses was required by post-secondary institutions for

students to obtain a degree, as well as a quality education (Bourabain & Verhaeghe, 2021; Harris

& Ellis, 2020). Some scholars have argued that diversity education should be one such general

education requirement (Harris & Ellis, 2020; Pryor, 2020; Ragins & Ehrhardt, 2021). Requiring

students to engage in a variety of general education courses in addition to the courses specified to

their areas of study makes for a much better-rounded educational experiences, as well as acts as a

preparatory tool to engage in community involvement and assimilation (Harris & Ellis, 2020;

Pryor, 2020;). As indicated by Pryor (2020), as colleges and universities continued to expand

their support services for LGBTQ college students, it was noticed that most of these attempts

needed strong advocacy and leadership. This diversity allows the system to meet the needs of

many different types of students and to achieve many of the wide-ranging expectations placed

upon the system by students, parents, governments, and businesses (Harris & Ellis, 2020).

Diversity education has been recommended for more than just students (Rankin &

Reason, 2017). In fact, it could be argued that educating the educators is what is most needed to

enact change. Findings revealed that faculty participation in diversity training was beneficial

because instructors' personal growth was evidenced whereas students experienced a greater sense

of community (Booker, Merriweather & Campbell-Whatley, 2016). However, the problem with

enacting widespread diversity and anti-discrimination training amongst post-secondary

institutions nationwide is there is usually an array of excuses as to why such training could not

take place (Kaltenbaugh et al., 2017).

 37

Kaltenbaugh et al. (2017) investigated these precise excuses and/or reasons as to why

diversity and anti-discrimination was not more widespread in the higher education arena.

Campus leaders have argued that they do not have the necessary resources to dedicate enough

attention to diversity training in order to conduct it properly (Kaltenbaugh et al., 2017). Even

when diversity training is implemented as organizations try to decrease prejudice and

discrimination among their employees, there is evidence pointing to diversity training not being

consistently effective (Bezrukova, Spell, Perry & Jehn, 2016). Even when surveying institutions

that do offer diversity and anti-discrimination training, 46% of such institutions feel that they

still do not have an adequate amount of expertise or knowledge on the subject matter

(Kaltenbaugh et al., 2017). Another 47% report having limited staff available to dedicate to the

training, and 41% also report other constraints. A number of the organizations surveyed had all

of the above issues that contributed to their inabilities to provide diversity training to staff, or the

lack of quality of the diversity and discrimination training for staff members (Kaltenbaugh et al.,

2017). Diversity education alone cannot change deeply ingrained racial biases that are often

resistant to training (Todd & Galinsky, 2014).

Finding a way to increase these training abilities amongst higher education institutions

was one issue that experts point to when queried about how to improve diversity and anti-

discrimination environments within the United States collegiate system (Bradley, Albright,

McMillan & Shockley, 2019; Wei & Liu, 2019). Many researchers have demonstrated that

despite differences in different countries involving higher education institutions, many principals

appeared to be universally accepted and practiced regarding diversity issues such as student’s

sexual orientation and beliefs. Exposure to diverse populations of students, presents educators

with the possibility of alternative learning methods that could support student development
 38

abilities to become academically and personally more successful despite their differences

(Sugimura, 2015). Furthermore, multicultural education permitted students to learn about ways

in which cultural enrichment is approach by becoming more inclusive and tolerable through

classroom integrations to enhance their learning abilities (Tavarez, 2020).

Multicultural Education

Multicultural education was designed to assist us with the recognition of culture

influences in academic environments and within society (Taylor, et al., 2016). Multicultural

education was not just a field of study, it was a complex and multifaceted approach focused on

how to develop open-minded students, faculty, and staff. In other words, it was a way to extend

instructional theories that allows educators to become more familiar with diversity through

exposure to alternative views so that they could support student development academically and

personally (Sugimura, 2015). This support could lead to having successful student with more

global mind set than limited and fixed mind set graduates who were just subject matter experts.

Sugimura (2015) argued that multiculturalism in higher education should be considered as one of

the fundamental elements and corner stones in creating a diverse learning environment that is

inclusive of all students regardless of their ethnic backgrounds and sexual preferences.

Multicultural education promotes the idea of becoming more inclusive for the purpose of cultural

enrichment to make campuses more tolerable towards differences (Sugimura, 2015).

If higher education institutions were to fulfill democracy’s ideals by preparing students

for society, they could reconcile the tensions experienced by students of diverse backgrounds

(McShay, 2017). In terms of visible differences, the focus should be on finding common ground

and building bridges by staying away from constant cultural comparisons while having a fixed
 39

mindset where culture is already determined as the superior one (McShay, 2017).In other words,

as an example of diversity, students with different sexual orientations could represent a different

culture leading to challenges for higher education institutions if they were to create an

environment of learning without any discriminations based on equity and equality (Broadhurst et

al., 2018). Moving conversations about identity development from singular views of gender and

instead envisioning gender construction as a more complex perspective of gender identity that

allowed for intersections could lower discriminatory conduct (Eddy, 2017).

Multicultural education should be aimed at preparing members of minority populations to

participate in nation-building and national integration with the ability to preserve one’s culture

(Sugimura, 2015). However, there are stark differences between minority and majority people,

their cultures, and even their ideals about education, its context, and how and why it should take

place (Sugimura, 2015). Involving minority populations in the process of integration while

preserving their culture could be exceptionally difficult for post-secondary instructors to not only

understand, but to execute. Execution of multicultural education is one that many post-

secondary instructors struggle with, and it can not only lead to discrimination of diverse post-

secondary students, but also to a failure for the overall nation in terms of adequate preparation

and integration of said students for the benefit of the greater good.

Summary

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirror and

reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that make up larger

societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender

discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck &
 40

Perry, 2018). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’

experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an

absence of policies, might be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards

these students and what affected them academically. Diversity within colleges and universities is

growing, while being at higher levels than ever before. Even though positive changes are

occurring towards a more diverse post-secondary student and staff population, discrimination

still exists in rampant fashion within colleges and universities, including with the existence of

discrimination (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018; Waling & Roffee, 2018). Post-secondary college and

university students are most likely to experience discrimination based on their race, religion, and

then gender, in that specific order (Amodeo, 2020; Taylor 2016).

Discrimination occurs during the college and university admittance process and could

also be present in the classroom or the lecture hall at the hands of uneducated or poorly trained

instructors (Bourabain & Verhaeghe, 2021; Bradley et al., 2019, Wei & Liu, 2019). Educators

could contribute to discrimination in the classroom by failing to educate and engage in cultural

competency, and/or failing to adequately apply their learnings within the classroom (Dessel,

Goodman, & Woodford, 2017; Tavarez, 2020). Discrimination also took place via

microaggressions, which happen from person-to-person, either consciously or unconsciously

(Tavarez, 2020; Waling & Roffee, 2018). Discrimination also occurs by students on potential

students from certain minority groups such as LGBTQ students receiving unfair treatments over

other groups (Dessel et al., 2017).

Discrimination was most harmful to the post-secondary students themselves because it

affects the quality of the education they receive (Harris & Ellis, 2020; Pryor, 2020). It could also

affect the student’s academic self-efficacy, stress levels, emotional stability, mental health, and
 41

ability to assimilate productively into society after graduation (Harris & Ellis, 2020; Pryor, 2020;

Ragins & Ehrhardt, 2021). It is imperative for the leaders of higher education institutions to

promote tolerance and sense of acceptance of those who are different in terms of their beliefs or

sexual orientations (Harris & Ellis, 2020, Pryor, 2020). Creating a learning environment free of

discriminatory practices against minority students could be accomplished by promoting

awareness among all stakeholders to implement policies and practices such as the bystander

affect, diversity education to prevent discrimination against LGBTQ students by other students

and faculty on campus and in classrooms so that those students could have the same opportunity

to complete their academic journey (Bourabain & Verhaeghe, 2021; Pryor, 2020, Yao & Wang,

2021). Chapter three discusses the research methodology and design.

 42

Chapter 3: Research Method

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirror and

reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that make up larger

societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender

discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck &

Perry, 2018). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’

experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an

absence of policies, might be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards

these students and what effects there might be on them academically. Data was collected via

interviews and a survey to ask LGBTQ students about their experiences in classrooms and on

campuses. Interview questions and survey questions were designed to cover many aspects of this

case study including how LGBTQ students were impacted academically especially when they

felt like being mistreated or discriminated against by other students and faculty. The data was

analyzed thematically. NVivo Pro 12 was used to complete the data analysis.

To understand LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in higher education, the

following questions were used:

Research Questions

The research questions for this case study were:

RQ1. How did campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’

experiences in higher education?

RQ2. What were LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their higher education experience as it

related to their sexual orientation?

 43

RQ3. What influence, if any, did LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in

higher education had on their academic success?

This chapter discussed the research methodology and design, population and sample size,

materials and instrumentations used, data collection as well as data analysis. Furthermore,

assumptions, limitations, and delimitations involved in this research were addressed. In addition,

the ethical assurances of this research were discussed to provide clearer view of how this

research was conducted. The chapter concluded with a summary of the major aspects of this

chapter.

Research Methodology and Design

The intent of qualitative research methods was to describe a process or experience, to this

end, the goal was to make meaning of experiences or phenomena by following data as they

emerge (Rosenthal, 2016). With the overall purpose of understanding a situation or how

something was experienced in a deep and meaningful way, it could provide an opportunity to

collect relevant data (Cruz & Tantia, 2017). Researchers might choose to interview the same

participants several times to get a full view of their experience with the phenomenon.

Researchers tended to concentrate their research on describing what all participants had in

common as far as their experiences were concerned.

Yin (2015) identified that case study was useful for investigating a phenomenon within

its real-life context. Case studies could assist in comprehending important issues such as how

discriminatory practices by other students, faculty, and staff against LGBTQ students could

cause suffering and pain. The case study method provided the opportunity for such students to

share their experiences. In this research qualitative case study was used since the primary

source of data was LGBTQ students sharing their stories and experiences. The case study
 44

methodology was the best match for real-life situations and evaluation since it could explore and

test modern complex phenomena with great details using multiple sources of data (Grant, Bugge,

& Wells, 2020). Other types of qualitative methods to study and understand a phenomenon were

considered, but ultimately rejected. Phenomenology was a qualitative design that researchers

used to make meaning from participants’ lived experience of a phenomenon (Dodgson, 2017).

However, this method was rejected in favor of case study because a phenomenological study

focuses on the participants, while a case study allowed for a broader and more multidimensional

perspective (Dodgson, 2017).

Another potential qualitative methodology was grounded theory. Ground theory could be

defined as knowledge generated only through quantitative hypothetical-deductive research

approaches used in clinical practice (Ratnapalan, 2019). This design was rejected because it was

generally a lengthy process of refining codes and then further abstracting these coded into

concepts, with the final outcome being creating a theory explaining how and why the studied

process happened (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). This study was not about generating theory but was

instead about understanding an event that already had a theoretical/conceptual foundation.

In addition, while quantitative methods pose some unique challenges and opportunities, it

was not the right method for our case study because of the nature of this study that involved

personal and emotional experiences of LGBTQ students when they faced discriminatory

practices by others on campus. Students might feel little emotional connection to a case that did

not directly engage substantive topics like race, gender, and class (Ghoshal, 2018). Quantitative

research methods involved a larger sample and did not require relatively a longer time for data

collection. Some limitations were that quantitative research methods took snapshots of a

phenomenon (Rahman, 2017).

 45

The qualitative method was appropriate for this study due to the nature of the problem

involving LGBTQ student’s discrimination against LGBTQ students was a personal issue;

specifically, case study method was utilized in this research. Case study was a good complement

to the topic of discrimination against LGBTQ students on campus, which was a social problem

especially when it created an opportunity for those who had been affected by this issue to share

their experiences. Data collection in qualitative research aimed to explore and describe

experiences (Cruz & Tantia, 2017). Using qualitative data collection methods such as interviews

and survey questions could give an opportunity for participants who had been affected by

discrimination to share their experiences and present their feelings and emotions where they felt

safe and comfortable.

Population and Sample

The target population involved in this case study was LGBTQ students enrolled in United

States colleges and universities. In this case study, purposive sampling was used to recruit

participants who matched the inclusion criteria. A recruitment flyer (see appendix A) was used

to recruit LGBTQ students via Facebook, a social media platform. The flyer that was posted

contained a brief description of the case study, criteria to be eligible to participate such as being

LGBTQ student, over the age of 18, speaking English and being able to complete the consent

form (see appendix B) and survey via Qualtrics as well as being available to be interviewed.

From participants that responded to the flyer posted on social media, selection was made based

on eligibility criteria, willing to complete the consent and survey as well as availability to be

interviewed. A total of 28 participants responded to the recruitment post of Facebook, but 10

were selected based on criteria set for this case study.

 46

Materials and Instrumentation

Data was collected via a semi-structured interview guide and a survey. These data

collection methods were often used to reflect on whether person-centered prerequisites and

processes could be recognized in the completed interview processes, and how a greater focus on

a person-centered approach could improve the quality of data collection (Sandvik &

McCormack, 2018). In this case study where the focus was on presence of possible

discriminatory behaviors and conducts against LGBTQ students by other students, faculty, and

staff, students’ personal experiences provided the necessary data.

Semi-structured interview guide. In this qualitative case study, interview was the main

method of collecting data from participants. Therefore, a semi-structured interview guide was

used (see appendix C). Due to nature of this case study that involves LGBTQ student sharing

their experiences related to possible discriminatory practices at campus or in classrooms,

interviews provided a better environment for participants to share their personal experiences

since they were private. The intention of the interviews through a mutual dialogue with the

participants was to gain an understanding of their experiences and of their actions in an effort to

explore meaning and to develop new knowledge and understanding in collaboration with them

(Sandvik & McCormack, 2018). Writing the interview questions in advance of the interview and

writing questions precisely the way they were to be asked in the interview allows the researcher

to construct a credible interview form.

Survey. The process of survey in qualitative research provided a viable approach to

identify important culturally based characteristics and to adapt surveys to cultural minority

populations, particularly when study resources were limited (Brown, Masters, & Huebschmann,

2018). LGBTQ students could be identified as cultural minorities, which made the use of survey
 47

effective in this case study. In order to collect more specific examples of possible incidents of

discriminatory practices against LGBTQ students by other students and faculty on campus and in

classrooms, participants were asked to complete a survey (see appendix B) to show any events

whether they have experienced personally or witnessed such practices happen to other students

and share that with the interviewer by going to Qualtrics website link provided.

Study Procedures

Approval from the Northcentral University Institutional Review Board was received prior

to the recruitment of participants and the collection of any data. After receiving approval letter

(see appendix E) from Northcentral University Institutional Review Board, participants were

recruited through posting a recruitment post on Facebook. Before participating, participants were

informed about the study and were required to electronically accept the consent form to

participate, which were available through Qualtrics before they started the survey. After consent

was received, participants were asked to complete the survey about their experiences and

observations pertaining to any discriminatory behaviors against LGBTQ students on campus and

in classrooms (see Appendix B). The survey was submitted to the via Qualtrics website.

Selection process was based on criteria such as being an LGBTQ student, enrolled in college or

university in Northern California, and agreeing to accept terms and conditions of the research

indicated in the consent form. Selected participants were requested for availability to conduct

interviews using Zoom meeting platform. Participants were able to share their experiences as

they took part in an interview where they were able to present their experiences and observations

involving LGBTQ students. Once participants were selected, they were interviewed using

interview questions (see Appendix C) designed to target specific areas including whether or not

they had experienced any behaviors or treatments by others that made them feel threatened,
 48

unsafe, and intimidated as well as how it made them feel overall. Also, they had the opportunity

to elaborate on the extent these discriminatory behaviors influenced their academic performance.

The length of the interview was approximately one hour. However, extra time were given to

those whose answers to questions were more extended.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected via a semi-structured interview guide and completion of survey by

participants. After participants completed the survey and were interviewed the interviews were

transcribed and the data was analyzed using thematic analysis, with the aid of NVivo Pro 12

software. NVivo helped to triangulate the data since triangulation involved the utilization of

multiple external methods to collect data such as interviews and surveys which was entered into

NVivo to do the analysis of the data. Triangulation was recommended as a good practice in

conducting case study research and was traditionally envisaged as offering validity through

convergence of findings, sources, or methods (Farquhar, Michels, & Robson, 2020). While

reading the responses, both similarities and differences coming from all participants were

determined and coded. A code book was kept (see Appendix F). Coding could be defined as

universal process used in qualitative research which was a fundamental part of the data analysis

where researchers break down their data to create something new (Elliott, 2018).

According to Saldana (2016), there were individuals who felt every detailed information in a

research need to be coded while others suggested only the most important data related to the

research questions were worthy of the process. Once codes were determined, then themes were

developed. Using thematic analysis, the words or phrases in the interviews and surveys that

emerged consistently were considered themes (Vaismoradi, & Snelgrove, 2019).

 49

Assumptions

It was assumed that LGBTQ students could reflect on their campus experiences and not

just respond based on a single, limited incident. It was assumed that the participants would be

honest in their answers. It was assumed that LGBTQ students will spend time reflecting on their

experiences prior to responding to the questions presented to them via surveys and interviews. It

was assumed that participants confirmed their willingness to share their experiences in an

honorable way as they accepted the terms when checked the box in consent form.

Limitations

In qualitative research, researchers needed to establish trustworthiness of their study by

providing credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability (Hadi & Closs, 2016).

These aspects could become limitations if not properly mitigated. Credibility was an important

part of a research related to the strong demand for validation and accreditation of studies

(Abdalla, Oliveira, Azevedo, & Gonzalez, 2018). Credibility could be a limitation when the

researcher was a novice researcher and was not directed, focused, and supported by a strong

conceptual framework and study design; consequently, the data did not align with the study

(Johnson, Adkins, & Chauvin, 2020). In this case study, credibility as a limitation was mitigated

by utilizing triangulation of the findings to confirm accuracy.

The process of generalization where readers considered the steps of a study in relation to

their own context involved whether to apply its findings identified as transferability (Levitt,

2021). Transferability could be a limitation when the researcher failed to produce thick

description that captures the context and realities of the phenomenon and the participants.

Triangulation and achieving data saturation also contributed to transferability. Transferability as

 50

a limitation was mitigated by achieving data saturation, triangulating the data, and providing

thick description.

Confirmability was the assurance that the findings were based on participants’ responses

and not any potential bias or personal motivations of the researcher (Amin et al., 2020).

Confirmability was a potential limitation due to possibilities of researcher’s interpretation of data

when the researcher read the transcription of the interviews. All documents and records and a

detailed description of data analysis were maintained to establish a trail. Furthermore, the write

up of the research includes original quotes and other data which informed interpretations, so

readers could determine if the conclusions drawn accurately represented the participants

(Carnevale, 2016). Dependability in qualitative research referred to the stability of data over time

and over conditions; it was an evaluation of the quality of the data collection, data, and theory

generation that had been undertaken in a study to ensure replicability of the study (Ellis, 2019).

Dependability could be a limitation when stability of data over time and over conditions impact

the quality of the data collection, data, and theory generation and the processes were noted

accordingly (Ellis, 2019). Dependability as a limitation was mitigated by using an inquiry audit

in the form of the dissertation committee.

Delimitations

Delimitations were mainly concerned with the study’s theoretical background, objectives,

research questions, variables under study and study sample (Theofanidis, & Fountouki, 2018).

Delimitations are concerned with the definitions that the researchers decided to set as the

boundaries or limits of their work so that the study’s aims and objectives did not become

impossible to achieve (Theofanidis et al., 2018). In this case study boundaries were selecting

only specific individuals. These individuals included those who have experienced and observed
 51

discriminations against LGBTQ students by other students and faculty at campus or in

classrooms. In other words, having specific target population at campus level could put limits on

the number of participants. Another possible delimitation in this case study was the possibility of

having smaller population due to the fact that the issue of discrimination targeted only sexual

orientation where was in other forms of discriminations based on ethnicity, personal beliefs and

socioeconomic, researchers may have bigger population of students to research on.

Ethical Assurances

Prior to subject recruitment and data collection, the study protocol was reviewed and

approved by Northcentral University Institutional Review Board. The researcher strove to ensure

that participants rights were protected, and confidentiality was protected in a way that it met the

outlines in The Belmont Report. The Belmont Report lays out a principled analytical framework

to “guide the resolution of ethical problems arising from research involving human subjects”

(Adashi, Walters, & Menikoff, 2018, p.1). The Belmont Report had three equally weighted

fundamental ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Adashi et al., 2018).

Participants were informed of the study nature and requirements related to time

commitment, so they could make an informed decision as to participate in the research or not.

Participants were asked to electronically check the box as means of signing a consent form

agreeing to participation processes and steps involved. They were informed that there were no

penalties if they decided to withdraw from participation. Participants were de-identified by being

assigned a pseudonym to protect their identity which followed the respects for persons. It was the

intent of me to lower any possibilities of harm or compromise to participants’ data which

followed the principle of beneficence. The safety of the participants was ensured as they were

provided with all steps involved in the research and how their responses would be used.
 52

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’ experiences

and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an absence of

policies, might be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards these students

and what effect there might be on them academically. Data was collected using a semi-structured

interview guide and a survey delivered via Qualtrics. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis.

Data shared regarding their experiences and beliefs was analyzed, and common words and

themes were categorized. There were assumptions, limitations, and delimitations in this study.

To ensure the ethical assurances were met in this case study involving LGBTQ students as

participants, the three tenets of The Belmont Report were followed. Chapter four presented the

findings of the study.

 53

Chapter 4: Findings

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirror and

reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that make up larger

societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender

discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck &

Perry, 2018). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’

experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an

absence of policies, may be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards

these students and what effect there may be on them academically. The case study involved

LGBTQ students attending colleges and universities in Northern California. A total of 28

students participated in a survey and eight of these participants were then interviewed.

Facebook social media was used to recruit participants by posting a recruitment flyer (see

appendix A) prior to the study. Potential participants were asked to use the link which was set up

using Qualtrics to accept the consent form electronically by clicking on a check box. Once

consent was granted, a total of 28 participants completed the survey. Once consent forms and

surveys were completed by participants, they were contacted via the email to schedule an

interview via Zoom. Out of 28 responses, 28 completed survey and consent form, and10

responded to be interviewed. However, eight interviews were completed because data saturation

was reached at eight. It is important to mention that survey questions were answered by

anonymous participants who were identified as participants with a number. For example,

participant 1 (See appendix G). This was done to protect their identities whereas in interview
 54

questions pseudonyms were used to identify participants. Therefore, in RQs and themes parts of

this chapter, the researcher provided data from participants in following that method of

identifying participants. Participants were asked questions to gather data about their experiences

as LGBTQ students in the classroom and on campus regarding discrimination and any influence

it had on their academic performance. They were also asked about their school’s policies and

practices regarding LGBTQ students. After data was collected, the survey information and

interview transcripts were entered in to NVivo Pro12 software for data coding and analysis. To

protect participant’s identity, they were assigned pseudonyms.

Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data by using NVivo pro 12 based on collected

data involving transcripts of interviews and surveys. The goal of a thematic analysis was to

identify themes, i.e., patterns in the data, that were important or interesting and used these

themes to address the research questions (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). In this case study,

thematic analysis was used to find common themes or codes among the participants’ responses to

the questions in the survey and interviews. What followed was a discussion of the

trustworthiness of the qualitative data, a presentation of the findings as pertaining to each

research question, an evaluation of those findings, and a summary of the main points of this

chapter.

Trustworthiness of the Data

In qualitative research, researchers needed to establish trustworthiness of their study by

ensuring credibility, confirmability, dependability, transferability (Hadi & Closs, 2016).

Credibility was the equivalent of internal validity in quantitative research and was concerned

with the aspect of truth-value (Abdalla et al., 2018). Credibility was accomplished in this case

study by transcribing data directly from interviews without altering and changing any data
 55

provided by participants as they shared their experiences with the researcher. Credibility was

also ensured through triangulation of the data. Triangulation aimed to enhance the process of

qualitative research by using multiple approaches to collect data in order to ensure that the

findings were accurate (Korstjen & Moser, 2018). In this case data triangulation was done by

comparing interview transcripts and survey answers which were then coded to determine

common themes among participants.

Confirmability was the degree to which the results of the research were neutral, i.e., free

of biases, and could be verified by other researchers to ensure the quality of the findings

(Korstjen & Moser, 2018). All collected data from survey questions and interviews were

checked by the researcher to ensure that they were used without any alterations and changes

especially when recorded interviews were transcribed to be used in data analysis part of NVivo

Pro12 software. All documents and records that involved data and data analysis as part of

triangulation were reviewed by researcher to identify both similarities and differences coming

from all participants. Therefore, all data collected from participants were determined and coded

by researcher. All the data collected from survey and interview questions were based on

participants personal experiences as LGBTQ students while attending colleges and universities.

They all have presented their experiences without any expectations or influences.

Dependability was the idea that the study could be replicated due to the study procedures

analysis process being detailed so that other researchers could follow them and arrive at similar

findings aligned (Korstjen & Moser, 2018). In this case study, dependability was ensured

through maintaining notes about procedures and analysis to ensure that they were correct.

Furthermore, it was ensured through an inquiry audit by dissertation committee reviewing the

procedures and analysis process to ensure the findings were consistent and repeatable.
 56

Finally, transferability concerned the applicability of findings to similar contexts

(Korstjen & Moser, 2018). Transferability was established by providing detailed description of

participants’ responses to questions in the interview and survey as well as the contexts discussed.

Furthermore, triangulation and achieving data saturation aided in the potential of transferability

in this case study, data triangulation involved the use of a survey and interviews. Data saturation

was determined by detecting similarities in participants’ responses to survey and interview

questions. Transcriptions of interviews and responses to survey questions were entered in NVivo

Pro 12 where data was analyzed. I determined data saturation after reviewing the results of data

analysis.

Results and Findings

Data was collected via interviews and a survey. The interviews consisted of ## questions

and were completed with ## of the participants. There were total of 30 questions in the survey

(see the appendix). They were multiple choice and short answer. These questions covered wide

range of related issues associated with LGBTQ students as participants. The survey questions

were designed to give an opportunity to LGBTQ students to share their experiences and feelings

in their classrooms and campuses. In this case study, the participants were able to share their

experiences relevant to being LGBTQ students including any discrimination from other students

and faculty in classrooms and campuses at the schools they attended. The participants were

representative of different aspects of the LGBTQ family. They attended colleges and

universities in Northern California.

The themes for research question one was students’ perception of campus, campus and

classroom safety, and policies to promote tolerance. Research question two’s themes were

interactions with faculty, interactions with other students, and feelings based on sexual
 57

orientation. Research question three’s theme were safety, being an outsider, and facing prejudice

against LGBTQ. Research question four’s theme were academic impacts and success or failure.

RQ1. How did campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’

experiences in higher education? Research question one was utilized to determine if campus

policies, directly or indirectly, influenced the LGBTQ students’ experiences in higher education.

The participants’ responses to interview questions and survey questions were the basis for the

themes generated. The themes for research question one was campus and classroom climates,

campus and classroom safety, and campus policies and LGBTQ students.

Theme 1. Campus and classroom climates. The theme campus and classroom climate

resulted from participants’ interviews and surveys. This theme was based on students’

perceptions of campus and classroom climate that were formed by the portrayal of the schools

being LGBTQ friendly in their catalogs and websites as well as from their academic counselors.

However, when those students attended their schools, they noticed differences in terms of

campus and classroom environments towards LGBTQ students. Six out of the eight interview

participants felt that they experienced different degrees and forms of discriminatory and

intimidating behaviors by faculty and other students which made them believe they were not

welcomed. Two did not feel discriminated against. Out of 28 participants sent a survey, 19 chose

to respond to the questions about how they perceived their campus and classrooms when

considering their LGBTQ orientation. Out of 19 who responded, 15 had negative views and four

had neutral or positive views.

During the interviews, Allen felt their campus experiences were different than what they

had anticipated based on statements on their colleges’ websites involving LGBTQ students. They

stated that the websites portrayed the campuses as equal opportunity, free of any discrimination
 58

regardless of student’s sexual preferences; however, they did not feel this was an accurate

portrayal of their campuses. Allen felt at times unwelcomed, which led to feeling unwanted.

Allen mentioned, “I mean it made me feel, like, discouraged and sad. He described his look as,

“I'll paint my nails and, you know, I wear like high waisted jeans.” Another example that he used

to determine the awkward feeling he felt in classroom was because of his LGBTQ identity and

sensitivity to the use of appropriate pronoun where he indicated, “They'll like go around and like

ask everyone for their pronouns, which has happened like multiple times in my two years.”

Other participants presented their experiences regarding the classroom environment.

Linda offered, “I was feeling underrepresented and under heard in my STEM classes.” She

continued, “I've noticed there is just a trend of LGBTQ students in these classes feeling

underrepresented and under heard, which sort of cycles into their being less LGBTQ students in

these classes.” Mike also found the classroom uninviting due to microaggressions housed as

jokes. Mike indicated, “There were always some jokes or some kind of remarks against the

LGBT community in classrooms mostly with peers and classmates.”

Other students indicated the campus and classroom environments made them pretend to

be non-LGBTQ students just to be accepted by their peers. Melisa shared that when she was not

with her LGBTQ friends, “I decided to pretend I was not an LGBTQ student. I could see how my

LGBTQ friends that revealed their identities were looked at or ignored in many cases they just

staring at you.” She concluded she really didn’t feel welcomed on campus, unless she was with

her LGBTQ friends.

Interestingly, two participants in their interviews were asked to define what

discrimination means to them and also if they felt like there were any discriminations noted

based on their experiences at their campus. Unlike the other six participants in the interview
 59

expressing their concerns regarding discriminations, Mary and Larry responded they did not

personally experience any discrimination even though some things did make them feel

uncomfortable. When Larry was asked to share his understanding of what discrimination meant

to him, he responded,

Well, when I first think of discrimination, I think of like basically someone like being

denied opportunities or having like more obstacles to overcome to get the same

opportunities as people who aren't in a certain group or don't have like a certain

descriptor.

In response to the question if he was discriminated against at campus or in classroom, Larry

stated,

I don't think I experienced discrimination. It's kind of hard to tell for me because when

something happens like I'm denied opportunity, my first thought isn't like, oh, it's

because like I'm trans or it's because I'm queer. And my first thought is like, oh, it's

because I'm not good enough.

He also added, “My classroom interactions are usually like pretty good, if not at least pretty

okay.” When Mary was asked about what discrimination meant to her, she responded, “Any kind

of professional or really even social atmosphere is any bias that's being held against me based on

what's the word I'm looking for a quality that doesn't necessarily pertain to the event.” Later in

the interview when she was asked if she felt like she was discriminated against on campus, she

responded, “I personally haven't. I don't feel as though I've been discriminated against because I

am pertaining to the LGBTQ.”

Out of 24 participant’s responses on the survey multiple choice section, 19 felt they were

treated differently by their peers and faculty due to their sexual orientation. Another question in
 60

the form of an essay question was asked to elaborate more on their experiences involving their

classrooms and campuses they attended. Out of 28 participants, 19 chose to respond to this

inquiry. Out of 19 who responded, 15 had negative views and four had neutral or positive views.

Participant 10 felt LQBTG students are “not treated right,” and Participant 9 noted, “Not

nice at all.” Some participants used the short essay questions on the survey to explain their

negative views of campus and classroom environments. For example, Participant 17 referred to

the feeling on campus stating, “I do feel there is a negative connotation associated with LGBTQ+

students.” Another example came from Participant 18 who indicated, “My campus makes sure

that LGBTQ people especially of Color are treated in the worst way possible.” Interestingly,

those who had positive views felt they were not facing any major challenges and they

contributed that to the liberal school environment. Participant 23 noted that it was, “Different but

ok.” Participant 28 responded to the survey question about perception of campus environment by

saying,

I do not feel as though I am treated differently from by peers because I am not 100% out

as a bisexual woman. I am able to pass as straight and refrain from correcting

peers/others about my orientation to prevent maltreatment.

Theme one represented students’ perceptions of their campuses and classrooms’ climates. Based

on responses provided by participants, many felt unwelcome and awkward on campus and in

classroom environments. They felt a noticeable difference between what was advertised as a

campus that presented equity and equal opportunity regardless of their sexual preferences and

what they actually encountered on campus and in the classrooms. In theme two, campus and

classroom safety were discussed as another aspect of research question one dealing with how
 61

campus policies, directly or indirectly, influenced LGBTQ students’ experiences in higher

education.

Theme 2. Campus and classroom safety. In this theme, the issue of safety was the focal

point involving LGBTQ students’ experiences at campus and classroom level. Participants had

an opportunity to share their experiences through responding to survey and interview questions.

During data collection, participants provided responses regarding campus and classroom safety.

As far as data collected via eight interviews, all eight of the interviewed students felt relatively

safe on their campus and in the classrooms from physical harm. However, they mentioned being

uneasy and uncomfortable due to their experiences formed by their interactions with other

students and faculty. On the survey of 28 participants, 23 responded to multiple choice questions

regarding safety. Twenty demonstrated concerns at different degrees of harm, while three had no

concerns about their safety.

Though interviewees expressed relative safety from physical harm, some did ultimately

share that physical harm was a possibility. For example, Mike revealed, “I don't feel safe

physically and emotionally, mentally. I don't feel comfortable with that at our campus.” In

addition, two participants felt as long as they hid their sexual identity, they were safe. Mary felt

she was safe, but only because she was not 100% out as bisexual. Furthermore, Lucy shared that

when the class was asked to divide by gender, “I'm actually a woman, but I look like a man, so I

guess I should stay on this side of the room to be safe.” This side being the female side. When

Lucy was asked to clarify why this experience concerned her, she added, “I identify as bisexual

and transgender and I'm binary.” Lucy elaborated more by stating, “I think part of it is on a

personal level of discrimination. People can use like say like micro aggressions and hurtful

language.”
 62

Twenty participants were concerned about verbal abuse. Verbal abuse and harassment

could entail another form of making individuals unsafe and unwelcomed. Homophobic name‐

calling, alone or in combination with verbal sexual harassment, was a risk factor for escalating

substance use in young adulthood, especially among victims with depressive symptoms (Davis et

al., 2021). During the interview, Lucy stated, “Very intentional act of transphobia in classroom,

and I don't know why it was, but I felt, I had a really hard time.” Participant 22, responded to the

specific question in the survey about their experiences by saying, “I have also had people

verbally and sexually harass me for how I look or because of my sexuality and gender.” Others

like Participant 26 in the survey demonstrated their interpretation of abuse by having been called

by the wrong pronoun intentionally. Participant 26 shared, “People in my classes and my

professors don’t respect my pronouns in my major. As a minority in a male dominated field

being non-binary was incredibly difficult.” Others like Mike saw verbal abuse as more of a

passive aggressive way such as using jokes and side comments. Mike demonstrated his

frustration when he stated,

The interactions with the peers and with the jokes and the comments, and I'm sure that,

you know, faculty and staff hear about it or even overhear it. Yet they don't do anything

about it, like jumping in and stopping the conversation and saying, that's not OK.

Another example of verbal abuse came from Mike who was very uncomfortable when recalling

an unpleasant experience before and after the class involving his peers making jokes about

LGBTQ individual. Mike stated, “So the feelings are definitely associated with anxiety and that

anxiety is actually linked to some of the PTSD that I have from the bullying and that will just put

me into an immediate state of being quiet.”

 63

On the survey, participants shared short answers to clarify their choices on the multiple-

choice questions. For instance, Participant 11 demonstrated, “Getting targeted and called

names.” Feeling unsafe is not limited to physical threats that can create concerns as demonstrated

by responses. Participant 17 indicated, “I have been openly called faggot.” In another instance,

Participant 26 explained the verbal abuse as sexual abuse as she took her biology courses. She

indicated, “I was never asked for my pronouns or felt completely safe in those classes. I was

sexually harassed in some of them.” In terms of protecting themselves against abuse, Participant

18 raised concerns about her LGBTQ peers in her class. She indicated, “I have felt some kind of

fear about how my peers would feel if they I came out.”

Based on participants’ responses to interview and survey questions, it appeared that there

were some concerns regarding campus and classrooms safety issues. Most participants felt they

were physically safe, but they did have concerns about verbal and unfriendly interactions, which

made them feel uncomfortable. These findings led to the next theme, campus policies and

LGBTQ students.

Theme 3. Campus policies and LGBTQ students. This theme covered how LGBTQ

students viewed their campus policies that were supposed to protect them against mistreatment

and discriminatory practices by faculty and other students. Based on data collected from

participants, there seemed to be a common theme among them which indicated the need for

changes in their school’s policies and how they were implemented. Data was collected from

participants from their responses to survey questions and interviews. All eight interview

participants felt that there was a need for improvement in policies involving tolerance towards

LGBTQ students in campus and classroom environments. Out of 28 participants completing the

survey, one felt comfortable and okay, 13 felt there is a need for more training for faculty and
 64

students, four noted the policies were outdated, and two were not sure. Eight survey participants

did not answer the question.

While the participants indicated that there were preexisting policies at their schools to

prevent discrimination, they were not convinced about their effectiveness to protect them as

LGBTQ students. Tony shared regarding homophobic remarks in the classroom, “That is like

permitted to exist within the classroom environment.” In addition, Mike projected his frustrations

by saying, “Just stating and reinforcing that discrimination, but no actions not going to work.”

Both responses suggested the policies are not enforced.

Other participants shared their views of campus policies and their lack of effectiveness

towards creating a welcoming and tolerating environment towards LGBTQ students. Tony

stated, “There is an inequity and that that is not being addressed.” In other words, it looked like

there were policies, but in need of improvement to meet the needs of LGBTQ students. Some

participants during their interview raised concerns about how policies that are written to address

LGBTQ students looked like they were written by non-LGBTQ individuals that failed to

accommodate their needs. For instance, Larry who was more concerned about ineffectiveness of

campus policies wanted more training for students and faculties when he said, “I think, like, what

they could do is like adding another training about like being sensitive to people’s identities, like

understanding like queer identities and trans identities.” Another participant, Linda, felt policy

makers should consider, “Seeing things through LGBTQ students’ lens.” This type of disconnect

between school’s policies LGBTQ students’ needs were demonstrated by other participants like

Linda when she mentioned,

 65

So, I think that the best thing schools can do to listen to the complaints is listen to

individuals and try to talk to individual members of the campus versus trying to collect

mass data or figure out what the trends are.

Some participants suggested ways to improve the situation. Allen simply stated, “Hire

more queer faculty. I think that that would probably be a good start.” Linda asserted, “I think the

best thing schools can do is listen to students as individuals and not necessarily data. She thought

that part of the reason for school policies being out of touch with LGBTQ students’ needs and

expectations was related with lack of having enough LGBTQ faculty and staff as she stated,

“You don't see the proper ratio in terms of the population of LGBTQ students versus the

population of LGBTQ faculty and staff.” Other participants shared their thoughts on how to

improve policies on campus, focusing on training. Thirteen of the survey participants noted that

training was needed. Lucy, an interview participant, argued,

I think what would be helpful is to actually have it be a mandatory training because

sensitivity training can teach professors and students how to be more sensitive to LGBTQ

issues and better support with their climate in their classrooms.

Melisa also believed that their school needed some kind of education or training to educate

students and faculty about LGBTQ student. Larry stated what schools could do was a specific

training about being sensitive to people’s identities, like understanding queer identities, trans

identities and how to ask for their pronouns. However, four survey participants seemed to feel

even if the policies were enforced and there was training, that the policies were just simply

outdated. Part of the need for changes in school policy to make the campus environment seemed

linked to LGBTQ students being recognized through taking part in training as Lucy stated, “I felt

more of the campus community, kind of. Get some recognition with us.” Furthermore, during
 66

interview as part of how campus policies could lead to making the campus better, she added,

“Would be helpful is also having a center on campus community college.”

In this theme participant had an opportunity to state their response to the specific question

where they were asked, “At your college, how would you feel in terms of policies and trainings

for students and faculty about LGBTQ students?” Based on participants’ responses, the need for

more training and policies being outdated and out of touch to meet the needs of LGBTQ students

at their campuses where the attended colleges and universities appeared to take the centerstage.

However, others saw it as the need for modifications in preexisting policies at their campus.

Other participants elaborated more about how they felt about their campus in the essay

questions. For instance, Participant 22 wrote, “I have had issues of being discriminated against

and treated like I am strange or disruptive.” Participant 25 indicated, “I have had several negative

interactions on campus, in which I have been followed and verbally harassed.” Reviewing both

negative and positive or neutral comments based on responses from participants about campus

experiences could be linked to their feelings and effectiveness or policies as well as how they

were enforced and followed by students and faculty pointing to many LGBTQ students stating

the need for change in policies and implementing trainings.

The themes for this research question were campus and classroom climates, campus, and

classroom safety as well as campus policies and LGBTQ students. Based on data collected from

participants campuses portrayed themselves as LGBTQ friendly, but the reality on campuses and

in classrooms did not match what was portrayed in this marketing materials and websites.

Consequently, many participants did not feel safe. Many participants felt that policies needed to

be improved and enforced and there needed to be training for faculty to improve their

experiences. LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their campuses and how they are being treated as
 67

a minority group is closely associated with their interactions with faculty and students discussed

in the next research question.

RQ2. What are LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their higher education experience

as it relates to their sexual orientation? Participants in this case study were asked to describe

and share their perceptions of their higher education experience as it related to their sexual

orientation. The data was collected by interviewing participants and completing a survey where

they had an opportunity to share their experiences based on encounters with other students and

with faculty. The participants’ responses created three themes. They were interactions with

faculty, interactions with other students, and feelings based on sexual orientation.

Theme 1. Interactions with faculty. Participants provided many responses related to

their interactions with faculties in classrooms as they responded to survey and interview

questions. Overall, out of 28 survey participants, 15 felt satisfied with their interactions with

faculty and two felt very satisfied. Four noted they were dissatisfied and three were very

dissatisfied. Four did not respond to this inquiry. The eight participants that were interviewed

demonstrated various degrees of challenges they faced dealing with their faculty. They believed

that these challenges were due to being LGBTQ student.

In terms of faculty showing prejudice towards LGBTQ students in classrooms which

could become an obstacle and barrier for students making it harder to learn, Larry said, “It is the

acts of one person showing prejudice creating barriers for another person.” Other participants

like Linda demonstrated their experiences with their faculty in a different way. Linda mentioned,

“I've noticed in STEM classes that were more science and technology math-oriented classes, it's

a lot harder for LGBTQ students to retain the attention or respect of professors.” Lucy’s

response helped explain further. Lucy said, “I think it was an Algebra 2 class and the professor
 68

would make a lot of really sexist comments. He would say things like, ‘Girls, make sure you get

your boyfriends to help you with your homework.” She identified herself as identify as bisexual

and transgender in the interview and shared how she felt about her professor by mentioning,

“Why is that the assumption or that any woman would have a boyfriend?” Tony stated, “I would

have to explain my existence to them as non-binary to ask faculty to use my correct pronouns

when they addressed me in front of the class.” Tony mentioned, “As a trans some of my

professors behaved in a way that I felt anything but inclusive in their classroom settings.” Larry

noted he believed “they were just uncomfortable being around me as a student who is part of

LGBTQ family.” On the survey, seven participants selected, “Because I am an LGBTQ student, I

feel anxious and worried to be rejected.” Although the nature of these challenges was different,

they seem to point towards the same issue of being treated unfairly which made them dissatisfied

and frustrated.

During the interviews, participants shared frustrating interactions within the classroom.

For instance, Linda described her interactions with one of her professors as ignoring the

questions she had by saying, “So, I was having a consistent problem last semester in the spring

with one of my organic chemistry professors, in which when I went to him with a question, I

noticed that he would sort of pass it off as a silly question where other non-LGBTQ students got

answers to their questions.” Linda also stated, “It's a lot more difficult to get them to answer

questions seriously or to get them to dedicate time to explaining concepts.” Larry noted even via

email he struggled to get a response. He shared, “The professor in response to my questions

ended up never responding to my emails at all.”

The survey was used to ascertain LGBTQ students’ interactions with their faculty. Out of

24 responses, 15 identified it as satisfied, two as very satisfied, four as dissatisfied, and three as
 69

very dissatisfied. In response to a different essay survey question that involved how LGBTQ

students felt based on their interactions in classrooms, they had an opportunity to elaborate more.

For instance, this is how Participant 14 shared the experience,

Professors have a tendency to tokenize me. I've noticed a lot of professors gravitate

towards me because as a mild tempered, white, financially well off, innately smart, etc.

I'm the type of trans person that cis people really like and they'll hold me on a pedestal to

show everyone else how 'tolerant' they are. It's a little exhausting because they seem to

expect that I owe them my gratefulness in exchange for general acceptance.

Participant 14 statements suggest that there seems to be an atmosphere where interactions with

“model” LGBTQ students made them feel awkward, obligated, and even used. In addition,

Participant 25 mentioned, “Interactions with students and teachers were sometimes awkward

because sometimes they did not know how to respond to the things I say.” Others like Participant

27 seemed to have a mixed feeling due to past experiences in high school compared to college

experiences,

I was bullied in grade school and high school for being gay and different. It was very

traumatizing and I feel that college is a much different environment, but I am always

hesitant and afraid to be myself. I stay in the closet.

Interestingly, Participant 17 described the interaction with faculty as, “it’s actually been a

positive response and I am very grateful.”

Interactions with faculty in classrooms presented challenges for LGBTQ students in

different ways as indicated by participants’ experiences. In the surveys and interviews

participants had many opportunities to share their experiences based on interactions with their

faculty as well as how those interactions made them feel as LGBTQ students. Another aspect of
 70

how LGBTQ students perceived campus and classroom environment had to do with how they

interacted with other students discussed in next them.

Theme 2. Interactions with other students. Based on data collected from interviews and

surveys questions, participants seemed to have concerns about their interactions with other

students in their classrooms at various levels. All eight of the interview participants felt some

degree of unfriendliness and unwelcoming interactions coming from their peers in the classroom.

Out of 28 survey participants, 24 responded to the line of inquiry about interactions with peers.

Five participants felt no different than other students based on how they were treated by their

peers. However, 19 participants felt the opposite and demonstrated various degrees of

dissatisfaction.

During the interview’s six out of eight participants expressed those other students made

them feel disrespected and violated because of the way they conducted themselves. For instance,

Tony said, “After how a student talked to me, I just had to leave the class because I was upset

that he chose to not respect me as an LGBTQ student.” Melisa also felt unwelcome in class by

stating, “In my STEM classes where I was treated in a way, I felt unwelcomed especially if I

revealed my identity.” Mike shared her experiences regarding other students by saying, “Based

on my experiences, I would evaluate the perception of tolerance level is not very tolerant towards

LGBTQ students.” Lucy discussed the difference between being welcomed versus being

tolerated; being tolerated was conceived as something students had to do but did not want to.

Lucy shared, “I think tolerance and acceptance and being welcoming are kind of different things.

I think they tolerated us.” Two of the participants during their interview had more of a positive

experience involving their interactions in classroom. For instance, Larry stated, “Well, I would

say I go to like a pretty liberal university. And so, my classroom interactions are usually like
 71

pretty good.” Mary also mentioned, ‘So I personally don't believe I've experienced any kind of

discrimination in a classroom setting or among peers and whatnot or colleagues.”

Three participants that participated in the interview noted that they pretended not to be

LGBTQ to avoid being discriminated against as LGBTQ students, an idea called passing, which

means concealing your true identity just to fit in (Minikel, 2020). For example, Larry said, “I do

kind of have to make a different version of myself that I project to others to look more acceptable

to other students which doesn't feel great.” Larry felt like she had to deny her true self and

pretend to be someone else for the sake of acceptance. Melisa shared that outing yourself brought

consequence when she stated, “My LGBTQ friends that revealed their identities were looked at

or ignored in many cases.”

As participants shared their experiences during interviews, there were discussions about

how these circumstances were frustrating and upsetting. For instance, Tony mentioned,

I felt very frustrated and angry. I didn't feel like I shouldn't have had to do the

assignment because it was disrespectful towards me. You know, reproductive organs.

And so for me, like what I see, like. That kind of biological like dumbing down gender to

like biological things like. Makes me pretty annoyed because it's like such an obvious

thing for me and someone that I've spent. It's such a big part of my life that I don't

understand how people can like not realize that.

Lucy demonstrated her frustrations due to her interactions with her peers and faculty when she

stated, “It doesn't feel good to feel like you're being discriminated against just because of your

sexual orientation. It can feel really discouraging.”

Participants used a specific multiple-choice question to share their experiences involving

classroom experiences. Out of 24 survey participants who answered, five participants matched
 72

the experiences with the selection that stated, “Felt no different than other students based on how

they were treated by their peers.” However, 19 participants had opposite response by matching

their experiences with the selection that indicated, “Various degrees of dissatisfaction.” In an

essay survey question, participants were able to elaborate more about their experiences. For

instance, Participant 17 stated, “I do feel there is a negative connotation associated with

LGBTQ+ students and that people are very uptight about things that don’t really even concern

them.” Others like Participant 26 mentioned, “I feel that I am not seen as an individual and not

treated with respect by people in my classes.” However, there were instances of participants

having more of a positive view. For example, Participant 9 stated, “I do not feel as though I am

treated differently from by peers.”

In this theme participants demonstrated various examples of how their interactions with

their peers made them feel. Interactions with other students in classrooms appeared to be difficult

for LGBTQ students. Difficulties of feeling left out or considered different based on LGBTQ

students’ sexuality seemed to have the same roots as it related to their sexual orientation and

preferences which was further discussed in the next theme.

Theme 3. Feelings based on sexual orientation. In this theme sexual orientation was

being looked at as a possible factor in affecting interactions between LGBTQ students, faculty,

and other students in classrooms and on campus. As participants in this research shared their

personal experiences in classrooms and on campus involving how faculty and students interacted

with them as LGBTQ students, it became more apparent that it they felt it was harder for them

than non-LGBTQ students because they were viewed as different. As participants answered

specific question related to their experiences in classrooms involving their sexual orientations, all

eight of the interview participants felt that the reason why they were treated differently by
 73

faculty and other students was due to being LGBTQ student. However, the degree and form of

mistreatment they experienced were not similar. It ranged from insensitive jokes and comments

to completely ignoring and making them feel unwelcomed. Participants had different

opportunities to share their experiences to determine the role of sexual orientation in how

LGBTQ students felt about their interactions with other students and faculty in classrooms and

on campus where they attended colleges and universities. For instance, as they provided their

answers to survey questions, they indicated their concerns about how their classmates used jokes

and comments to target LGBTQ students as passive aggressive method. Such interactions made

them feel intimidated and isolated that became an obstacle for them to establish friendship and

relationships with other students affecting their ability to connect to other students. These

responses were based on participants experiences related to their interactions with other students

in their classrooms.

For instance, Larry stated, “I feel like I'm denied opportunity because I'm a transgender

or queer.” Larry also added, “My first thought is like, oh, it's because I'm not good enough.”

Linda demonstrated her feeling based on interactions with faculty and students by saying, “They

treat people a little bit differently, be more cautious around people because of what they perceive

their gender sexuality to be.” Linda added, “It didn't feel fair that I might end up doing worse in

the class because I'm not being given the same treatment as other students.” Melisa noted

specifically how being treated differently manifested in the classroom. She shared, “Not being

welcomed in my STEM classes especially if it involved group assignments made me feel very

frustrated.” Mary described her experiences in terms of how she was treated by others in

classroom. Mary stated, “As being a part of the LGBTQ student population, I need to be working

ten times harder than a straight counterpart just to be accepted by others.” Mary explained why
 74

she felt the need to work harder by sharing how her racial identity parallels her LGBTQ identity.

When Mary was asked to elaborate more about comparing her race related point on working

harder to be accepted as a minority group versus how she saw that as LGBTQ student as

minority group, she stated,

It's you know, it's anything really that makes you out, you know, anything different from

the norm. So, because I do identify as a part of the LGBTQ AA plus community, that's

just another aspect of why I need to be working ten times harder than a straight

counterpart. Just to be like not only accepted, but to be on the same playing field as

everyone else.

Some participants experienced overt discrimination. Lucy shared, “Very intentional act of

transphobia in classroom, and I don't know why it was, but I felt, I had a really hard time

knowing what to do. During the interview when Lucy was asked to elaborate more on what she

meant by that intentional act that made her feel uncomfortable, she explained,

It was a few weeks into the class. And we were talking about gender and she said, OK, I

want the men to go on this side of the room and the women to go on this side of the room

and there's no third option. Just go to whatever you feel like fits you.

As another example of participants sharing their experiences, Mike indicated,

There were always some jokes or some kind of remarks against the LGBT community

mostly with peers and classmates that has impacted me in a variety of ways, especially

when it doesn't make me feel comfortable. I feel like I need to go back into the closet.

In this theme as participants responded to survey questions related to how they felt about their

interactions with their peers in classrooms as LGBTQ students and how they felt about their

sexual orientation may have played a role in how other students treated them in their classrooms.
 75

As they responded to these multiple-choice questions, nine participants determined that they had

a hard time establishing any kind of friendship with other non-LGBTQ students. Three stated

they had no problems making friendship and 11 stated that they were not sure. By responding to

other survey question involving how comments and jokes with LGBTQ content from other

students made them feel as they interacted in classroom and 17 participants shared feeling of

intimidation, isolation, and threats whereas four saw it as no problem.

This research question focused on possible discrimination against LGBTQ students by

faculty and other students. There were three themes in research question two including

interactions with faculty, interactions with other students and feelings based on sexual

orientations which were based on responses provided by participants through sharing their

experiences when they answered the survey and interview questions. Based on data collected

from participants’ responses, LGBTQ students showed many different examples of their

concerns based on their interactions with their faculty and their peers at different levels on

campus and in their classrooms as the attended their colleges and universities. These conducts

and behaviors by other faculties and students could be linked to academic performances.

Research question three focused on how such practices could affect students’ academic

performance and success.

RQ3. What influence, if any, did LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in

higher education have on their academic success? This research question focused on possible

effect of discriminatory behaviors by students and faculty towards LGBTQ students. As

participants shared their experiences and feelings based on their interactions with other students

and faculty, the effect on their academic performances were revealed. Collected data from

surveys and interviews led to the theme of academic influence.

 76

Theme 1. Academic influence. This theme addressed how LGBTQ students’ perceptions

and experiences with other LGBTQ students, other students, and faculty affected their academic

success. As participants completed their survey questions, one of the questions involved their

academic endeavor as LGBTQ students. Out of 28 participants who used the essay survey

question to share their experiences,18 chose to respond. Out of 18 who responded, five had

negative views, and 13 had neutral or positive views. Participants also had multiple opportunities

to discuss their experiences regarding their academic success and how as LGBTQ students, they

felt about their academic journey during the interviews. Based on responses from participants

during interview, three participants expressed their academic experiences as discouraging and

negative whereas five participants indicated that they were academically successful but had to

deal with unwanted pressures and stress of how other students made them feel as LGBTQ

student.

Based on the survey, participants’ responses provided some views including accepting

misconducts of their peers and faculty so they could accomplish academic goals while others

mentioned that as LGBTQ students, they were anxious and worried about being rejected by their

peers. They felt the rejection affected their ability to do well academically. However, there were

instances where participants did not experience any negative effect on their academic journey.

As participants responded to other survey question to describe their experiences, thirteen

participants saw themselves as having the advantage over other students because as LGBTQ

students they had to work harder to be accepted by their peers; it pushed them to do better in

their classes academically. Five participants indicated that they did not feel any different than

other students.
 77

During the interview, Allen mentioned, “So. I mean it made me feel, like, discouraged

and sad. I didn't care.” He also added how being isolated for being an LGBTQ student affected

his academic performance,

I would try really hard to make study groups with the people in my classes and it always

fell through. And at first, I thought it was just kind of like a one-off thing where it's like,

oh, I asked, you know, this person to study. And she said, no. But then I asked like

multiple people over like several classes. And they all just kind of like awkwardly said

yes, and then didn't reply when I asked them again. So that kind of led me to believe that

they were just like uncomfortable being around me.

Larry also addressed study groups specifically. He concluded that “Not being able to do those

study groups like most other people were doing, definitely had an impact on my grades.” Melisa

also shared, “In my science classes, I ended up working on my assignments alone.” In some

cases, participants noted they were also ignored by faculty. Linda explained how faculty and

students ignoring her affected her emotionally and challenged her in her academic work. She

said, “It made me a lot less interested to be willing to put in the emotional time and effort.” Mike

shared, “It puts me into silence in a state of disempowerment in which I can't even speak up for

myself or sometimes I just avoid conflict.”

Other participants expressed their concerns involving academic performance in

connection with the amount of time and energy redirected to trying to be accepted by their

classmates. For instance, Lucy stated,

It doesn't feel good to feel like you're being discriminated against. The way that I see me

or the way that I want to be seen. They don't treat me the way I treat them or would want

to be treated. Working harder or doing better in a way, it opens an opportunity for you to
 78

be accepted by others. Especially bringing a big group, projects and stuff, I think that

there is an element of that of wanting to do well and to be accepted. At least taken

seriously. Sometimes in arguments with students, it would feel like they just wouldn't

even listen to me.

When Lucy was asked to clarify why she felt working harder was a negative, she

explained,” Extra work just to be accepted by her peer due to being LGBTQ student was not

right.” Other participants like Mike and Larry seemed to have similar concerns as Lucy. Mike

expressed his feelings concerning his academic journey as a LGBTQ student by saying, “I

definitely feel like in order for me to be accepted as an LGBTQ student, I have to excel

academically.” Larry shared, “I kind of have this like subconscious feeling that I have to be more

remarkable, and I have to do a bunch of more stuff in order to be worthy of the same praise or

recognition.” Melisa also shared, “I had to work harder to do well in my academic journey to be

accepted by my peers.” Tony, indicated, “I feel like I have to succeed more and continuously

prove myself as good. I definitely say does add a lot of pressure, but it also does allow me to

succeed.”

Out of 28 survey participants, 10 selected the option of I need to work much harder than

other students to achieve my academic goals, 8 selected, I do not need to work much harder than

other students to achieve my academic goals, five selected, I am not sure, and five did not answer

the question. In response to essay questions, participants had an opportunity to share their

experiences and concerns over the academic performances as LGBTQ students. Some

participants presented their concerns as LGBTQ student by stating, “I have to work harder.” As

participants answered the essay question, indicated not receiving adequate support from faculty

made it hard on them Though most of these participants felt discriminatory practices and
 79

behaviors by other students and faculty towards them as LGBTQ students affected their

motivation, some did not. However, there were other participants that expressed a different view

involving their academic performances as LGBTQ student. Linda shared, “Qualified to be here

and that I wasn't just admitted because I'm queer.” For instance, Participant 17 shared via the

survey that there was no impact on academic performance because of being LGBTQ student.

Participant 17 wrote, “I struggle just as much as any other student does with classes.” Others

shared the same type of responses. For example, Participant 18 wrote, “My academic

performance has been good.” Another participant, Participant 19 simply noted, “My academic

performance has been just fine.” One participant did not find any connections between their

academic failure and being LGBTQ student. Participant 28 answered, “I’m kind of a terrible

student but I doubt that has anything to do w/ being queer, I just find higher education taxing in

many ways.”

Based on responses from participants as they completed survey questions and

participated in interviews, the academic success for the most part was outweighing academic

failure, but among those who were successful, the majority believed that they struggled with

many different forms of discriminatory conducts towards them as LGBTQ students. The main

idea in research question three was how LGBTQ students perceived their academic success and

whether they experienced any difficulties or not. As participants provided responses to survey

and interview questions related to academic effect on LGBTQ students and shared the

experiences. Participants demonstrated that their experiences dealing with faculty and other

students made it harder to be accepted by them, which resulted in accomplishing their academic

goals. They felt that they had to go through unnecessary hardship and stress because of their
 80

LGBTQ status. It was important to note that some participants felt their LGBTQ orientation had

no bearing on their academic journey.

Evaluation of the Findings

The conceptual framework that supported this case study was the concept of “the other.”

This framework will be used to evaluate the findings for each research question. The other was

the term to define anyone other than oneself (Wasik, 2017). According to Ahmad (2013), fear of

the other was a mental formation that underpins stereotypes. In other words, Ahmad suggested

that the mindset of seeing other individuals as the other due to their different sexual orientation

was related to stereotyping those individuals. Through this concept, one would expect people to

be encouraged to confirm their uniqueness when they knew they were like others rather than vice

versa (Dang & Mao, 2017). In other words, being unique was something to be valued as original.

However, some individuals would see that uniqueness as different in a negative way as the basis

for their fear since it is simply different than what they were as individuals. This line of thinking

that they were unique was presented in many responses provided by participants in interviews

and survey questions. In other words, participants saw themselves as unique individuals in many

ways like their appearance and their behaviors, but they found out that this uniqueness was the

basis for being others by faculty and their peers. This approach or assumption could be applied to

cases like LGBTQ students versus other students and faculty in each academic environment like

college or university (Ahmad, 2013).

Seeing LGTBQ students as different supports the concept of the other where LGBTQ

students were viewed as the other. Identifying as LGBTQ (or not conforming to normative

assumptions of gender and sexuality), therefore, presented as another intense affective layer in

this already emotional practice (Ahmad, 2013). This concept of the other and how it could lead
 81

to discriminatory behaviors was demonstrated by how LGBTQ students felt about their

interactions with faculty and other students on their campuses and in classrooms. The findings

were evaluated per research question using this framework.

RQ1. How did campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’

experiences in higher education? Research question one was used to comprehend how campus

policies could directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’ experiences in higher education.

The findings were comprised of three themes including campus and classroom climates, campus

and classroom safety, and campus policies and LGBTQ students. Participants demonstrated how

they perceived the campuses where they attended and how they felt about different aspects of

their campuses and classroom such as safety and accommodations, which were impacted by

campus policies designed to prevent discriminations by other students and faculty towards

LGBTQ students.

Theme 1. Campus and classroom climates. Campus and classroom climates addressed

the idea of how LGBTQ students felt due to their perceived treatment by other students and

faculty where they attended school. The findings suggested most participants felt unwelcomed

on their campus and in their classroom environments. Based on data collected from participants,

many expressed their concerns about how they felt their schools misrepresented themselves as

being diverse and accepting towards LGBTQ students. Fifteen students felt this was not the

reality they experienced. This misrepresentation could attribute to othering because the LGBTQ

students believed their schools recognized and valued diversity, lulling them into a false sense of

security. According to Squire and Mobley (2014), the college choice process for LGBTQ

students could be difficult because it was difficult to fact check colleges’ claims for having

diversity and inclusion for minority groups like LGBTQ.

 82

Based on data presented by those who had a negative view, they seemed to have

experienced unfair treatment by their peers because of their peers seeing them as different or the

other. Many participants explained that they were looked at as something out of norm because of

representing LGBTQ students including their appearance and their interactions in the eyes of

their peers. According to Ahmad (2013), homonormativity could be expressed as the condition

for emergence for a different view on queer politics. In other words, inhabiting forms that did not

extend your shape can produce queer effects (Ahmad, 2013). Such discriminatory behaviors that

were based on one’s appearance or sexual orientation can lead to unfair judgements. According

to Marsh and Cardinale (2012), people who behaved in a discriminatory way towards others

seemed to lack emotional responses leading to developing a judgmental mindset that caused fear

of others.

Although most participants demonstrated negative views of their classrooms, there were

some of the participants that did not share the same views. Presence of different views and

opinions by participants demonstrates how colleges and university campuses and classroom

could be different involving LGBTQ students. One of the interesting points presented by

participants some participants who expressed a positive view was the mention of hiding their true

identity as LGBTQ students to be accepted by faculty and their peers. This concept of looking

like others by concealing their true identity created an opportunity for them to avoid being

looked at by their peers as the other. Even participants who did not feel they were treated

differently than other students based on their interactions with faculty and their peers still

indicated concerns about their safety which is discussed in theme two under campus and

classroom safety.
 83

Theme 2. Campus and classroom safety. This theme focused on campus and classroom

safety based on LGBTQ students’ experiences. Although participants did not express any

physical assault or harm on campus, they shared their feelings of being targeted verbally by their

faculty and classmates that made them feel unwelcomed. Most participants demonstrated

concerns about how their peers made them feel isolated and intimidated due to passive

aggressive behavior such as telling insulting and offensive jokes and comments targeting their

sexual identities. This type of behavior could be seen as a result of other students seeing LGBTQ

students as the other since they saw them as different than themselves.

The concept of fear of the other could be noted in many different ways including sexual

orientation, which was the case for LGBTQ students in this case study. The majority of them

expressed their feelings as emotionally charged due to their interactions with faculty and other

students when they made them feel unwelcomed and isolated primarily because they were

viewed as the other due to their sexuality. Such phenomenon could be supported by Neel (2014)

who argued that assuming some target presented a violent threat could possibly originate from a

preconceived sensitivity to a specific group. Furthermore, Neel indicated that since threat-based

prejudices appeared as different in their emotional comprehension, and emotional expressions,

different target populations might be attuned to understanding particular emotional expressions

encompassing fear towards others. As many participants indicated their concerns over their

safety based on their interactions with faculty and other students, the importance of an effective

policy to prevent intimidating and unwelcomed behaviors and conducts against LGBTQ students

on campus and in classrooms become important step towards protecting them which is the focus

of theme three under campus policies and LGBTQ students.

 84

Theme 3. Campus policies and LGBTQ students. This theme used data collected from

participants to demonstrate how LGBTQ students viewed campus policies that were supposed to

protect them against discrimination by faculty and other students on campus and in classrooms.

While one participant found their campuses and classrooms to be well supported by campus

policies, the majority, thirteen participants demonstrated their dissatisfactions with their school’s

policies. Those who shared their dissatisfaction with school’s policies, found them to be

inadequate, outdated and out of touch in terms of seeing the needs of LGBTQ students through

their lens involving campus and classrooms. These participants felt they were left out due to how

faculty and other students behaved towards them as LGBTQ students. Those who were

dissatisfied felt the policies and trainings for faculty and students were ineffective. A critical

component of such training was the identification of unconscious prejudices in the minds of

individuals that impacted behavior (Applebaum, 2019).

According to participants’ experiences, outdated and ineffective policies or not enforcing

those policies created a gap in protection of LGBTQ students dealing with other students and

faculty in classrooms and on campus. Their concerns toward policies at their campuses suggested

a lack of understanding or even caring by the policy makers about the emotions and feelings of

LGBTQ students. Seeing LGBTQ students as the other seemed to be the basis for outdated or

unenforced policies to protect them. Ahmad (2013) considered how emotions keep us invested in

relationships of power, and also showed how this use of emotion could be crucial to areas such

as feminist and queer politics. Furthermore, Ahmad found a relationship between school’s

environments and sexual orientation. Ahmad indicated that, emotionality had largely appeared as

the separate 'other' to the rational business of mainstream education.

 85

According to those participants who demonstrated their concerns about campus policies,

they felt that these policies were not effective to protect them against faculty and other students

since they experienced difficulties by being targeted as other due to their sexual orientation.

Many instances such as inappropriate comments, disrespectful and intimidating jokes, and

comments as well as unwillingness to let them participate in group assignments and activities

lead them to believe the policies at their school were not providing the protections they needed as

LGBTQ students. Ahmad (2013) suggested that fear of other minority groups due to their sexual

orientations leads to isolation and creation of an unwelcomed environment. The idea that sexual

orientation created the grounds for discriminatory behaviors was the focus of research question

two under the perception of LGBTQ students towards their experiences on campuses and in

classrooms.

RQ2. What are LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their higher education experience

as it relates to their sexual orientation? As participants described and shared their perceptions

of their higher education experience as it related to their sexual orientation, four participants

indicated positive experiences whereas the majority of participants, fifteen, demonstrated

feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction based on their interactions with faculty and other

students in classrooms and campus. These participants’ experiences shared covered different

levels and forms of being ignored and unwelcomed based on their sexual orientations caused by

faculty and their peers’ conducts. Studies on queer/trans-spectrum students’ campus experiences

showed that colleges and universities continued to be hostile and unwelcoming for them despite

the implementation of programs and initiatives to improve campus climate (Tavarez, 2020).

Theme 1. Interactions with faculty. Participants provided many responses related to their

interactions with faculties in classrooms. Four of the participants demonstrated their frustrations
 86

and feelings of isolation due to the way their professors treated them unfairly by not addressing

their questions and not taking them seriously. They expressed this treatment made them feel

excluded. As these participants shared their experiences with faculty in their classrooms, the

ones who expressed negative feelings indicated that they were the target of being treated unfairly

because of who they were as LGBTQ students. Such discriminatory behaviors could be the result

of being different than others in the eyes of their faculty. It is no secret that there were systematic

biases against LGBTQ people in the United States as evidenced by public policies that failed to

protect and support LGBTQ people in our social and cultural institutions (Ombagi, 2016; Taylor,

2016). The nation was imagined as a heterosexual family, so those who were queer threaten the

coherence and stability of the nation as a community (Ombagi, 2016). Consequently, the

presence of individuals with different sexual orientations was perceived as a threat that leads to

treating them in a discriminatory fashion like those participants that felt isolated and

unwelcomed when they shared their experiences. Many of these individuals that were afraid of

others due to their sexual orientation base their mindset on separating themselves as way of

maintaining their norm. Bisexual students share these challenges but faced a unique type of

marginalization within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community

(Tavarez, 2020). For instance, Yao and Wang (2021) suggested association stigma linked to the

prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes toward others who have connections with LGBTQ

individuals was a harmful method of stigma against others. Such individuals feared the other for

two reasons. They see others with different sexual orientation as threat to their beliefs, and they

were afraid of being affiliated with any LGBTQ individuals. Although the majority of

participants demonstrated various degree of experiencing negative interactions with faculty,

there were fifteen participants who did not feel their interactions with their faculty were any
 87

different from any other students. These participants contributed their different views in

opposition to those who had negative views to attending more liberal schools where LGBTQ

students were accepted despite their sexual orientation. However, three commented they had not

“come out” as LGBTQ to avoid any possible issues involving faculty, so they would be more

accepted.

As participants shared their experiences, three participants mentioned their preference to

hide their sexual identity to avoid problems. There were many reasons for hiding their identity.

For example, with regard to college and university admissions applications, LGBTQ students

might be unsure about whether to disclose their sexual and/or gender identity, fearing that they

might experience discrimination from the institution as a result, such as being denied admission

or financial aid (Burleson, 2010). According to Tavarez (2020), developing a better

understanding of LGBTQ students’ needs, more sharing experiences to be examined which

involved the unique challenges on campus. For students who did come out on admissions

applications, their identity was likely a highly salient and important part of their narrative

(Burleson, 2010). In other words, LGBTQ students should not have to conceal their identity to be

accepted by faculty and their peers. In addition to interactions with faculty, the interactions with

other students seemed to be playing and important role in how they experienced their classrooms

and campus. Therefore, those participants who shared their experiences based on concealing

their identity could be treated like other students than being targeted due to their sexual

orientation as LGBTQ students.

Theme 2. Interactions with other students. Based on data collected from participants, 19

of them seemed to have concerns about their interactions with other students in their classrooms

at various levels. They presented concerns based on their experiences dealing with their peers
 88

included feelings of being ignored and unwelcomed in their classrooms. However, five

participants did not present any concerns in terms of how they interacted with other students.

Participants that demonstrated negative views of their interactions with their peers in

classrooms indicated how other students avoided them by not accepting them in their group

activities or joining them as partners to work on class projects. These participants felt it was due

to their sexual orientation. McCann and Brown (2018) found that exclusion was a common

response when someone was perceived as the other. As presented by participants, those who

experienced instances where they felt isolated and unwelcomed by their peers, could not find any

other reason but their sexual orientation since other students did not share the same feelings of

being ignored of isolated. Discriminatory behaviors may be related to fear of others created by

heterosexual hierarchy in campuses with more conservative culture. There were instances where

participants who attended more liberal schools did not experience any discrimination or feeling

unwelcomed. Within a social hierarchy based on sexual orientation, heteronormative ideology

served as a social force that maintains dominant group members' status (Ray & Parkhill, 2021).

Five participants did not share the same views as those who had negative views and experiences.

As those participants shared their experiences, they indicated that their view was due to attending

liberal schools where campus and classroom environments were welcoming and inclusive

despite being LGBTQ students. Others attributed it to concealing their true identity to blend in

and to avoid being treated and viewed as other. However, identity played an important role in an

LGBTQ person’s motivation (Pryor et al, 2020). LGBTQ students like other minorities should

not be hiding their identity in fear of being mistreated by other students and faculty.

Nevertheless, those who saw concealment of their identity as a way to blend in, wanted to have

the same opportunity while attending school. This may be linked to what Ray and Parkhill,
 89

(2021) indicated as social hierarchies of heterosexuals that might be arbitrarily created to give

privileges or discriminate against individuals with different race, ethnicity, and sexual

orientation. Therefore, the importance of evaluating the role of sexual orientation involving how

LGBTQ students could be viewed as others by faculty and other students grants considerations

discussed in theme three.

Theme 3. Feelings based on sexual orientation. In this theme sexual orientation was looked at

as a possible factor in affecting interactions between LGBTQ students, faculty, and other

students in classrooms and on campus. For 17 participants, the theme was similar as they shared

their experiences focusing on how they were treated differently by their professors and their

peers as they interacted with them solely, they believed, because of their identity as LGBTQ

students. However, there were five participants that felt the opposite by describing their

experiences as no different than other students as they interacted with their peers and faculty on

campus and in classrooms. Out of five participants, three attributed it to concealing their sexual

identity as LGBTQ students.

Based on data collected from participants, LGBTQ students’ experiences revealed how

faculty and other students conducted themselves on campus and in classrooms. According to

participants who demonstrated a negative view of their experiences based on their interactions

with faculty and their peers, they felt that the only reason why they were treated in a negative

way was because of their sexual orientation. In other words, participants with negative

experiences felt as if their peers had some kind of fear of LGBTQ students. Such experiences of

participants and how their interactions made them feel could be related to fear of others who

were in this case different based on their sexual orientation despite some participants who did not

feel the same way. This fear of others based on sexual orientation was explained by Ray and
 90

Parkhill (2021) who suggested that the existence of a social hierarchy based on sexual orientation

is sustained via heteronormative ideology. Therefore, those faculty and students who saw

LGBTQ students as other seemed to act out of fear of losing their grounds on campus and in

classrooms. Participants who demonstrated no negative views attributed it to attending a liberal

school which indicated the role of geographical and cultural effects on how campus and

classroom environments towards LGBTQ students were formed. For instance, as a contrast,

Broadhurst, Martin, Hoffshire, and Takewell (2018) found despite all effort by activists to

advocate for LGBTQ students in the South where more conservative cultures and climates

existed in higher education institutes, many challenges remained.

The workings of heteronormativity were obscured, and the lived experiences of inclusion

were often ignored (Ahmad,2013). In other words, Ahmad saw the fear of others in

heterosexuals’ mindset as basis for seeing LGBTQ individuals as different due their different

sexual orientation leading to judgmental and discriminatory behaviors. Protection of LGBTQ

students against discrimination could go beyond campuses and classrooms. It is important for

community colleges leaders to understand LGBTQ students’ experiences in the larger social and

cultural context within the United States (Taylor, 2016). Nevertheless, the effect of such

behaviors might affect academic performances. Research question three explored this possibility.

RQ3. What influence, if any, does LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in

higher education have on their academic success? This research question was based on

possible effects of discriminatory behaviors and conducts by students and faculty towards

LGBTQ students. The main theme was how such behaviors could possibly affect LGBTQ

students’ academic success. However, according to data collected from participants, LGBTQ

students demonstrated different views in terms of academic success where they attended school.
 91

Theme 1. Academic influence. This theme addressed how LGBTQ students’

perceptions and experiences with other students and faculty affected their academic success.

Based on students’ responses in the survey, while five LGBTQ students felt the unnecessary

stress and hardship, they had to endure was due to their treatment by faculty and their peers, 10

of these students saw it as a force to push them to work harder because they felt that if they were

academically successful, they would be accepted by their peers. However, this success could

come with a high price of being mentally under a lot of stress. Interestingly, eight participants

indicated no sense of being treated differently by their faculty and their peers.

The majority of participants saw themselves as successful students. However, there were

many different experiences shared by participants. Some participants indicated that the reason

they were successful was due to working extra hard to gain the approval of their faculty and

peers so that they were accepted by them. Others saw their academic success as a way of

showing their faculty and other students that despite being viewed as other or different, they

could be academically successful. Nevertheless, both groups indicated that the obstacles

encountered were unnecessary and unjustified which made them feel frustrated and isolated. The

concept of fear of the other due to faculty and other students viewing LGBTQ students as

different due to their sexual orientation might be linked to unnecessary hardships. Oppressive

campus climates decreased LGBTQ student engagement in both curricular and cocurricular

involvements (Linley & Nguyen, 2015). Campus climates might discourage LGBTQ

undergraduate students from feeling attached to their learning experience because they might feel

invisible and underrepresented in the academic environment (Linley & Nguyen, 2015).

Furthermore, some participants expressed their negative interactions with their faculty and peers

made them feel unwelcomed and isolated which affected their academic performances. Five
 92

participants who indicated they were academically successful, expressed their frustrations for

having to deal with faculty and their peers where they made it difficult for them because of their

sexual orientation. These participants provided examples of how they were treated by faculty and

other students such as faculty ignoring them when they asked for help to understand concepts or

referring them back to the book whereas other students received more assistance. As far as

examples of how LGBTQ students were treated by their peers, participants who found it hard to

accomplish their academic goals provided examples like being ignored by other students and

having a hard time being accepted in group activities only because of their sexual orientation.

These participants felt unwelcomed and isolated and being looked at as the other. LGBTQ

students were particularly vulnerable to the risk of mental health concerns as they moved through

these developmental tasks (Klundt et al., 2021).

According to Klunt et al. (2021), individuals with minoritized identities could experience

minority related stressors leading to negative effects on their mental health and well-being. This

was supported by other researchers who found that among sexual minorities such hostile

experiences could contribute to increased risk for negative outcomes, including mental and

physical health problems (Klundt et al., 2021). Mental and physical health problems contribute to

lower academic engagement and performance (Woodford & Kulick, 2015). Participants’

responses to interview and survey questions encompassing campus policies, interactions with

faculty and other students as well as the role of sexual orientation and their academic success

were indicative of isolation and anxiety. Although most participants who demonstrated different

experiences through interacting with faculty and other students involving their academic success

saw themselves successful despite having to cope with classroom environments where they felt

treated unfairly due to their sexual orientation. These participants felt isolated, unwelcomed, and
 93

had to deal with mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression as LGBTQ students.

The preponderance of the literature strongly indicated an increased risk for mental health

difficulties for LGBQA individuals (Klundt et al., 2021). (Ploderl and Tremblay (2015)

suggested that LGBTQ students as sexual minority groups had significantly more mental health

problems such as depression and anxiety compared to their heterosexual peers.

Evaluation of data collected from participants as they responded to survey and interview

questions created the opportunity to address research questions in this case study which were

designed to evaluate participants’ experiences in classrooms and on campus as the interacted

with faculty and their peers. These participants shared their views as LGBTQ students while

attending different schools. Although there were positive and negative views of campuses and

classroom experiences expressed by participants, the evaluation of data provided important clues

regarding how LGBTQ students felt about their experiences involving faculty and other students

on campus and in classrooms. For instance, the concept of fear of the other based on sexual

orientation and how LGBTQ students felt and how it affected their academic journey and

success.

Summary

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirror and

reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that make up larger

societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender

discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck &

Perry, 2018). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’

experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an

 94

absence of policies, may be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards

these students and what affect there might be on them academically. The target population was

LGBTQ higher education students, and the sample was 10 LGBTQ students. This qualitative

case study’s trustworthiness was ensured by establishing credibility, confirmability,

dependability, and transferability.

Research question one focused on how campus policies could directly or indirectly,

influence LGBTQ students’ experiences in higher education. The themes included campus and

classroom climates, campus and classroom safety, and campus policies involving LGBTQ

students. Participants shared their experiences and how they perceived the campuses involving

different aspects of their campuses and classroom such as safety and accommodations impacted

by campus policies designed to prevent discriminations by other students and faculty towards.

Majority of participants indicated that there were either ineffective and out of touch policies or

the policies were not enforced and practiced protecting them as LGBTQ students while small

group of participants did not share the same views regarding their campus policies.

Research question two explored LGBTQ students’ perceptions involving their higher

education experience as it related to their sexual orientation. This research question included

three themes. They were interactions with faculty, interactions with other students, and feelings

based on sexual orientation. As participants shared their perceptions of their higher education

experience as it related to their sexual orientation, very few indicated positive experiences

whereas the majority of participants demonstrated feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction

based on their interactions with faculty and other students in classrooms and campus. These

experiences shared by participants covered different levels and forms of being ignored and

unwelcomed based on their sexual orientations caused by faculty and their peers.
 95

Research question three focused on influence, if any, on LGBTQ students’ perceptions

and experiences in higher education involving their academic success. This research question

addressed possible effects of discriminatory conducts by other students and faculty towards

LGBTQ students in campus and classrooms. The main theme was academic influence, or how

discriminatory behaviors could possibly affect LGBTQ students’ academic success while

attending their schools. Based on data collected from participants, LGBTQ students presented

different views in terms of academic success where they attended school. Majority of

participants viewed themselves as successful, but they felt this success was at an expense. They

had to deal with unnecessary hardship related to how faculty and other students made it difficult

for them by treating them as other. Participants that saw themselves successful felt that being

academically successful was their way to be accepted by their peer and faculty who did not see

them as equal. In other words, they felt that as LGBTQ students based on their interactions with

faculty and other students, they were treated unfairly just because of their sexual orientation.

However, there were some participants that saw themselves as being affected by their faculty and

other students’ interactions in a negative way which made them less successful while other

participants felt no difference between themselves as LGBTQ students and other students

involving their academic performances. To further understand these effects, chapter five presents

an opportunity to address the implications of the findings.

 96

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirror and

reproduce inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that make up larger

societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender

discrimination against LGBTQ students (Boyer & Lorenz, 2020; Dessel et al. 2017; Steck &

Perry, 2018). The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine LGBTQ students’

experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to understand if policies, or even an

absence of policies might be directly or indirectly contributing to any discrimination towards

these students and what affect there might be on them academically. This case study based on

LGBTQ students attending Northern California colleges and universities. Twenty-eight

participants were a part of this study.

Participants were recruited by using Facebook and through posting flyer. Participants

who responded to this invitation were directed to complete a consent form and survey questions

via Qualtrics. Participants who identified as LGBTQ and who were enrolled in a college or

university program were invited for an interview via Zoom meeting. The qualitative descriptions

of the data were collected via survey and transcription of the interviews which were entered into

NVivo Pro 12 software for data analysis. The qualitative descriptions of the data concentrated

participants’ personal experiences as LGBTQ students regarding their interactions with faculty

and other students on campus and in classrooms.

The data helped generate themes to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. How did campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’

experiences in higher education?

 97

RQ2. What were LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their higher education experience as it

related to their sexual orientation?

RQ3. What influence, if any, did LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in

higher education have on their academic success?

The themes for research question one was campus and classroom climates, campus and

classroom safety, and campus policies and LGBTQ students. The themes for research question

two were interactions with faculty, interactions with other students, and feelings based on sexual

orientation. The themes for research question three was academic influence.

Hadi and Closs (2016) posited that qualitative researcher should ensure the credibility,

transferability, confirmability, and dependability of their data. When threats arise to these four

criteria, then the study may be limited (Hadi & Closs, 2016). Credibility was met in this case

study by transcribing data directly from interviews without modifying and changing any data

generated from participants’ responses to survey and interview questions according to

participants’ experiences. Transferability was accomplished by providing detailed description of

participants’ responses involving survey and interview questions as well as the contexts

discussed. Furthermore, triangulation and achieving data saturation aided in the potential of

transferability in this case study. Confirmability which was making sure that all findings based

on data provided by participants was accomplished by making sure no bias input was included.

Lastly, dependability was established by creating and maintaining notes about procedures

and analysis to make sure that they were correct as well as using an inquiry audit via dissertation

committee reviewing the steps and procedures along with analysis process so that the findings

were consistent and repeatable. This chapter presented the implications of the findings. The

implications were presented per research question and its themes. Within each theme the findings
 98

were summarized, and implications presented. The implications were then supported by the

literature and the conceptual framework of “the other.” Following the implications section were

recommendations for practice based on this study’s findings as well as recommendations for

future research. Finally, conclusions were offered for consideration.

Implications

The findings in this research showed that most of the LGBTQ student participants had to

deal with many instances of mistreatment and discriminatory behavior by faculty and other

students on campus and in classrooms which made it a challenging and, in many ways, a

frustrating process as they attended their colleges and universities. However, there were some

exceptions where participants stated that they did not experienced any discriminations against

LGBTQ students where they attended college or university. Implications were based on the

findings formed by participants’ answers to survey and interview questions based on their

personal experiences at campus and classroom levels where they attended school.

RQ1. How did campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’

experiences in higher education? The purpose of this research question was to determine how

campus policies could directly or indirectly, influence LGBTQ students’ experiences in higher

education. The findings were comprised of three themes including campus and classroom

climates, campus and classroom safety, and campus policies and LGBTQ students. Participants

shared their experiences that was the basis for how they saw the campuses where they attended

and how they felt about different elements of their campuses and classroom such as safety and

accommodations, which were influenced by campus policies created to prevent discriminations

by other students and faculty towards LGBTQ students. Overall, the findings suggested that

school policies did not meet LGBTQ students’ expectations to protect them against
 99

discriminatory behaviors from faculty and other students. Many of the participants felt their

school failed to protect them against discriminatory behaviors by faculty and other students in

classroom and on campus because of inadequate and outdated policies. Consequently, there was

a need for faculty and students to go through sensitivity training. In some cases, however, there

were participants that did not share the same views as others by stating that they did not feel

discriminated against by faculty and their peers on campus or in classrooms. In other words, they

did not see any differences between themselves as LGBTQ students and other students.

Theme 1. Campus and classroom climates. This theme provided insights about how

LGBTQ students felt as they interacted with faculty and other students which in turn formed

their opinions and views where they attended school. The findings showed that most participants

felt like an outcast and unwelcomed on their campus and in their classroom environments. This

feeling was further complicated by their concerns about how their schools misrepresented

themselves as diverse and inclusive towards students regardless of their sexual orientation. For

instance, fifteen participants felt the noticeable difference between what was represented as

campus environment and the reality after they attended their school according to their

experiences formed based on their interactions with others. This misrepresentation contributed to

othering since the LGBTQ students were given the belief that their schools valued and advocated

diversity, lulling them into a false pretense of welcoming climate and security. To these students,

being around others who looked like them would have ensured a safe and comforting

environment. The data collected from participants with negative views suggested that unfair

treatment by their peers was due to being seen as different and therefore scary or worrying.

Many participants expressed their opinions based on how they felt out of norm, i.e.,

heterosexual, because of their sexual orientation.

 100

Research showed that gay and lesbian individuals face more culture-specific stigma

(Wang et al. 2019). Researchers have found LGBTQ students often hide their identity since

many campuses were still operating based on heteronormative ideas (Wang et al. 2019; Yao et

al. 2021). The prescription of heteronormative ideals might contribute to a more distressing

sexual orientation questioning process, and may prevent information about alternative, non-

heterosexual identities from being accessed or heard (Boyer & Lorenzo, 2020). Ahmad (2013)

suggested that homonormativity could be demonstrated as the precursor for different view on

queer perception. In other words, Ahmad explained it as conflicting forms that did not represent

your form can create queer effects. Such discriminatory behaviors that were based on how

individuals look or feel towards their sexual orientation could be the foundation to unfair

treatment and judgements of others. Individuals being labeled as different might be seen as

deviant to the norm (Yao et al., 2021). The fear of the other due to having different sexual

orientation could be linked to why many LGBTQ students chose to hide their identity to be safe

and accepted by faculty and their peers. Such an approach had many implications such as

depriving LGBTQ student’s connection with other students and disrupting their learning.

While many participants demonstrated negative views of their classrooms, there were

other participants that did not share these same views. For instance, one participant felt that she

was not discriminated against; however, it was revealed that she concealed her LGBTQ identity

as the basis for feeling welcomed and accepted by others. The mention of hiding their true

identity as LGBTQ to be seen as the same as other students by faculty and their peers could

present an opportunity to understand a fake sense of belonging in fear of being isolated. In other

words, this notion of looking like others by altering their true identity provided an opportunity

for them to avoid being looked at by their peers as the other.

 101

Colleges and universities were known as places to learn and develop that went beyond

just academics and earning a degree. Since many students came from different backgrounds,

beliefs, and cultures, this diversity could provide an opportunity for students to interact with each

other which helps them grow and develop as individuals leading to a more fulfilling future

involving both personal and professional lives (Tavarez, 2020; Johnson, 2016). However, in

instances where faculty and students mistreated other students with different backgrounds or

sexual orientation, it could create an unwelcoming environment. In cases of facing mistreatment

and hostile environments, many LGBTQ students decided to hide their identities to fit in and be

accepted by their peers (Greathouse et al. 2018; Galupo, Ramirez, & Pulice-Farrow, 2017).

As discussed in this theme, many of the participants felt unwelcomed on their campus

and in the classrooms despite having been led to believe the campus had a welcoming and

tolerant climate. There were also a few who felt welcomed; however, one participant discussed

hiding their identity in order to ensure they were welcomed. Nearly all the participants felt their

behavior was altered in some way. Acting differently or pretending to be someone else can create

an environment where LGBTQ students feel more isolated and disconnected from their peers

leading to feeling unwelcomed. The fear of the other was considered the driving purpose behind

faculty and other students’ discrimination against LGBTQ students. Such practices by LGBTQ

students to protect themselves against their peers’ unfriendly behaviors might be partly linked to

safety concerns as discussed in the next theme.

Theme 2. Campus and classroom safety. This theme concentrated on campus and

classroom safety based on data collected from participants’ answers to interview and survey

questions. Based on participants’ responses formed by their personal experience, there were not

any indications of physical assault or bodily harm on campus. All experiences shared were based
 102

on participants feeling being targeted verbally by faculty and classmates leading to their feeling

of being unwelcomed. Most participants indicated concerns about how other students made them

feel isolated and intimidated by practicing passive aggressive behavior like the use of insulting

and offensive jokes towards LGBTQ students. Most participants expressed their feelings like

anxiety and isolation as emotionally charged caused by their interactions with faculty and other

students. These participants presented their concerns when they answered survey and interview

questions by addressing how insulting and offensive languages made them feel unsafe and

uncomfortable mainly because they were viewed as the other due to their sexuality. There was

other instance of experiencing intimidation and frustrations where other students refused

working with them in classrooms such as participate in group assignments and activities because

of seeing them as the other due to their sexual orientation. They felt socially isolated.

Implications of such experiences felt by LGBTQ students could be linked to the concept of fear

of the other taking different forms and modalities encompassing the bases like sexual orientation,

which appeared to be the case for LGBTQ students in this case study.

A safe and supportive learning environment was essential for promoting student

achievement (Bradley, Albright, McMillan, & Shockley, 2019). However, a hostile environment

could lead to feeling unsafe and isolated (Rankin, & Reason, 2017; Reddy, 2018). A safe and

supportive learning environment was essential for promoting student achievement (Bradley et

al., 2019). According to Ahmad (2013), fear of the other minority populations due to their sexual

orientations could be linked to isolation. Moreover, Neel (2014) suggested having a judgmental

mindset formed by prejudices could be linked to emotional expressions like fear of different

populations as they appear as the other. Furthermore, social exclusion at both institutional and

interpersonal level, along with subtle, although damaging, hostilities that took the form of
 103

heterosexist environmental microaggressions, i.e., actions that took place within the environment

but were not directed at specific target, could be demoralizing (Amodeo et al., 2020). Compared

to their heterosexual peers, LGBTQ students report higher levels of feeling unsafe at school due

to experiences with harassment, bullying, physical abuse, and ostracism (Bellinger, Darcangelo,

Horn, Meiners, & Schriber, 2016). Consequently, Amadeo et al. (2020) emphasized

encountering discrimination on campus leads to interference with the academic development of

sexual minorities. As aggressive behaviors and mistreatment of LGBTQ students in classrooms

and campuses continued, emotional, mental, and physical threats could surface as an implication

leading to isolation and disconnect from the rest of student population defeating the purpose of

learning both academically and culturally (Salvati, Pistella, Ioverno, Giacomantonio, & Baiocco,

2018).

This theme addressed campus and classroom safety. The findings suggested non-LGBTQ

students created an unwelcoming environment that created a sense of isolation and even led to

self-isolation. Such environments can impact how LGBTQ students feel as far as their safety was

concerned. Many behaviors such as the use of offensive language hidden in form of jokes and

comments towards LGBTQ students was connected to seeing them as different due to their

sexual orientation viewed by faculty and other students that was rooted in their fear of the other.

Although no significant implication of physical threat was presented by LGBTQ students,

emotional and mental problems were expressed as areas of concerns. These behaviors towards

LGBTQ students such as verbal aggressions and offensive language used by other students

indicated safety concerns. Based on what participants shared, the importance of having an

effective policy to advocate equity and prevention of intimidating and aggressive behaviors
 104

against LGBTQ students on campus and in classrooms appears to be essential step towards

protecting them. Campus policies and LGBTQ students was the focus of theme three.

Theme 3. Campus policies and LGBTQ students. Thirteen participants demonstrated

their dismay with existing policies at their campuses. Those who expressed their negative views

of their school’s policies indicated that policies were found to be inadequate, outdated, and

possibly written by non-LGBTQ individuals who were out of touch in terms of seeing the needs

of LGBTQ students. In other words, based on their experiences, participants who presented

negative views of their campus policies stated that people in charge of these policies failed to see

it through LGBTQ students’ lens involving campus and classrooms. Participants’ concerns

involving their campus policies indicated failure to understand the emotions and feelings of

LGBTQ students when they encountered faculty and other students making them feel

unwelcomed and frustrated. Interestingly, some participants viewed their campus policies as

designed to protect them against discrimination by faculty and other students on campus and in

classrooms and indicated their campuses and classrooms were supported by campus policies.

They attributed their views and feelings to two factors. One factor had to do with attending a

liberal college where the campus climate was more accepting towards LGBTQ students. The

other factor indicated by participants had to do with LGBTQ students concealing their identity to

avoid any conflicts involving faculty and their peers. It was this last factor that was

disconcerting. The findings suggest that the concept of the other appeared to be the basis for

outdated or unenforced policies to protect LGBTQ students perhaps because the policy makers

also saw these students as the other.

As indicated by Ahmad (2013), emotions such as fear of the other lead people into

relationships of power and demonstrates how utilization of emotion could be fundamental to

 105

instances such as feminist and queer politics. Ahmad also indicated that emotionally based

insensitivity towards others could influence interactions of students and faculty. Stigmatization

of LGBTQ individuals could be conceptualized as negative biases; prejudicial attitudes based of

fear of the other (Amodeo et al., 2020). Research had identified a number of negative

consequences of stigma such as a sense of burden, hopelessness, and increased desire for social

distance from the person with a stigmatized mark (Tavarez, 2020; Yao et al., 2021).

Furthermore, Broadhurst et al. (2018) found that despite a decline in discriminatory

activities towards LGBTQ students by implementation of policies and practices, LGBTQ

students still faced exclusionary campus and classroom atmosphere involving experiences like

hostilities and aggressions in higher education more than their heterosexual counterparts. Mobley

and Johnson (2015) argued that while this assertion of having policies to protect students might

be true, the reality was that there were those who were unreceptive and hostile to LGBTQ

students identified as LGBTQ members. For example, limiting opportunities for these students to

form student organizations or forcing them to conform to traditional forms of dress. Rather than

encouraging students to walk in their own truth and embrace their authentic selves (Mobley &

Johnson, 2015). Continued discriminatory and aggressive conduct by faculty and other students

towards LGBTQ students was inappropriate, and out of touch policies and lack of practicing and

reinforcing them lead to an absence of consequences for such behavior. This absence implicitly

suggested the discrimination was accepted.

Those participants who were dissatisfied with campus policies at their school also felt

trainings for faculty and students were ineffective. Many participants in this case study indicated

there was a need for cultural and social sensitivity trainings to educate faculty and students about

LGBTQ students. These findings suggest that there was a need for faculty students training
 106

involving sensitivity towards LGBTQ students to lower the possibility of discriminatory

practices and behaviors on campus and in classrooms. Such trainings could be provided as

seminars, courses, and presentations. Understanding what helps students persist was important to

student affairs professionals as they developed data-driven interventions to improve the

experiences and outcomes among LGBTQ college students (Woodford et al., 2018).

Providing resources for faculty and students to understand the role of sensitivity towards

LGBTQ individuals could minimize possible misconducts. LGBTQ college students indicated

that policies, including nondiscrimination policies, served important symbolic functions

(Woodford et al., 2018). Unfortunately, many teachers were either undereducated and/or

unsupportive of the psychological and social needs of their LGBTQ students (Wei, 2019).

According to Applebaum (2019), an essential element involved in effective training in such cases

was based on identifying the unconscious biases and prejudices as part of individuals’ mindset

that influences their conduct. One such bias was othering (Ahmed, 2013). Teachers were in an

ideal position to prevent student harassment, yet most did not have adequate training (Bradley et

al., 2019).

Most teachers are not fully prepared during teacher education programs to address

LGBTQ bullying: only 33% of teachers reported receiving training in LGBTQ issues and 24% in

transgender issues (Greytak et al., 2016). In addition, teachers acknowledge the importance of

supporting LGBTQ youth; unfortunately, this positive attitude did not consistently translate to

action or intervention on LGBTQ students behaves in the face of bullying behavior (Swanson &

Gettinger, 2016). Among the recommendations for promoting the safety and wellbeing of

LGBTQ youth in schools were anti-bullying policies, teacher training on effective bullying

intervention strategies, and school-based support groups (Bradley et al., 2019).

 107

This research question addressed how campus policies, directly or indirectly, influence

LGBTQ students. Findings suggested that most participants felt that the campus misrepresented

itself in the marketing materials. They also felt campus policies were ineffective and outdated on

most campuses, and even when policies exist, they were ignored. Out of touch and ineffective

policies or not having the mechanisms to enforce them could provide grounds for failure to

protect LGBTQ students dealing with other students and faculty on campus and in classrooms.

Based on data collected from participants, there seemed to be the link between one’s sexual

orientation and creating grounds for discriminatory conduct which was the concentration of

research question two.

RQ2. What were LGBTQ students’ perceptions of their higher education experience

as it related to their sexual orientation? In this case study, participants shared their perceptions

of their higher education experience regarding their sexual orientation as LGBTQ students based

on their interactions with faculty and their peers. The participants’ responses resulted in three

themes. They were interactions with faculty, interactions with other students, and feelings based

on sexual orientation. Findings of this research question settled on two views. Participants who

had a negative view felt that the main reason why they felt not welcomed or accepted was due to

their sexual orientation. The other participants that had more positive view of their campus

where they saw themselves being treated the same as other students, attributed it to attending

very liberal college or hiding their true identity as LGBTQ students to create a more accepting

and welcoming climate. Campus climate entailed the attitudes, behaviors, standards, and

practices of employees and students of an institution, particularly those that related to access,

inclusion, and respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential (Rankin & Reason,
 108

2017). An oppressive campus climate had been found to decrease LGBTQ student engagement

in both curricular and cocurricular involvements (Linley & Nguyen, 2015).

Theme 1. Interactions with faculty. Participants provided responses to survey and

interview questions that were related to their interactions with faculty. Fifteen participants

demonstrated their overall satisfaction with how faculty interacted with them, but there were

other participants who had opposite views when it came down to their experiences in classrooms.

The findings suggested LGBTQ students felt isolated and treated by faculty in a way that created

a sense of being in the wrong place just because of their sexual orientation. In other words, being

treated as not worthy of being a student in the classroom. Furthermore, such behaviors by faculty

when LGBTQ students were ignored, particularly when they needed help with their assignments

or understanding an aspect of the course, made them feel unnecessary stress and emotional

hardship. Findings indicated a sense of rejection and isolation regarding faculty affecting their

ability to accomplish their academic goals. Participants also shared their interactions with their

faculty made them feel a sense of frustration, and mental anguish like anxiety and depression.

Difficulties dealing with faculty in the classroom could be linked to negative effects on

LGBTQ students mentally and emotionally (Duffy, Twenge, & Joiner, 2019.; Klundt et al.,

2021). According to Klundt et al. (2021), there seemed to be increasing mental health concerns

involving sexual minority students on college campuses leading to specific risk for negative

mental health and well-being outcomes. Allowing the university experience to intentionally

expanded individual experiences and promoted contact among diverse groups would also likely

increase a sense of acceptance among our sexual minority students (Klundt et al., 2021).

Furthermore, negative, and discriminatory conduct be faculty towards LGBTQ students

could be described as creating an atmosphere of isolation and being viewed as the other, which
 109

led to serious mental and emotional problems such as distress and depression. The negative

experiences shared by LGBTQ students indicated great concerns regarding their mental and

emotional health. In other words, when faculty viewed students as the other due to their sexual

orientation whether it was based on their appearance or behaviors and conduct, it led to creation

of an atmosphere filled with unwelcoming messages, which also effected their academics. For

instance, based on what LGBTQ students shared, they felt that their ability to be a student was

judged because of their sexual identity. Inability of faculty to create an environment where

LGBTQ students were welcomed and worthy, which caused mental and emotional hardship for

those students. How LGBTQ students perceived campus and classroom environment had to also

do with how they interacted with other students, which is discussed in next theme.

Theme 2. Interactions with other students. Based on responses to interviews and surveys

questions, participants seemed to have different concerns and issues related to their interactions

with other students in their classrooms. All eight participants that completed their interviews

demonstrated feelings of being unwelcomed and isolated to different degrees because of their

experiences based on interacting with their peers. On the survey questions, out of 24 participants,

five participants felt no difference between how other students treated them in classroom.

However, 19 participants had various degrees of dissatisfactions involving other students.

Overall participants indicated feelings of isolation, anxiety, and abandonment. Being viewed as

the other by others created an environment where LGBTQ students felt unwelcomed in

classrooms. Furthermore, behaviors such as refusing to work with LGBTQ students on

assignment or team activities by other students because of their sexual identity led to emotional

disturbances and mental health issues like depression and frustration. Those participants who

indicated a positive experience dealing with other students, attributed that to hiding their true
 110

identity as LGBTQ student to fit in and to avoid any potential problems (Drum, Brownson, Hess,

Burton, & Talley, 2017). This issue remains of crucial concern when examining campus climate

for minority groups, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and other sexual minority students

despite the increased visibility of LGBTQ people on campuses during the last two decades (Yao

et al., 2021; Amodeo et al., 2020). Diversity and equity in academic environment such as

campuses and classroom for all students enhanced learning. Colleges and Universities as places

of education had the responsibility to create equity involving all students regardless of their

backgrounds and sexual orientation as discussed in this theme. The role of sexual orientation in

how other students conducted themselves in a way that made LGBTQ students unwelcomed was

the focus of the next theme.

Theme 3. Feelings based on sexual orientation. In this theme sexual orientation was the

focus and center piece implicated as a possible factor in affecting interactions between faculty

and other students involving LGBTQ students in classrooms and on campus. Findings related to

this theme indicated that participants felt that it was more difficult for them than non-LGBTQ

students since they were viewed as the other by faculty and their peers as LGBTQ individuals.

Based on participant’s responses to questions formed by their experiences in classrooms

involving their sexual orientations, all eight participants that were interviewed demonstrated

similar feelings. Those participants felt that the reason behind how they were treated by faculty

and other students was their sexual orientation. They based their belief on how non-LGBTQ

students were received by others compared to how they were treated. However, the level and

type of mistreatment they experienced were not similar. Based on the findings, how faculty and

their peers made them feel were triggered by instances like using insensitive and offensive

languages hidden in humors and jokes in jokes to target them as LGBTQ individuals.
 111

Furthermore, as participants shared their experiences by answering survey and interview

questions, they felt like being able to address their concerns created an opportunity to present

their struggles caused by their interactions with faculty and other students in classrooms. For

instance, as participants shared their experiences, it implicated that the fear of the other, in this

case having different sexual orientation led to behaviors that made LGBTQ students feel

unwelcomed and isolated. These participants demonstrated in different examples how their

gender identity was more like a source of oppression as if they were worth less than other

students. The fear of the other seemed to be grounds for discrimination targeted at the

participants.

Recent research suggested that sexual and gender minorities tend to perceive the

university campus climate as being more hostile (Klundt et al., 2021; Tavarez, 2020; Amodeo et

al., 2020). Such insecurities could lead to microaggressions (Nadal et al., 2016).

Microaggressions were behaviors and statements, often unconscious or unintentional, that

communicated hostile or derogatory messages, particularly to members of targeted social groups

(e.g., people of color; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer (Nadal et al.,

2016). Homophobic remarks were frequently used by students and even by teachers or other

school staff; roughly 71% of LGBTQ students reported hearing homophobic remarks frequently

in the school setting, and 56% of all students reported hearing those remarks made by teachers or

other school staff (Bradley et al., 2016). Although homophobic insults were directed at LGBTQ

and non-LGBTQ youth alike and the interpretation of homophobic insults was situationally

dependent and not always perceived negatively by adolescents, the use of homophobic insults

could harm LGBTQ youth in a number of ways nonetheless (Hunt et al., 2016). Having a

mindset based on fear of the other such as in case of faculty and students using an aggressive and
 112

offensive demeanor and language towards LGBTQ students creates an unwelcoming

environment. Moreover, findings implicated that while LGBTQ students felt motivated by the

negative experiences to work harder, this added unnecessary stress and pressure was

unwarranted. In other words, turning a stressful situation like encountering unwelcoming

atmosphere like classrooms into a motivational force would not justify such hostile conduct

towards LGBTQ student. Even though some LGBTQ students used these negative experiences

as sources of motivation to be academically successful so that they could prove to others their

worthiness, it was unacceptable for faculty and other students to discriminate and made LGBTQ

students feel unwelcome (Garvey et al., 2017).

Implications of these findings under research question two encompassed the significance

of recognizing the negative effects of hostile, unfriendly, and aggressive conducts as noted by

LGBTQ students based on their interactions with faculty and their peers. It was important to

recognize the basis for faculty and other students to create an unwelcoming environment. The

basis for creation of such environment could be linked to the fear of others due to having

different sexual orientation. Participants that saw going to college as an opportunity to not only

learn from their academic program but also interactions with other students found themselves in

a climate where achieving both goals deemed to be very difficult. The academic success part of

this research involving LGBTQ students was addressed in research question three.

RQ3. What influence, if any, did LGBTQ students’ perceptions and experiences in

higher education have on their academic success? This research question concentrated on the

possible effects and influences of discriminatory conduct by students and faculty towards

LGBTQ students on students’ academic success. Findings were the result of participants’

answers to survey and interview questions. Findings were composed of participants who saw
 113

themselves as academically successful and those who had to endure and struggle without any

justification in their academic journey just because of their sexual orientation, some of whom felt

they were not academically successful as a result.

Theme 1. Academic influence. This theme shined the light on LGBTQ students’

perceptions of experiences with other students and faculty and how those experiences affected

their academic success. Based on participants’ responses to survey questions, Thirteen LGBTQ

students considered themselves academically successful and felt that their academic journey was

not affected by faculty and their peers. However, five of these same participants saw their

academic success as the result of having to work harder to prove themselves to those who

mistreated them and made them feel unwelcomed. One implication of these findings could be

related to emotional and mental anguish felt by LGBTQ students due to their perceived treatment

by faculty and their peers. In short, although participants saw themselves as academically

successful, some could not discount the negative experiences they had to go through just because

they were viewed as the other. Participants that shared negative views based on their experiences

involving their academic journey can be attributable to being treated and viewed as the other by

other students and faculty due to their sexual orientation.

When faculty and other students acted based on their fear of the other related to sexual

orientation of LGBTQ students, it could lead to creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation

affecting the ability of LGBTQ students to accomplish their academic goals ((Tavarez, 2020;

Yao & Wang, 2021). Furthermore, being intimidated and isolated as LGBTQ student creates

unnecessary hardships that could impede accomplishing academic goals. For LGBTQ students,

campus climate had a direct influence on academic experiences and outcomes (Rankin et al.,

2017). Furthermore, oppressive campus climates decrease LGBTQ student engagement in both
 114

curricular and cocurricular involvements (Linley & Nguyen, 2015). Interestingly, there were

other participants who did not experience any negative effect on their academic success as

LGBTQ students. They saw themselves as having an advantage over other students because they

used these negative behaviors as a motivation to work harder to be accepted by their peers. It

also gave them more drive and determination to do better in their classes academically. However,

they did not feel like discriminatory and prejudice behaviors they experienced should be justified

at the expense of their academic success. In other words, these participants felt such behaviors

should not be forgotten or overlooked just because they were able to be successful. The

implication was that even though they turned their negative experiences into motivation, it

should not justify the existence of such conduct by other students and faculty.

Based on participants’ experiences dealing with faculty and their peers in classrooms and

on campuses, they felt that there was an atmosphere of being unwelcomed, which made it more

difficult to be accepted as equal. Many LGBTQ students saw academic success as a way to be

accepted by their peers and faculty despite their sexual orientation. Although perceptions of

belonging differed across cultures, these views were consistently linked to interpersonal

experiences with classmates and teachers ((Chiu et al. 2016). A welcoming campus climate was

critical to LGBTQ+ students’ academic success and well-being (Sotardi, Surtees, Vincent, &

Johnston, 2021).

In addition, some of these participants that had a negative view of their interactions with

faculty and other students felt it made them struggle academically. There was clear evidence of

the distinct health needs and service requirements of people who identified as LGBT (McCann,

& Brown, 2018). Dealing with faculty and peers in classrooms and campuses as LGBTQ

students affected their ability to accomplish their academic goals due to stress and anxiety.
 115

Research suggested that among sexual minorities such hostile experiences could contribute to

increased risk for negative outcome (Dessel et al., 2017). According to minority stress theory,

supplementing the general stressors everyone faces, LGBTQ individuals faced chronic stressors

related to prejudice, stigma, and discrimination rooted in heterosexist social norms (Woodford et

al., 2018; Yao et al., 2021). Furthermore, Woodford et al. (2018) argued that experiencing

heterosexist discrimination could contribute to poor psychological well-being.

Research question three addressed LGBTQ students’ interactions with faculty and their

peers and the effect these interactions had on them in their academic journey. Based on findings,

some participants did not feel any different than other students and saw themselves as successful.

However, other participants felt that although they were successful, they still had to suffer from

faculty and their peers use of offensive language and conduct that created an atmosphere of

isolation. Furthermore, while some participants turned these malicious behaviors into a source of

motivation to move forward and become academically successful so that they would feel

accepted, they had to endure emotional and mental issues like anxiety and isolation. This case

study could provide opportunities for future research discussed in the recommendations and

practices.

Recommendations for Practice

Based on the findings, higher learning institutions needed to create policies that were

relevant and practical to address LGBTQ students’ needs and accommodations. Developing

practical and realistic policies to protect LGBTQ students requires inviting LGBTQ students to

meetings and events as well as conducting surveys to collect data suitable to accommodate

LGBTQ students (Garvey et al., 2017; Woodford et al., 2018). It is also recommended that

colleges and universities provide forums, training, and seminars for faculty and students about
 116

LGBTQ communities and populations to create an opportunity to understand the importance of

sensitivity towards such a minority group. In this case study, the concept of fear of the other was

used to demonstrate how individuals can conduct themselves in a discriminatory and offensive

way towards students with a different sexual orientation than them. It made sense to educate

individuals such as faculty and students in institutions of higher learning through training. It was

also recommended to expand these sensitivity trainings to non-academic staff like admissions so

that they could meet the needs of LGBTQ students. It was important for faculty, including

administrators, to follow a policy of equity involving LGBTQ students so that they had the same

opportunity to be academically successful as well as having an opportunity to interact with other

students and faculty to develop their relationships without any fear or reservation about their

sexual identity. Creating an effective learning environment for all students regardless of their

sexual orientation was an important step towards equity and equality where students could feel

welcomed and accepted by faculty and their peers (Busby et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2021).

Providing opportunities for faculty and students to learn about diversity and inclusion

might improve their biased and prejudice views towards minority groups like LGBTQ students.

Teacher training should encourage the identification of systematic heterosexism within

educational institutions and address underlying issues that create homophobic and transphobic

environments (Bradley et al., 2016). Finally, teacher training should not be done solely as a

reaction to anti-homophobic bullying, but rather as means to supply teachers with actionable

ways to improve classroom and school environments (Pennell, 2017). By creating a safe and

welcoming environment in classrooms where LGBTQ students feel welcomed, colleges and

universities could minimize discriminatory conduct by faculty and other students as well as

lowering the possibility of emotional and mental health issues such as distress, isolation, and
 117

anxiety. Creation of cross-cultural organizations and resources of students can create

opportunities to learn from each other to increase sensitivity and understanding as well as

minimizing hostility and conflict.

Recommendations for Future Research

Further studies should create more opportunities to investigate and evaluate the equity

and equality of minority students like LGBTQ students involving their experiences on campus

and in classrooms. The basis for data collection was participants’ experiences, the emotional and

feeling factors played a big role; therefore, future research needed to investigate to what level

LGBTQ students’ feelings played a role in perceiving their interactions with faculty and other

students. Such studies could help determine if students’ perceptions were accurate. Another

opportunity for other studies could be evaluating students’ success in terms of academic

achievements while considering the short term and long-term effects of discriminatory behaviors

leading to mental and emotional health of LGBTQ students such as depression, anxiety, and

isolations. Additional research could be conducted to provide data on how campus policies can

be improved to prevent discriminations behaviors against LGBTQ students as well as advocating

tolerance and acceptance at campuses and in classrooms. In addition, quantitative research

involving discriminatory practices could bring more specific data to pinpoint the areas of

concern. Also, a mixed methods study could be beneficial since it could combine both

quantitative data and interpretation of data to identify areas of concerns.

Conclusions

The problem addressed by this study was institutes of higher education often mirrored

and reproduced inequalities through heteronormativity and binary gender systems that made up

larger societal norms leading to policies and practices, or even an absence of them that engender
 118

discrimination against LGBTQ students. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to

examine LGBTQ students’ experiences and perceptions in higher education institutions to

understand if policies, or even an absence of policies, might be directly or indirectly contributing

to any discrimination towards these students and what affect there may be on them academically.

Although, there have been studies done on the problems faced by LGBTQ students, there was a

need to further address discriminatory conduct by faculty and other students. This study

examined this problem through the lens of the other. Such an examination allowed for further

research to address unwelcoming and hostile behaviors against LGBTQ students by faculty and

their peers where attending schools.

The findings of this case study suggest most participants perceived discriminatory

behaviors by faculty and other students in classroom and campus towards them as LGBTQ

students and this discrimination affected them socially, emotionally, and, in some cases, even

academically. Such behaviors conducted by some faculty and students based on sexual

orientation could be linked to their fear of the other as basis for their hostile and offensive

conducts in classrooms and on campus. Those participants who did not find any discriminatory

conduct against them as LGBTQ students attributed that to attending very liberal schools or

having to do with concealing their true sexual identity to avoid any problems dealing with

faculty and their peers. Altering and modifying true identity in the case of LGBTQ students,

minimizes the possibility of being mistreated and may provide temporary relief to escape the

harsh reality of bias and unjustified conducts. However, hiding one’s true identity as LGBTQ can

have ramifications both immediately and long-term. Findings of this case study also revealed

that those LGBTQ students who had negative experiences involving faculty and other students

led to emotional and mental challenges like depression, anxiety, and sense of abandonment.
 119

Moreover, such mental and emotional challenges felt by participants were found in both

academically successful students and those who considered themselves as academically

unsuccessful. The findings of this study create an opportunity for colleges and universities to

understand what LGBTQ students experience as they interact with faculty and their peers on

campus and in classrooms as well as implications of how LGBTQ students perceive their campus

and classroom environments related to their academic success, which can be the result of policies

implemented by those colleges and universities.

 120

References

Abdalla, M. M., Oliveira, L. G. L., Zevedo, C. E. F., & Gonzalez, R. K. (2018). Quality in
Qualitative Organizational Research: Types of Triangulation as a Methodological
Alternative/ Qualidade Em Pesquisa Qualitativa Organizacional: Tipos De Triangulacao
Como Alternativa Metodologica. Administracao: Ensino e Pesquisa RAEP, 19(1), 66.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.13058/raep.2018.v19n1.578.

Adashi, E. Y., Walters, L. B., & Menikoff, J. A. (2018). The Belmont Report at 40: Reckoning
With Time. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1345–1348. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304580.

Ahmed, S. (2013). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York, NY: Routledge.

Amin, M. E. K., Norgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., &
Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative
pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(10), 1472.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005.

Amodeo, A. L., Esposito, C., & Bacchini, D. (2020). Heterosexist microaggressions, student
academic experience and perception of campus climate: Findings from an Italian higher
education context. PLoS ONE, 15(4), 1–16. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0231580.

Applebaum, B. (2019). Remediating Campus Climate: Implicit Bias Training is Not Enough.
Studies in Philosophy & Education, 38(2), 129–141. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s11217-018-9644-1

Arellano, L. & Vue, R. (2019). Transforming campus racial climates: Examining discourses
around student experiences of racial violence and institutional (in)action. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/dhe0000122.

Baum, S. & Flores, S. M. (2011). Higher education and children in immigrant families. The
Future of Children, 21, 171-193.

Bellinger, L. B., Darcangelo, N., Horn, S. S., Meiners, E. R., & Schriber, S. (2016). Ecologies of
school discipline for queer youth: What listening to queer youth teaches us about
transforming school discipline. In R. J. Skiba, K. Mediratta, & M. K. Rausch (Eds.),
Inequality in school discipline: Research and practice to reduce disparities (pp. 135–152).
London, England: Palgrave Macmillan US.

Berit Margrethe Sandvik, & Brendan McCormack. (2018). Being person-centred in qualitative
interviews: reflections on a process. International Practice Development Journal, 8(2), 1–
8. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.19043/ipdj.82.008.
 121

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of
over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11),
1227–1274. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/bul0000067.

Boyer, S. J., & Lorenz, T. K. (2020). The impact of heteronormative ideals imposition on sexual
orientation questioning distress. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,
7(1), 91–100. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/sgd0000352.

Booker, K. C., Merriweather, L., & Campbell-Whatley, G. (2016). The Effects of Diversity
Training on Faculty and Students’ Classroom Experiences. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1).

Bourabain, D., & Verhaeghe, P.-P. (2021). Shiny on the Outside, Rotten on the Inside?
Perceptions of Female Early Career Researchers on Diversity Policies in Higher Education
Institutions. Higher Education Policy, 1. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1057/s41307-
021-00226-0

Bradley, E., Albright, G., McMillan, J., & Shockley, K. (2019). Impact of a Simulation on
Educator Support of LGBTQ Youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(3), 317–339.

Broadhurst, C., Martin, G., Hoffshire, M., & Takewell, W. (2018). 'Bumpin’ up against people
and their beliefs’: Narratives of student affairs administrators creating change for LGBTQ
students in the South. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 385–401.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/dhe0000036.

Brown, C. S., Masters, K. S., & Huebschmann, A. G. (2018). Identifying Motives of Midlife
Black Triathlete Women Using Survey Transformation to Guide Qualitative Inquiry.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s10823-017-9339-z.

Busby, D. R., Horwitz, A. G., Zheng, K., Eisenberg, D., Harper, G. W., Albucher, R. C.,
Roberts, L. W., Coryell, W., Pistorello, J., & King, C. A. (2020). Suicide risk among
gender and sexual minority college students: The roles of victimization, discrimination,
connectedness, and identity affirmation. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 121, 182–188.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.11.013.

Burke, B. R., & Greenfield, K. (2016). Challenging Heteronormativity: Raising LGBTQ

Awareness in a High School English Language Arts Classroom. English Journal, 105(6),
46–51.

Burleson, D. A. (2010). Sexual orientation and college choice: Considering campus climate.
About Campus (January–February), 9–14.

Cabrera, N. L., Franklin, J. D., & Watson, J. S. (2016). Whiteness in Higher Education: The
Invisible Missing Link in Diversity and racial analyses. ASHE Higher Education Report,
42(6), 7-125.
 122

Campus ethnic diversity. (2018). U.S. News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/best-

colleges/rankings/national-universities/campus-ethnic-diversity.

Carl, A. (2017) Lackademia: Why Do Academics Lean Left? London: Adam Smith Institute.
Available at: https://www.adamsmith.org/research/lackademia-why-do-academics-lean-
left.

Carnevale, F. A. (2016). Authentic Qualitative Research and the Quest for Methodological
Rigour. http://cjnr.archive.mcgill.ca/article/view/1768/1765. (Accessed: 30th December
2018).

Case, K., Hensley, R., & Anderson, A. (2016). Reflecting on heterosexual and male privilege:
Interventions to raise awareness. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 722–740.
10.1111/josi.12088.

Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W. Y., McBride, C., & Mol, S. T. (2016). Students’ sense of belonging at
school in 41 countries: Cross-cultural variability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2),
175–196. 10.1177/0022022115617031.
Convertino, C. (2016). Toward a Critical and Dialogical Model in Multicultural Social Justice
Teacher Preparation. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(2), 125-142.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.

Cragun, R. T., Blyde, V. L., Sumerau, J. E., Mann, M., & Hammer, J. H. (2016). Perceived
Marginalization, Educational Contexts, and (Non)religious Educational Experience.
Journal of College and Character, 17(4), 241-254.

Cruz, R., & Tantia, J. (2017). Reading and Understanding Qualitative Research. American
Journal of Dance Therapy, 39(1), 79–92. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s10465-
016-9219-z.

Dang M. & Mao, L. (2017). Further Support for the Motivational Explanation of Self-other
Similarity Judgment Asymmetry. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76(4), 155–159.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1024/1421-0185/a000199.

Davis, J. P., Tucker, J. S., Dunbar, M. S., Pedersen, E. R., & D’Amico, E. J. (2021). Effects of
homophobic name‐calling and verbal sexual harassment on substance use among young
adults. Aggressive Behavior, 47(1), 5–16. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1002/ab.21925.

Dessel, A. B., Goodman, K. D., & Woodford, M. R. (2017). LGBT Discrimination on campus
and heterosexual bystanders: Understanding intentions to intervene. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 10(2), 101-116.
 123

Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016, July-August). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail.

Dodgson, J. E. (2017). About Research: Qualitative Methodologies. Journal of Human

Lactation, 33(2), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334417698693.

Dogra, B. (2017). Role of a Teacher in Challenging Gender Biases in Education. Gyanodaya:

The Journal of Progressive Education, 10(2), 18-24. doi:10.5958/2229-
4422.2017.00011.1.

Dotson, K. (2018). On Intellectual Diversity and Differences That May Not Make a Difference.
Ethics and education, 13(1), 123-140.

Drum DJ, Brownson C, Hess EA, Burton Denmark A, Talley AE, 2017. College Students’ Sense
of Coherence and Connectedness as Predictors of Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors.
Archives of Suicide Research 21(1), 169–184.

Duffy, M. E., Twenge, J. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2019). Trends in mood and anxiety symptoms and
suicide-related outcomes among US undergraduates, 2007–2018: Evidence from two
national surveys. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(5), 590–598.

Duran, A. (2018). Queer and of Color: A Systematic Literature Review on Queer Students of
Color in Higher Education Scholarship. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/dhe0000084.

Eddy, P. L. (2017). Looking Forward-Strategies for Inclusivity. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 179, 101–112. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1002/cc.20266.

Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the Coding Process in Qualitative Data Analysis. The
Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850.

Ellis, P. (2019). The language of research (part 20): understanding the quality of a qualitative
paper (2). Wounds UK, 15(1), 110–111.

Enyeart Smith, T. M., Wessel, M. T., & Polacek, G. N. L. J. (2017). Perceptions of Cultural
Competency and Acceptance among College Students: Implications for Diversity
Awareness in Higher Education. ABNF Journal, 28(2), 25–33.

Fang-Yi, W. & Hendrix, K. G. (2016). Hidden Diversity of Teacher-Student Interaction in

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Negro Educational Review, 67(1-4), 33-53.

Farquhar, J., Michels, N., & Robson, J. (2020). Triangulation in industrial qualitative case study
research: Widening the scope. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, 160–170.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.001.
 124

Fiske, S. T. (2018). Original Articles: Political Cognition Helps Explain Social Class Divides:
Two Dimensions of Candidate Impressions, Group Stereotypes, and Meritocracy Beliefs.
Cognition. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.Cognition.2018.11.007.

French, D. (2016) ‘Yes, Universities Discriminate Against Conservatives. The National Review,
1 April. Available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433559/Yes-Universities-
Discriminate-Against-Conservatives.

Galupo, M. P., Ramirez, J. L., & Pulice-Farrow, L. (2017). “Regardless of their gender”:
Descriptions of sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual, and queer identified
individuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 17, 108–124. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1228491.

Garvey, J. C., Rankin, S., Beemyn, G., & Windmeyer, S. (2017). Improving the Campus Climate
for LGBTQ Students Using the Campus Pride Index. New Directions for Student
Services, 2017(159), 61–70. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1002/ss.20227.

Ghoshal, R. (2018). Testing for Discrimination: Teaching Audit Studies in Quantitative Methods
Courses. Teaching Sociology, 46(4), 309–323. Retrieved from
http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
eric&AN=EJ1192290&site=eds-live.

Gibson, S., Baskerville, D., Berry, A., Black, A., Norris, K., & Symeonidou, S. (2016).
'Diversity' 'Widening Participation' and 'Inclusion' in Higher Education: An International
Study. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 18(3), 7-33.

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.

Grant, A., Bugge, C., & Wells, M. (2020). Designing process evaluations using case study to
explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials. Trials, 21(1), 982.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1186/s13063-020-04880-4.

Graybill, E. C., & Proctor, S. L. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Limited
representation in school support personnel journals. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 9–
16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.11.001

Greathouse, M., BrckaLorenz, A., Hoban, M., Huesman, R., Rankin, S., & Stolzenberg, E. B.
(2018). Queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum student experiences in American higher
education: The analyses of national survey findings. 10.7282/t3-44fh-3b16.

Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., Villenas, C., Giga, N. M., & Gay, L. and S. E. N. (GLSEN).
(2016). From Teasing to Torment: School Climate Revisited. A Survey of U.S. Secondary
School Students and Teachers. Executive Summary. In Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN). Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
 125

Hadi, M. A. & José Closs, S. (2016). Ensuring Rigour and Trustworthiness of Qualitative
Research in Clinical Pharmacy. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(3), 641–
646. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s11096-015-0237-6.

Harris, M. S., & Ellis, M. K. (2020). Measuring changes in institutional diversity: the US
context. Higher Education (00181560), 79(2), 345–360. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s10734-019-00413-4

Hart Research Associates. (2016). Recent trends in general education design, learning
outcomes, and teaching approaches. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015_Survey_Report2_GEtrends.pdf

Heilpern, J. (2015). Not all Non-discrimination Policies are Created Equal. Brigham Young
University Education & Law, 1(2), 523-547.

Heiden-Rootes, K., Wiegand, A., Thomas, D., Moore, R. M., & Ross, K. A. (2020). A national
survey on depression, internalized homophobia, college religiosity, and climate of
acceptance on college campuses for sexual minority adults. Journal of Homosexuality,
67(4), 435–451. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/00918369.2018.1550329.

Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate Crimes and Stigma-related Experiences Among Sexual Minority
Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates from a National Probability Sample.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54–74. doi:10.1177/0886260508316477

Hogan, C. M. (2021). The Equal Rights Amendment After Bostock: A Means to Expand
Constitutional Protections for Sexual Minorities. Georgia Law Review, 55(3), 1441–1481.

Hoffman, G. D. & Mitchell, T. D. (2016). Making diversity “Everyone’s Business”: A Discourse

Analysis of Institutional Responses to Student Activism for Equity and Inclusion. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 9, 277–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000037.

Hunt, C. J., Piccoli, V., Carnaghi, A., Di Blas, L., Bianchi, M., Hvastja-Stefani, L., … Cavallero,
C. (2016). Adolescents appraisal of homophobic epithets: The role of individual and
situational factors. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(10), 1422–1438. doi:
10.1080/00918369.2016.1158000.

Jansen, W. S., Kröger, C., Van der Toorn, J., & Ellemers, N. (2021). The right thing to do or the
smart thing to do? How communicating moral or business motives for diversity affects the
employment image of dutch public and private sector organizations. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1111/jasp.12783.

Johnson, L. M., Matthews, T. L., & Napper, S. L. (2016). Sexual orientation and sexual assault
victimization among US college students. The Social Science Journal, 53(2), 174–183.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.soscij.2016.02.007
 126

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in
Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 138–146.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.5688/ajpe7120.

Johnson, H. J. (2016). Bisexuality, mental health, and media representation. Journal of

Bisexuality, 16, 378–396. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1168335.

Kaltenbaugh, L. P., Parsons, J., Brubaker, K., Bonadio, W., & Locust, J. (2017). Institutional
Type and Campus Recreation Department Staff as a Mediating Factor for Diversity/
Multicultural Training. Recreational Sports Journal, 41(1), 76.

Kiekkas, P., Michalopoulos, E., Igoumenidis, M., Michalopoulos, A., & Stefanopoulos, N.
(2019). Factors Associated with Self-reported Competence of Graduating Nursing
Students. Collegian, 26(2), 267–272. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.colegn.2018.08.004.

Klittmark, S., Garzón, M., Andersson, E., & Wells, M. B. (2019). LGBTQ competence wanted:
LGBTQ parents’ experiences of reproductive health care in Sweden. Scandinavian
Journal of Caring Sciences, 33(2), 417–426. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1111/scs.12639.

Klundt, J. S., Erekson, D. M., Lynn, A. M., & Brown, H. E. (2021). Sexual minorities, mental
health, and religiosity at a religiously conservative university. Personality and Individual
Differences, 171. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110475

Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
Trustworthiness and publishing. The European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–
124. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092.

Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The Effect of Negative
School Climate on Academic Outcomes for LGBT Youth and the Role of in School
Supports. Journal of School Violence, 12, 45e63.

Lane, S. P., & Hennes, E. P. (n.d.). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel
relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 7–31.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1177/0265407517710342.

Laing, P. A. F., Burns, N., & Baetu, I. (2019). Individual Differences in Anxiety and Fear
Learning: The Role of Working Memory Capacity. Acta Psychologica, 193, 42–54.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.12.006.

Levin, M. (2015). These are the Most and Least Diverse Colleges in America. Chron. Retrieved
from https://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/These-are-the-most-and-least-
diverse-colleges-in-6646764.php#photo-7501230.
 127

Levitt, H. M. (2021). Qualitative generalization, not to the population but to the phenomenon:
Reconceptualizing variation in qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 8(1), 95–110.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/qup0000184.

Levy, D. (2014). Christian Doctrine Related to Sexual Orientation: Current Climate and Future
Implications. In A. Dessel & R. Bolen (Eds.), Conservative Christian Beliefs and Sexual
Orientation in Social Work: Privilege, Oppression, and the Pursuit of Human Rights (pp.
11–41). Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press.

Lewis, A. E., Chesler, M., & Forman, T. A. (2000). The Impact of “Colorblind “Ideologies on
Students of Color: Intergroup Relations at a Predominantly White University. Journal of
Negro Education, 69,74–91.

Linder, C. (2019). Power-conscious and intersectional approaches to supporting student

activists: Considerations for learning and development. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 12, 17–26. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/dhe0000082.

Linley, J. L., & Nguyen, D. J. (2015). LGBTQ experiences in curricular contexts. In D. Stewart,
K. A. Renn, & G. B. Brazelton (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: No. 152.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans∗, and queer students in higher education: An appreciative
inquiry (pp. 25–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step
Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching
& Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–33514.

Marsh, A.A. & Cardinale, E. M. (2012). Psychopathy and Fear: Specific Impairments in Judging
Behaviors that Frighten Others. Emotion, 12(5), 892–898. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/a0026260.

McCann, E., & Brown, M. (2018). The inclusion of LGBT+ health issues within undergraduate
healthcare education and professional training programmes: A systematic review. Nurse
Education Today, 64, 204–214. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.028.

McLaughlin, J. E. & McLaughlin, G. W. (2015). Using Composite Metrics to Measure Student

Diversity in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
37(2), 222-240.

McMonigle, E. & Grijalva, R. A. (2018). Discovering our Mothers' Gardens: Cultivating

Diverse Resources for the Emergence of a New Paradigm in Higher Education. Urban
Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 50(1), 177-192.

McShay, J. C. (2017). Engaging Students at the Intersections Through Multicultural Centers: An

Application of the Culturally Engaging Campus Environment Model. New Directions for
Student Services, 2017(157), 25–34. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1002/ss.20206.
 128

Means, D. R. (2016). An Institutional Case Study about Campus Race Relations. College
Student Affairs, 34(2), 16-28.

Medley, S. (2016). "Gender Balancing" as Sex Discrimination in College Admissions. Harvard

Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 51(2), 537-571.

Miles, R., Hu, R., & Dotson, K. (2013). Perceptions of Diversity in Higher Education. Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 61(2), 74-82. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.796244.

Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2020). Liars, Cheaters, and Short-Haired Girls: Gender Identity Denial of
Young Athletes. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 28(2), 140–150.

Mobley, S. D., & Johnson, J. M. (2015). The Role of HBCUs in Addressing the Unique Needs
of LGBT Students. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(170), 79–89. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1002/he.20133.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Pietri, E. S., Hennes, E. P., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Roussos, G., &
Handelsman, J. (2018). Reducing STEM Gender Bias with VIDS (Video Interventions for
Diversity in STEM). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(2), 236-260.
doi:10.1037/xap0000144.

Murray, N. (2016). Dealing with Diversity in Higher Education: Awareness-Raising and a

Linguistic Perspective on Teachers’ Intercultural Competence. International Journal for
Academic Development, 21(3), 166.

Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T., & Davidoff, K. C. (2016).
Microaggressions Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Genderqueer
People: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 488–508.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495.

Neel, R. (2014). “Expert in the Language of Fear”: Stigmatized Targets’ Perception of Others’
Emotion-Specific Prejudice. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering. ProQuest Information & Learning. Retrieved from https://search-
ebscohost-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2014-99040-
500&site=eds-live.

Núñez, A., Crisp, G., & Elizondo, D. (2016, January). A Typology of Institutional Diversity.
Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 55-83.

Ombagi, E. (2016). Notes on the Nation: A Conversation with Sara Ahmed’s Strange
Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality, The Cultural Politics of Emotion and
Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Agenda: Empowering Women for
Gender Equity, 30(2), 147–152.
 129

Ozturgut, O. (2017). Internationalization for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Journal of

Higher Education Theory and Practice, 17(6), 83-91 Retrieved from
http://www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/OzturgutO_17_6_.pdf.

Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Methods: Discovery or
Justification? Journal of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1–7. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1.

Patel, F. (2017). Deconstructing Internationalization: Advocating Globalization in International

Higher Education. Journal of International & Global Studies, 8(2), 64-82.

Pennell, S. M. (2017). Training secondary teachers to support LGBTQ + students: Practical

applications from theory and research. High School Journal, 101(1), 62–72. Retrieved
from
http://library.esc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.alumnilibrary.esc.edu/login.as
px?direct=true&db=a2h&AN=126036877&site=ehost-live.

Pfeffer, F. T. (2015). Equality and Quality in Education. A Comparative Study of 19 Countries.

Social Science Research, 51, 350–368. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.09.004.

Phipps, A. (2017). Speaking up for What’s Right: Politics, Markets and Violence in Higher
Education. Feminist Theory, 18(3), 357. doi:10.1177/1464700117722001.

Pitcher, E., Camacho, T., Renn, K., & Woodford, M. R. (2016). Affirming policies, programs,
and supportive services: Understanding organizational supports promoting LGBTQ+
college student success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online
publication. 10.1037/dhe0000048

Ploderl, M., & Tremblay, P. (2015). Mental health of sexual minorities. A systematic
review. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(5), 367–385.

Pryor, J. T. (2020). Queer activist leadership: An exploration of queer leadership in higher

education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/dhe0000160.

Ragins, B. R., & Ehrhardt, K. (2021). Gaining perspective: The impact of close cross-race
friendships on diversity training and education. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6),
856–881. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/apl0000807.supp (Supplemental)

Rahman, M. S. (2017). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research:
A Literature Review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102–112. Retrieved from
http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
eric&AN=EJ1120221&site=eds-live.
 130

Rankin, S. R. (2017). LGBTQA students on campus: Is higher education making the grade?
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3, 111–117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n02_11.

Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2017). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach
to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–274.

Ratnapalan, S. (2019). Qualitative approaches: Variations of grounded theory methodology.

Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 65(9), 667–668.

Rader, N. & Cossman, J. (2011). Gender Differences in U.S. College Students’ Fear for Others.
Sex Roles, 64(7–8), 568–581. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s11199-011-9940-5.

Ray, T. N., & Parkhill, M. R. (2021). Heteronormativity, Disgust Sensitivity, and Hostile
Attitudes toward Gay Men: Potential Mechanisms to Maintain Social Hierarchies. Sex
Roles, 84(1/2), 49–60. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s11199-020-01146-w.

Reddy, S. (2018). Diversifying the Higher-Education Curriculum. Journal of Feminist Studies in

Religion, 34(1), 161-169.

Reuben E, Sapienza P, & Zingales L. (2017). How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in
Science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.; 111:4403–4408.

Reynolds, J. R., & Bamford, M. J. (2016). School Gender Culture and Student Subjective Well-
Being. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 74(1–2), 62. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s11199-015-0557-y.

Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., & Bowman, N. A. (2015). Perceptions of the Campus
Climate for Nonreligious Students. Journal of College Student Development, 56(2), 181–186.
doi:10.1353/csd.2015.0021.

Rosenthal, M. (2016). Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how to conduct interviews
and focus groups in pharmacy research. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning,
8(4), 509–516. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.03.021.

Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: SAGE.

Salvati M, Pistella J, Ioverno S, Giacomantonio M, Baiocco R. (2018). Attitude of Italian Gay

Men and Italian Lesbian Women Towards Gay and Lesbian Gender-Typed Scenarios. Sex
Res Soc Policy. 2018; 15: 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0296-7.

Sellers, R., Emsley, R., Wells, A., & Morrison, A. P. (2018). The role of cognitive and
metacognitive factors in non‐clinical paranoia and negative affect. Psychology &
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 91(2), 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12154
 131

Sotardi, V. A., Surtees, N., Vincent, K., & Johnston, H. (2021). Belonging and adjustment for
LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ students during the social transition to university. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/dhe0000305.

Sprong, M. E., Chowdhury, D., Dallas, B. K., & Buono, F. D. (2017). Impact of Sexism and
Gender on Recommendations for Rehabilitation Services. Journal of Rehabilitation,
83(4), 13–24.

Steck, A. K., & Perry, D. (2018). Challenging Heteronormativity: Creating a Safe and Inclusive
Environment for LGBTQ Students. Journal of School Violence, 17(2), 227–243.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/15388220.2017.1308255.

Stopa, L., Denton, R., Wingfield, M., & Taylor, K. N. (2013). The Fear of Others: A Qualitative
Analysis of Interpersonal Threat in Social Phobia and Paranoia. Behavioral and Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 41(2), 188–209. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1017/S1352465812000422.
Sugimura, M. (2015, March). Roles of Language in Multicultural Education in the Context of
Internationalization. Educational Studies in Japan, 9(13), 1-13.

Sumerau, J. E. (2017). “Some of Us Are Good, God-Fearing Folks”: Justifying Religious

Participation in an LGBT Christian Church. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
46(1), 3. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
com.proxy1.ncu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=120595551&site=eds-live

Swanson, K., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and supportive behaviors
toward LGBT students: Relationship to Gay-Straight Alliances, antibullying policy, and
teacher training. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(4), 326–351. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/19361653.2016.1185765.

Tavarez, J. (2020). “I can’t quite be myself”: Bisexual-specific minority stress within LGBTQ
campus spaces. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/dhe0000280.

Taylor Huber, M. (2016). Diversity and Equity. Change, 48(3), 22-27.

doi:10.1080/00091383.2016.1170527.

Taylor, R., Kumi-Yeboah, A., & Ringlabert, R. P. (2016, Summer). Pre-Service Teachers’
Perceptions Towards Multicultural Education & Teaching of Culturally & Linguistically
Diverse Learners. Multicultural Education, 23(3), 42-48.

Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–163. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.5281/zenodo.2552022.
 132

Tillman, K., Creel, E., & Pryor, S. (2016). The lived Experience of Second-Degree
Baccalaureate Nursing Students Providing Care to Members of an LGBT Community.
International Journal for Human Caring, 20(4), 176–181. Retrieved from
http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
ccm&AN=121749200&site=eds-live.

Todd, A., & Galinsky, A. (2014). Perspective-taking as a strategy for improving intergroup
relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 8, 374–387. 10.1111/spc3.12116.

Tonbulough, B., Aslan, D., & Aydin, H. (2016, January). Teachers' Awareness of Multicultural
Education and Diversity in School Settings. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
5(64), 1-28.

Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in Qualitative Content Analysis and Thematic
Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 1–14.

Vos M, Çelik G, & de Vries S. (n.d.) Making Cultural Differences Matter? Diversity
Perspectives in Higher Education. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion [serial online]. June
2016;35(4):254. Available from: Complementary Index, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 26,
2018.

Waling, A. & Roffee, J. A. (2018). Supporting LGBTIQ+ Students in Higher Education in

Australia: Diversity, Inclusion and Visibility. Health Education Journal, 77(5), 667.
Retrieved from
http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
edb&AN=131688777&site=eds-live.

Wang, Y., Hu, Z., Peng, K., Xin, Y., Yang, Y., Drescher, J., & Chen, R. (2019). Discrimination
against LGBT populations in China. The Lancet Public Health, 4, E440–E441.

Warikoo, N. K. & de Novais, J. (2015). Colour-blindness and Diversity: Race Frames and their
Consequences for White Undergraduates at Elite US Universities. Ethnic & Racial
Studies, 38(6), 860-876.

Wasik, E. M. (2017). Towards a Unified Conception of the Linguistic Self within the
Framework of Semiotic Phenomenology, TICS, 456.

Watson, S. & Miller, T. (2012). LGBT Oppression. Multicultural Education, 19, 2e7.

Wei, C., & Liu, W. (2019). Coming out in Mainland China: A national survey of LGBTQ
students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(2), 192–219. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/19361653.2019.1565795.
 133

Wichaidit, W., Assanangkornchai, S., & Chongsuvivatwong, V. (2021). Disparities in behavioral

health and experience of violence between cisgender and transgender Thai adolescents.
PLoS ONE, 16(5), 1–14. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0252520.

Woodford, M. R., Kolb, C. L., Durocher-Radeka, G., & Javier, G. (2014). Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender ally training programs on campus: Current variations and future
directions. Journal of College Student Development, 55(3), 317–322. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1353/csd.2014.0022.

Woodford, M. R., Kulick, A., Garvey, J. C., Sinco, B. R., & Hong, J. S. (2018). LGBTQ Policies
and Resources on Campus and the Experiences and Psychological Well-Being of Sexual
Minority College Students: Advancing Research on Structural Inclusion. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(4), 445–456. https://doi-
org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1037/sgd0000289.

Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C. A., & Lewis, W. T. (2014, December). National Association of
Diversity Officers in Higher Education Standards of Professional Practice for Chief
Diversity Officers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4), 227-234.

Yao, E., Li, Y., & Wang, C. (2021). The Fear of Being Associated with Sexual Minority Close
Others: Socio-Cultural Predictors of Sexual Minority Affiliate Stigma. Sexuality &
Culture: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1007/s12119-
020-09801-w.

Yin, R. K. (2015). Case Studies. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
2(2), 194–201. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10507-0.
 134

Appendix A: Interview Guide

I would like to welcome you to the case study as a participant. I admire your courage and
willingness to share your experiences with me as we go through the interview process and
collection of your journals, which not only reflect your experiences in classrooms and on
campus, but also provides grounds for addressing possible concerns regarding discriminatory
practices against LGBTQ students by other students, staff, and faculty.

Questions for LGBTQ students:

1. Can you describe what discrimination means to you?

2. Do you relate to yourself as an LGBTQ person?

3. Have you experienced any form of discrimination against any LGBTQ student on
campus or in classroom? If yes, please share your campus or classroom experiences.

4. Can you explain your feelings and perceptions of campus and classroom
environment in connection with students and faculty behaviors?

5. Have you experienced any impacts on your academic performance due to

discriminatory behaviors by other students and faculty? If yes, please explain.

6. What is your perception of campus tolerance towards LGBTQ students?

7. How would you describe your relationship with other students in classroom and
on campus?

8. Do you feel safe in classrooms and on campus?

9. Do you feel any pressure to be better academically to be more accepted by peers,

faculty, or even staff?

10. What do you think the school should do to accommodate the needs of LGBTQ
students in classrooms and on campus?

11. How would you feel if assignments were insensitive to one’s gender?
 135

Appendix B: Survey Questions

Please read the following survey questions and answer them truthfully and honestly. There are no right or wrong
answers here. This survey is designed to give you an opportunity to let the research know about your experiences as
LGBTQ student while attending your College or University. Your privacy and confidentiality will be protected.

Part 1. Select the statement(s) by highlighting your selections(s).

Q.1 I associate myself with the following group.

- I am a first-year college student

- I am a second-year college student
- I am a third-year college student
- I am a fourth-year college student

Q2. I consider myself as a------------------------

- I am a Heterosexual individual
- I am not sure about my sexuality
- I am Homosexual
- I am a Bisexual

Q3. Which of the followings best describes your current relationship status?

- I am single
- I am married
- I am in a relationship
- I am not in a relationship

Q4. Which one of these describes your feeling in life?

- I consider myself happy and content all the time

- I consider myself unhappy and discontent all the time
- I consider myself happy most of the time
- I consider myself unhappy most of the time

Q5. When I think about my interactions with faculty and staff in my college I feel------------

- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
 136

Appendix C: Sample Codes

 137

Appendix D: Sample Participants’ Responses to Survey

Survey question data bank

To organize participants’ responses, they are color coded as followings:

Positive: Green Neutral: Yellow Negative: Red

Since participants in survey were anonymous, they are identified as numbers here.

Participant Q 26. Participant Q.27 Participant Q.28

LGBTQ student As student is How do feel about
how do you feel there any specific your academic
about being experience you performances at
treated at your would like to your college?
campus? share?
Out of 28
Out of 28 Out of 28 participants 18
participants 19 participants 15 chose to respond.
chose to respond. chose to respond. Out of 18 who
Out of 19 who Out of 15 who responded, 5 had
responded, 15 had responded, 10 negative views
negative views had negative and 13 had neutral
and 4 had neutral views and 5 had or positive views.
or positive views. neutral or
positive views.

8 judgmental and 8 8 I need to improve

treat differently my performances
9 No nice at all 9 Rather to let go 9 Fine
10 Not treated right 10 Yes but there was 10 Very good
so many bad
experiences but I
tried to let it go
11 Not fair 11 Getting target 11 ok
and called names
14 I am lucky to go to 14 Professors have a 14 It was tough at
a very accepting tendency to first, especially at
and encouraging tokenize me. I've such a tough
school, yet I still noticed a lot of university. I was
constantly feel the professors doing pre-med
need to prove gravitate towards and I didn't feel
myself to the me because as a very passionate or
people around mild tempered, supported in my
me. white, financially academics, but
well off, innately I've switched
smart, etc. I'm paths and feel
 138

the type of trans much more

person that cis uplifted to do well.
people really like I know I'm very
and they'll hold smart and
me on a pedestal motivated and
to show everyone now I'm doing a
else how lot better.
'tolerant' they
are. It's a little
exhausting
because they
seem to expect
that I owe them
my gratefulness
in exchange for
general
acceptance.
 139

Appendix E: IRB Approval Letter

 ProQuest Number: 28715833

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2021 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA