The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity: Factors Influencing Sexual Prejudice Among College Students

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Jayakumar, Uma M.]On: 2 October 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 913658096]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of HomosexualityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306897

The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity: Factors Influencing Sexual Prejudice AmongCollege StudentsUma M. Jayakumar a

a National Center for Institutional Diversity, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Online Publication Date: 01 August 2009

To cite this Article Jayakumar, Uma M.(2009)'The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity: Factors Influencing Sexual Prejudice Among CollegeStudents',Journal of Homosexuality,56:6,675 — 700

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00918360903054095

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360903054095

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306897

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360903054095

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

675

Journal of Homosexuality, 56:675–700, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00918360903054095

WJHM0091-83691540-3602Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 56, No. 6, June 2009: pp. 1–46Journal of Homosexuality

The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity: Factors Influencing Sexual Prejudice Among

College Students

The Invisible Rainbow in DiversityU. M. Jayakumar

UMA M. JAYAKUMAR, PhDNational Center for Institutional Diversity, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

While colleges may reflect sexual prejudices of the societal cultureat large, they also have the capacity to resist or even transformthese troubling viewpoints. Based on longitudinal data collectedfrom 13,881 students nationwide, this study investigates the impactof college experiences on sexually prejudicial attitudes. Resultsindicate that individuals are more accepting of lesbian, gay, andbisexual relationships after four years of college and that experien-tial components of racial diversity in the college environment areassociated with a decrease in sexual prejudice. Interpretations offindings include the possibility that the observed trends are indicativeof sexual prejudice becoming less socially acceptable, as moreinsidious forms of heterosexism maintain the dominance of theprivileged group.

KEYWORDS sexual prejudice, heterosexism, heterosexist attitudes,homophobia, benefits of racial diversity, cross-racial interaction,college student development, prejudicial attitudes, college studentattitudes

The notion of heterosexism is related to the concept of sexual prejudice,1

which refers to individual discriminatory attitudes, ideologies, or taken-for-granted beliefs that construct heterosexuality as the normal and superiorsexual orientation (Blumenfeld, 2000; Herek, 2000). As a consequence ofheterosexism2 and sexual prejudice in our society, individuals who iden-tify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual3 (LGB) are five times more

Address correspondence to Uma M. Jayakumar, 3338 School of Education Building, 610East University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Jayakumar, Uma M.] At: 19:33 2 October 2009

676 U. M. Jayakumar

likely to miss school because they feel unsafe, 28% more likely to dropoutof school entirely (Rankin, 2003), and four times more likely to commitsuicide than their heterosexual counterparts (Garofalo, Wolf, Wissow,Woods, & Goodman, 1999).

Like other systems of domination and oppression (e.g., racism and sex-ism), heterosexism can stifle the potential of sexual minorities, limit theacknowledgment of LGB perspectives, and undermine their contributions tothe greater society (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009). On college campuses, inparticular, this oppression is partially manifested through the hostile campusclimates often experienced by LGB students (Rankin, 2003). The negativeexperiences of LGB students in college have warranted concern fromnational organizations including the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching, the American Council on Education, and the Associationof American Colleges and Universities (Rankin, 2003).

Although institutions of higher education reflect the sexual prejudicesof the societal culture at large, they also have the capacity to resist or eventransform these troubling viewpoints. The college years overlap with a criti-cal stage in the developmental life cycle (for traditional-age students) whenindividuals are ready to question their often simplistic ways of thinking,experiment with new ideas, and eventually settle on their values, opinions,and world views (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991,2005; Perry, 1970). Colleges and universities heavily influence studentattitude formation and development by virtue of the environments theymake available and the experiences they facilitate among students (Astin,1993b; Feldmen & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).

In recognizing the dialectical space that institutions of higher educationoccupy in our society, where the promise of emancipation coexists with thepotential to oppress, it becomes increasingly vital that scholars constantlyevaluate the kinds of citizens that institutions are producing. What happensin higher education is particularly important for the socialization of the nextgeneration of young people: Will students emerge with stigmatizing notionsof sexual orientation or with notions that are more libratory?

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the last five years, the issue of gay rights has increasingly become thefocus of much legal debate and public discourse. Everyone from governmentofficials and state legislators to community organizations and the generalpublic have weighed in on the conversation. In May of 2004, Massachusettsbecame the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Sincethen, same-sex marriages have gained legal status in Connecticut, Vermont,Iowa, Massachusetts, and Maine (as of May 6, 2009). In contrast, state legis-lators and signature-gathering citizens in 29 states successfully amended


The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity 677

their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriages (Human Rights Campaign,2009b). In most cases, they were also successful at withholding basicpartnership rights, such as hospital visitation rights, and the right to makecontractual arrangements regarding distribution of assets, child custody,pensions, and other employment benefits (Human Rights Campaign, 2008).While citizens in several states (e.g., California, New York, New Jersey) arefighting to secure same-sex marriage rights or challenge established bans,others are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would prohibitsame-sex marriage on a national scale (Human Rights Campaign, 2005,2008; for more on the legal debate, see Herek, 2006).

University officials have increasingly shown concern over the chal-lenges facing many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)members of their communities. According to a recent report commissionedby the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, “In response tothe heightened awareness of anti- LGBT acts of intolerance and to issues ofLGBT inequality prevalent on college campuses, top administrators atseveral universities appointed task forces or ad hoc committees to investi-gate the institutional climate for LGBT individuals” (Rankin, 2003, p. 9).However, at the structural level, in terms of statewide policies affectingeducational institutions, only 13 states and the District of Columbia have alaw, regulation, or policy in place that protects individuals from harassmentand discrimination based on sexual orientation in schools (Human RightsCampaign, 2009c). Such inconsistencies raise questions about and haveimplications for the overall influence higher educational institutions areimpressing upon the climate for LGB students.

Accounts of campus life by LGB students indicate that they oftenencounter a hostile climate. Rankin’s (2003) examination of campus climateat 14 universities across the nation indicates that heterosexual students arethe most frequent perpetrators of the harassment and derogation experi-enced by LGBT students. The gay and bisexual male college students inRhoads’ (1995a) ethnographic study of the coming out experience, sharedexperiences of physical assault, harassment, and discrimination. In a studyinvestigating the experiences of LGB students at a Catholic institution, Love(1998) uncovers invalidating experiences that render students feeling invisi-ble. In reference to an advertisement for a meeting between leaders of vari-ous multicultural or marginalized student organizations, one participant inLove’s study poignantly explained, “One corner of the poster had beenripped off and taken away, and that was the corner that said ‘StudentsAgainst Homophobia’. . . . It was kind of telling in that we weren’t just writ-ten on. We were torn off and taken away. It wasn’t even like they threw uson the ground. It was literally like they made us nonexistent” (pp. 308–309).

While the literature indicates that negative attitudes are prevalentamong college students (D’ Augelli & Rose, 1990; Geller, 1991; Kim,D’Andrea, Gaughen, & Sahu, 1998; Love, 1998; Malaney, Williams, & Gellar,


678 U. M. Jayakumar

1997; Nelson & Krieger, 1997), it is still unclear as to how student viewschange, if at all, toward LGB relationships during the college years. Toimprove the climate, researchers and campus leaders must understand howinstitutions of higher education are influencing sexual prejudice and whatcan be done to facilitate greater levels of acceptance.

Correlates of Sexual Prejudice Among College Students

Scholars have uncovered a number of background characteristics associatedwith sexual prejudice among college students. Women have been found toharbor less sexual prejudice than men (D’Augelli, 1989; D’Augelli & Rose,1990; Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997; Kim et al., 1998; Malaney et al., 1997).Malaney and colleagues (1997), concluded that women are considerablymore interested in discussing LGB issues than men (77% vs. 67.5%) andmore likely to report having a LGB friend or relative. This may be becausewomen are also less likely to have negative attitudes toward LGB relation-ships across a range of social contexts (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997). Kim etal.’s (1998) study of 397 White, Chinese American, Filipino American,Japanese American, Native Hawaiian, and mixed-ethnicity students from aUniversity in Hawaii, suggests a relationship between racial/cultural back-ground and both knowledge of and attitudes toward LGB persons. Whitesin their study had greater knowledge of lesbians and gay men than theChinese and Japanese students and were found to harbor more positiveattitudes toward LGB relationships than the Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinoparticipants in the study.

Research indicates that Christian-based religious institutions have notbeen supportive of LGB relationships (Clark, Brown, & Hochstein, 1990).Studies pertaining to higher education institutions in particular have docu-mented increased levels of sexual prejudice when considering the influenceof religion (Love, 1998; Rhoads, 1997). In an extensive qualitative study of aCatholic affiliated university, Love found a dominant culture that keeps stu-dents “closeted,” adhering to what one might call a Clintonian “don’t ask,don’t tell” military policy. Love pointed out that “in the case of Catholicismhomosexuality has been identified as an ‘intrinsic disorder’” (p. 300). Fur-thermore, he suggests that the Church is utilized to validate fear of LGBwomen and men, but does not necessarily produce sexual prejudice on itsown. In his study of a Catholic affiliated school, Love revealed that studentswere able to depart from the church on such issues as premarital sex andbirth control, which can be hidden from the public, but the same studentswere likely to adhere to Church perspectives regarding sexual orientation.

Several studies have demonstrated strong relationships between collegestudents’ religious characteristics and sexual prejudice (Cochran & Beeghley,1991; Finlay & Walther, 2003; Wills & Crawford, 2000). Individuals from thevarious Christian denominations have largely been found to exhibit the



strongest heterosexist attitudes when compared to people from the Jewishfaith, from other non-Christian religions, and those with no religious prefer-ence (Cochran & Beeghley, 1991; Finlay & Walther, 2003; Wills & Crawford,2000). On the contrary, Kim et al. (1998) found no differences in attitudestoward LGB men and women among Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Christian,and atheist participants, irrespective of strength of religious conviction. Nota-bly, however, Kim et al. did not examine level of religious involvement.Studies that have measured and accounted for degree of religiosity haveshown a positive relationship with sexually prejudicial attitudes (Cochran &Beeghley, 1991; Herek & Glunt, 1993).

Research on college fraternities has also shown a dominant culture thatfosters sexual prejudice (Rhoads, 1995b; Sanday, 1990). Rhoads (1995b)exposed a culture that celebrates masculinity, sees women and qualitiesassociated with females as inferior and deserving of ridicule, and ultimatelydenounces any open recognition of LGB relationships. Interview data fromRhoads (1995b) revealed that possible differences in sexual orientationamong fraternity members were recognized but forced to be kept invisible,a finding also reported by Love (1998). One fraternity member told Rhoads(1995b), “…if [we] were to have a gay brother—and it’s entirely possiblethat we do—we just don’t know it. [Long pause.] The attitude here wouldbe to tar and feather him and hang him from the highest rooftop. And thatsaddens me…” (p. 319). This student is arguably “somewhat accepting” ofgay men but recognizes that it must be made invisible to keep the individualfrom being persecuted.

The literature suggests that there are steps that can be taken to success-fully alter negative views toward LGB individuals (Croteau & Kusek, 1992;Nelson & Krieger, 1997; Smith et al., 1997). Croteau and Kusek conducted areview of the existing literature on interactive panel presentations held byindividuals who identified as a lesbian or a gay man, and found that whenaudience members had the opportunity to ask questions, a space wascreated wherein students could, and often did, reevaluate their prejudicialattitudes. Nelson and Kreiger similarily evaluated the effects of a 50-minutepresentation of personal stories by four members of a campus lesbian andgay student group. Study results revealed that both men and women audi-ence members exhibited more positive attitudes toward LGB relationshipsafter the presentation.

Several studies support the notion that exposure and interaction acrosssexual orientation may facilitate the reduction of heterosexist attitudes.Malaney et al. (1997) found that students with a LGB friend or relative weremore likely to take a supportive stance on all of the items pertaining to LGBrights. They were also more likely to self-report having become “morefavorable” toward LGB issues since entering college than students whowere not acquainted with LGB persons. Other studies also attest to theeffectiveness of interacting across sexual orientation (Kardia, 1996; Lance,


680 U. M. Jayakumar

1987, 2008; Nelson & Krieger, 1997; Pagtolun-An & Clair, 1986; Pettijohn &Walzer, 2008; Stevenson, 1988).

A similar line of research has shown that students’ racial prejudices arereduced when students are exposed to a racially diverse college environ-ment. When institutions have greater numbers of students of color, allstudents are more likely to socialize with individuals from different racialgroups (Chang, 1999; Milem, 1994). Astin (1993a) found that interactionswith students of different racial origins had a positive impact on students’cultural awareness. Indeed, after reviewing the literature on racial diversityand inter-group relations, Smith and colleagues (1997) concluded that, “thedata seems to indicate that individual group contact over time allowsstudents to break down stereotypes and to become more reflective of theirown and others’ experiences and perspectives” (p. 29). However, studies todate have not explored whether or not exposure to racially diverse peers inthe college environment facilitates greater openness toward differences insexual orientation.

Indeed, the impact of particular college environments and the col-lege experience as a whole on students’ sexual prejudice remainunclear. In a very general sense, we know that college has a liberalizingeffect on students (Astin, 2001). While acceptance of LGB relationshipsis associated with a liberal perspective (Herek, et al., 2009), gay rightshave not been entirely championed by either the Democratic or Republicanparties. Thus, an increasingly liberal political orientation may not neces-sarily provide insight into the impact of college on student views towardLGB relationships.

The few studies that discuss the impact of the overall college experi-ence on student attitudes toward LGB relationships have produced inconsis-tent results. Malaney et al. (1997) concluded that, contrary to an anticipatedliberalizing effect of the college experience, college seniors and freshmanreport the same level of tolerance toward LGB rights. In effect, the authorssuggest that the college experience does not influence one’s viewpointsregarding sexual orientation. While this may be the case, the conclusionwarrants further investigation given that Malaney et al. compared freshmanand senior attitudes at one point in time. This methodological approachdoes not preclude the possibility that students’ attitudes were no more thana reflection of a particular time period, individual differences, and peerattitudes in the school. It also cannot address the possibility that the seniorsbegan college as less tolerant and actually progressed as a result of a col-lege influence. In another single-institution study that surveyed the samecohort of students across the first two years of college, Liang and Alimo(2005) found that White heterosexual students self-reported level of contactwith LGB individuals was associated with more positive attitudes. Whilethese findings support the theoretical link between contact and prejudicereduction (e.g., Allport, 1954), the study does not examine additional college



experiences (e.g., college major, religious involvement, diversity course-work) to understand if—and to what extent—colleges and universities areinfluencing students’ sexual prejudices by virtue of the environments theymake available.

Society has traditionally looked to higher education (and investedresources in the system) to care for the commonwealth, particularly for thepurpose of engendering a more conscientious citizenry (Bowen, 1997;Dewey, 1944; Nie & Hillygus, 2001; Thelin, 1994). However, critics contendthat institutions are failing to embrace their public mission (Boyer, 1990;Checkoway, 2001; National Association of State Universities and Land-GrantColleges, 2001; National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good,2003; Weerts, 2002). As part of higher education’s response to the call forgreater social responsibility, it is important to understand whether or nothigher education as a whole is producing more open-minded perceptionsof LGBT individuals. This gap in our knowledge base prompted the followingresearch question: To what extent do student views toward LGB relationshipschange during college and what college experiences, if any, facilitate suchchange?

METHODOLOGY

Data Source and Sample

Data for this study were provided by the Cooperative Institutional ResearchProgram (CIRP), sponsored by the Higher Education Research Institute(HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA; http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.html). The student data used in this study was based onresponses to a four-year longitudinal survey design, the 1996 Student Infor-mation Survey (SIF), administered to students prior to any significant expo-sure to college and the College Student Survey (CSS), sent to the samestudents’ homes in the summer and fall of 2000 (see Sax, Astin, Korn, &Mahoney, 1996, for a copy of the freshman survey and a description of thesampling procedures). These surveys collect demographic information,expectations of and reasons for attending college, high school and collegeexperiences, degree goals and career plans, college finances, attitudes, val-ues, and life goals. The survey instruments did not collect information onparticipants’ sexual orientations. A total of 14,975 students returned bothsurveys.

Included in the sample are 384 four-year institutions, of which 274 areprivate, 110 are public, 119 are religious. Thirty-six of the private institutionsare Catholic affiliated and another 47 are affiliated with other religions. Theinstitutions represent regional diversity, with 35% located in the East, 20% inthe South, 30% in the Midwest, and 15% in the West. The sample is 65%female, 35% male, and is skewed toward White students, who comprise


682 U. M. Jayakumar

80% of the sample. Most participants identified with a Christian-based faith(78% in 2000), while only a few indicated another religious preference (e.g.,Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, “other religion”) or no religious affiliation (7% and15%, respectively). Eliminating students who did not answer any single itemused in this study on either survey left 13,881 students in the final longitudinalsample.

Research Methods

This study implemented Alexander Astin’s Input-Environment-Outcome (I-E-O)model as a conceptual guide (Astin, 2002). In accordance with this approach, Icontrolled for incoming characteristics (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomicstatus, academic performance, opinion, attitudes, etc.) that students embodybefore coming to college, particularly those characteristics that might shapeone’s attitudes toward LGB relationships (e.g., pretest measure of sexualprejudice before entering college). This approach was also useful in uncov-ering how students’ sexual prejudices were affected by environmentalfactors of interest (e.g., peers, college major, curricular diversity). Initiallycontrolling student input characteristics also allowed for an examination ofthe affects of institutional characteristics, which had some direct effect onthe outcome measure of sexual prejudice.

Crosstabulation analyses and blocked linear regression were employedto answer the research questions posed in this study. Crosstabulations wereused to assess changes in sexual prejudice during college and to understandhow such changes vary across key variables of interest. Blocked linearregression was utilized to study the changes in partial regression coefficientsfor all variables at each step in the analysis. The benefit of using blockedlinear regression is that it allows for an examination of both how regressioncoefficients change as each variable enters the equation and the impacteach variable would have had in each step prior to its entry (Astin, 2002).This procedure is particularly helpful in understanding how the effect ofone variable on the outcome measure might be mediated by another inde-pendent variable.

Blocked linear regression analysis was set up in accordance with theI-E-O methodological framework. Variables were organized into blocksand entered into a forward regression in the sequential order in which theymight have contributed to the development of individual attitudes andvalues. The temporally ordered blocks were entered into the regressionequation one at a time until no additional variable in a given block pro-duced a significant (p < .01) reduction of the residual sum of squares of thedependent variable, after which variables in the next block were consideredfor entry (Astin, 2002). In addition to identifying the effects of the indepen-dent variables that enter the regression, this method of multivariate analysiswas useful in assessing mediating or “indirect” effects for all variables (both



those that enter as well as those that do not enter the regression equation)at every step along the way. This is the function of the “Beta in” that isprovided in SPSS of the OLS regression (Astin, 2002). The “Beta in” showswhat the standardized regression coefficient for a variable not yet enteredwould be if it were the variable entered in the next step.

Outcome Variable

The dependent variable, sexual prejudice, is measured by an individual’sresponse to a question on the 2000 CSS, which can be used to assessstudent views regarding the legalization of LGB relationships. The statementreads: “There should be laws prohibiting homosexual relationships.” Thevariable is measured on a scale of 1 to 4, with an answer of 1 = agree strongly,indicating that a person is sexually prejudiced; an answer of 2 = agreesomewhat, noted as “somewhat sexually prejudiced”; a choice of answer3 = disagree somewhat, representing those who are “somewhat accept-ing”; and a choice of answer 4 = disagree strongly, indicating that the per-son is “accepting” of LGB relationships. Thus, the sexual prejudice variableis coded so that a higher response on the scale reflects greater acceptanceof LGB relationships.

The sexual prejudice scale is limited in its interpretive value, given that“acceptance” of LGB relationships does not necessarily constitute true inclu-sion. Persons who are highly accepting on this scale may still be heterosexist.It is important to keep this in mind, so as to avoid overinterpretation of theoutcome measure. Those who agree somewhat or strongly that there shouldbe laws banning LGB relationships are defined as sexually prejudiced forthe purposes of this study.

Independent Variables

Variables were primarily chosen based on the knowledge generated byprevious research. These variables were used to control for other estab-lished effects on views toward LGB relationships, to clarify discrepanciesin the literature on the overall impact of college and the effect of religiousaffiliations, and to explore and assess the unique contribution of racialdiversity.

The first block was made up of demographic or background character-istics. This block included the pretest for sexual prejudice, which wasphrased identically to the outcome variable, and answered by students in1996 before entering college. Additionally, since the literature indicates thatwomen are generally more accepting of LGB relationships, it was importantto control for the effects of gender to ultimately observe the influence ofcollege on sexual prejudice. Race variables, for the categories of African


684 U. M. Jayakumar

American, Latina/o, White, American Indian, and Asian, were also enteredbased on previous research.

Also included in the first block were background ideological orienta-tions and religion variables that have been shown in previous research toimpact sexual prejudice. Born-again Christian was included to account forhow a conscious decision to become more religious may influence viewstoward sexual orientation when one is trying to gain acceptance in a largerreligious context that is generally not accepting of LGB relationships.Attending a religious service in 1996 was included as a pretest measure forreligious involvement in college and as a proxy for people who are reli-gious. Political orientation (coded toward liberal) was entered as a pretestfor looking at the influence of political orientation in college. Drawing fromAstin’s (2001) finding of a positive relationship between mother’s level ofeducation and liberalism, attitudes toward LGB relationships might also berelated to mother’s level of education, and was therefore included in theanalysis.

After student characteristics and precollege experiences were entered tocontrol for differences among incoming freshman, institutional characteristicswere included. This second block constitutes the first environment studentsencounter as they begin college. Between-institution measures or structuralcharacteristics (e.g., institutional selectivity, control: private vs. public, size asmeasured by total fulltime enrollment) are typically examined in studies ofcollege impact (Astin, 2002). Between-institution measures are especially rele-vant because of their role in shaping the types of experiences that studentswithin the same institution (i.e., within-institution measures) can potentiallyexperience (Astin, 2002). Catholic affiliation was entered based on previousresearch on campus climate for LGB students (Love, 1998).

Block three and four consisted of within-institution measures (e.g., on-campus housing, student major, student experiences, etc.) derived fromliterature on the impact of college. The peer environments that studentsencounter during college have a profound impact on their developmentduring the college years (Antonio, 2004; Astin, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini,1991, 2005; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1996). College major wasentered in the block three and included the following four categories: socialstudies, math and science, business, and humanities and arts. The fourthblock comprised college experiences, capturing religious involvement,diversity awareness, involvement in fraternities and sororities, involvementin college athletics, and discussing politics. While religion and fraternity/sorority involvement were established in the literature to engender sexualprejudice, other college experiences were exploratory.

The last block consisted of one variable, political orientation: liberal,capturing one’s political orientation four years after college. Because thisvariable is both affective and considered a college outcome for interpreta-tion purposes, it was entered in a final block as a precautionary measure.



RESULTS

Crosstabulation Analyses

A shift toward acceptance of LGB relationships appears to have occurredduring college for participants of this study (see Table 1). The majority ofthese students, approximately three out of four, reported that they wereaccepting of LGB relationships by their senior year. The illustration shows adifference in student attitudes toward LGB relationships from freshman tosenior year, which refutes Malaney et al. (1997) finding that college has noeffect on student views toward LGB relationships.

Table 2 further illustrates this trend. Almost half of the students whostrongly agreed with the statement: “There should be laws prohibitinghomosexual relationships,” became accepting of LGB relationships afterfour years of college. Two out of every three students who were sexuallyprejudiced as freshmen were accepting after four years of college. Table 2also shows that students who started off accepting or somewhat acceptingoverwhelmingly maintained the same beliefs, although there was a smallpercentage that did change in the direction of becoming more sexuallyprejudiced.

The trend toward greater acceptance was not limited to one’s politicalorientation on college entry. Crosstabulation analysis revealed decreases insexual prejudice that were consistent across political orientations (–11% forconservatives, –8% for the political middle, and –5% for liberals; see Table 3).Unlike the spread of students in the political middle and liberal categories,which increased as the level of acceptance went up (from agree strongly todisagree strongly), the conservatives seemed to be evenly split. Although avery slight difference, the conservatives that agreed strongly with the prohi-bition of LGB relationships were the most likely to change their views afterfour years of college.

Developing an acceptance toward LGB relationships was facilitated byinvolvement in diversity coursework (e.g., ethnic studies, women’s studies,

TABLE 1 Change in Sexual Prejudice From 1996 to 2000 (N = 13,881)

Response

Percentage in

Change (1996–2000)1996 2000

Sexually prejudiced 12% 8% –4%Somewhat sexually prejudiced 15% 12% –3%Somewhat accepting 30% 25% –5%Accepting 43% 56% +13%

Note. Sexually prejudiced = “agree strongly” with the statement, “There should be laws prohibiting homo-sexual relationships;” somewhat sexually prejudiced = “agree somewhat;” somewhat accepting = “disagree somewhat;” accepting = “disagree strongly.”


686 U. M. Jayakumar

diversity workshop). Students who took diversity coursework in collegeoverwhelmingly tended to maintain or increase their level of acceptancetoward LGB relationships. Crosstabulation analysis revealed that among thestudents who entered college with sexually prejudiced viewpoints, thosewho enrolled in the most diversity coursework were 26% more likely toadopt greater acceptance toward LGB relationships than those whoremained unexposed to diversity related curriculum. As illustrated in Table 4,the percentage of students who switched from sexually prejudiced attitudesin 1996 to greater acceptance in 2000 increased with each incremental risein the number of diversity courses a student had taken during college.

While previous research had suggested racial differences in sexuallyprejudiced attitudes, crosstabulation analysis of racial categories with pretestand posttest measures of sexual prejudice revealed minimal differences inattitude change. Students within each of the racial groups, White, Black,American Indian, Asian, and Latina/o, had a consistent range of 15% to 20%

TABLE 2 Patterns of the Change in Sexual Prejudice from 1996 to 2000

Response in 1996 n

Percentage in 2000 responding

AcceptingSomewhat accepting

Somewhatsexually

prejudicedSexually

prejudiced

Sexually prejudiced

1,697 22% 22% 23% 33%

Somewhat sexually prejudiced

2,054 29% 39% 23% 9%

Somewhat accepting

4,237 50% 35% 11% 4%

Accepting 5,893 79% 13% 5% 3%

Note. Sexually prejudiced = “agree strongly” with the statement, “There should be laws prohibiting homo-sexual relationships;” somewhat sexually prejudiced = “agree somewhat;” somewhat accepting = “disagree somewhat;” accepting = “disagree strongly.”

TABLE 3 Change in Sexual Prejudice From 1996 to 2000 by Freshman Political Orientation

Response n

Percentage in 1996 Percentage in 2000

ConservPolitical middle Liberal Conserv

Political middle Liberal

Sexually prejudiced

3,705 52% 24% 12% 41% 16% 7%

Accepting 9,966 48% 76% 87% 59% 84% 93%

Note. Sexually prejudiced = “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” with the statement, “There should be laws prohibiting homosexual relationships;” Accepting = “disagree somewhat” or “disagree strongly.” Conserv. = Conservative political orientation.



of those who were sexually prejudiced shifting to an accepting attitudetoward LGB relationships after four years of college (see Table 5).

Regression Analysis

Student background characteristics, including student attitudes and experi-ences prior to entering college, were the best predictors of attitudes towardLGB relationships after four years of college. As indicated in blocked linearregression analysis, input characteristics accounted for most of the variancein the dependent variable (R = .484), with the environmental variables add-ing a little more to the predictive power of the equation. The pretest aloneaccounted for 23% of the variance in attitudes toward LGB relationshipsfour years after entering college.

The standardized beta coefficients changed minimally at each step ofthe analysis after the first three inputs: pretest, gender: female, born-againChristian, were controlled. The data suggest women enter college with atendency to be more liberal and put a greater emphasis on promoting racialunderstanding. However, being female only accounted for a small portion

TABLE 4 Trends in Attitude Change Among Students Entering College withSexually Prejudicial Attitudes (1996) N = 13, 881

Level of involvement in diversity coursework

Changed to more accepting attitude after four years of college (2000)

No Courses 48%Few courses 56%Many courses 64%Most courses 74%

TABLE 5 Trends in Attitude Change Across Race

Racial background

Percentage of students who switched from“sexually prejudiced” to “accepting” (1996–2000)

White n = 8,975

20%

Black n = 458

17%

American Indian n = 132

15%

Asian n = 652

17%

Latina/o n = 218

20%

Note. Sexually prejudiced = “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” with the statement, “There should be laws prohibiting homosexual relationships;” accepting = “disagree somewhat” or “disagree strongly.”


688 U. M. Jayakumar

(.01 increase in R) of the variance in the dependent variable. More signifi-cantly, examining the standardized beta coefficient for the pretest of sexualprejudice revealed a slight drop (from .41 to .38) when gender (codedtoward female) entered the regression. This finding is in line with pastresearch, which indicates that sexual prejudice is less prevalent amongfemales (D’ Augelli & Rose, 1990; Kim, et al., 1998; Malaney et al., 1997).When gender entered the regression model, the relationship between sexu-ally prejudicial attitudes and identification as born-again Christian increased,suggesting that men who identify as born-again Christian are more likely tobe sexually prejudiced than their female counterparts. The absence of racialbackground variables in the final regression model suggests that racialdifferences in sexual prejudice were not found among the participants ofthis study.

The coefficients for the two institutional characteristics that entered,selectivity and Catholic affiliation, revealed interesting patterns. The Catholicaffiliation variable was entered to address a discrepancy in past research onthe prevalence of sexually prejudicial attitudes in religious settings. Anexamination of the simple correlations suggests that both selective institu-tions (.21) and Catholic affiliated institutions (.12) produce less sexuallyprejudiced students.

However, the pretest for sexual prejudice accounted for approximately75% of the decrease in sexual prejudice associated with Catholic affiliatedschools. In the case of institutional selectivity, the standardized beta coeffi-cient dropped from .21 to .12 when the pretest for sexual prejudice wascontrolled. These findings suggest that Catholic affiliated institutions andhighly selective schools appear to a student body that report less sexuallyprejudicial attitudes than their counterparts at other institutions.

Regression analyses also revealed a decrease in the correlationbetween selective institutions and the dependent measure when gender andpolitical orientation entered the regression equation. These findings suggestthat the decrease in sexual prejudice associated with selective institutions ispartially an artifact of the large number of women and students with liberalpolitical orientations who were part of the incoming class.

The type of coursework offered at selective institutions may also play arole in students’ attitudes toward LGB relationships. The more acceptingnature of selective universities was to some extent accounted for whendiversity coursework entered the regression. Although small, the statisticallysignificant (p > .01) drop in the standardized beta coefficient for selectivitysuggests that part of the decrease in sexual prejudice associated with selec-tive universities reflects students taking more diversity coursework (e.g.,ethnic studies courses, women’s studies courses, diversity workshops).

Although one’s choice of college major has the potential to shape thecollege experience in different ways, students’ majors did not have a lastingeffect on sexual prejudice for participants of this study. The only two majors



that entered the regression, business and the arts and humanities, wereassociated with a decrease and increase in acceptance toward LGB relation-ships, respectively. There were also a greater number of students whoexhibited sexual prejudice going into the business major; the humanitiesand arts seemed to draw students who were more accepting. Part of thenegative relationship between the outcome measure, sexual prejudice, andbusiness majors could be attributed to a greater proportion of men andstudents with conservative political orientations entering this field. Studentsin the arts and humanities major, on the other hand, were not only lesssexually prejudiced when entering college, but they also tended to begincollege with liberal political orientations and continued to become moreliberal as they progressed through their major.

Religious involvement and environments in college, as they are cur-rently structured, may inhibit the development of an inclusive climate forLGB students. After having controlled for students’ characteristics and dispo-sitions when entering college, institutional characteristics and college major,both the religious peers and religious service variables maintained the stron-gest negative relationships with the outcome measure (final b = –.10),indicating an effect of increasing sexual prejudice. Many of the studentswho socialized with religious peers and participated in religious servicesduring college entered college with sexually prejudicial attitudes. The pre-test was therefore responsible for the biggest drop in the standardized betacoefficient for both the religious peers and religious service variables (from–.27 to –.17, and –.27 to –.16, respectively).

Exposure to racial diversity on the other hand could potentially foster adecrease in heterosexist attitudes. After accounting for participation inreligious service, the relationship between cross-racial interaction andbecoming more accepting of LGB relationships became stronger (from .03to .04). When diversity coursework was entered into the regression, themultiple correlation statistic (R) increased from .554 to .567, indicating thatdiversity coursework added more to the equation in terms of its predictivepower than anything else after born-again Christian.

Part of the relationship between both diversity coursework and interac-tion cross-racial interaction, with attitudes toward LGB relationships afterfour years of college, were accounted for when the pretest entered theequation. This finding suggests students who are already more accepting ofLGB relationships may have a tendency to take diversity courses andengage in cross-racial interaction. However, the decrease in heterosexistattitudes associated with racial diversity remained highly significant (p < .01)after precollege attitudes are controlled. Together these findings indicatethat diverse learning environments may offer a more positive climate thanother college settings. Diverse learning environments tended to both drawstudents with more accepting dispositions toward LGB relationships andfoster greater acceptance among students once they had arrived.


690 U. M. Jayakumar

In the final step of the regression, political orientation (coded towardliberal) entered the equation with a strong positive effect, even after havingcontrolled for students political views held by students prior to the collegeyears. Thus, while it is unclear as to which came first, the findings revealthat a decrease in sexual prejudice is associated with the liberalizing effectof college (with a final b = .19).

Some variables did not enter the regression and were never significant:majoring in science and engineering or social studies, joining a fraternity/sorority, having friends who are members of a fraternity/sorority, and engag-ing in community service. (See Table 6 for more on regression results.)

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Although previous research indicates that sexually prejudicial attitudes areprevalent on college campuses (D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Engstrom & Sedlacek,1997; Gellar, 1991; Love, 1998; Malaney et al., 1997; Rhoads, 1995a, 1997),this study offers hope in that colleges and universities do have the potential tonurture more accepting attitudes toward LGB women and men within theirstudent bodies and the society they serve. However, given that precollegecharacteristics account for 29% of the variance in the dependent variable, it isalso crucial that heterosexism be addressed as early as kindergarten and con-tinued through the high school and college years.

An important finding that emerged from this study was that curricularand experiential components of racial diversity can facilitate a decrease insexual prejudice on college campuses. A strong base of research has docu-mented the positive impact of racial diversity on a broad range of educa-tional outcomes (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Jayakumar, 2008;Milem, 2003; Smith et al., 1997). This study extends such research by uncov-ering an additional potential benefit of curricular diversity and cross-racialinteraction: increased openness toward LGB relationships.

This study also found that students who had religious peers and/orattended religious services in college were more likely to exhibit heterosex-ist attitudes than their respective counterparts. Although the implications ofa strong relationship between sexual prejudice and religious involvementmay not be rectifiable in higher education, where colleges and universitiesare at liberty to incorporate religion into the curriculum and other aspects ofstudent life, it does suggest an inherent danger in making religion a biggerpart of K–12 education.

Interestingly, despite the increase in sexual prejudice associated withreligious involvement, the findings from this study indicate that people atCatholic affiliated schools may be more accepting of LGB relationships(simple correlation of .12) than people at non-Catholic affiliated schools.



This finding is particularly interesting because it seemingly contradictswhat Love (1998) and Rhoads (1997) had reported with regards to sexualprejudice in Catholic affiliated schools. However, the decrease in sexualprejudice associated with Catholic affiliated schools is largely due to self-selection bias. That is, students who have positive attitudes toward LGBrelationships before college disproportionately attend Catholic affiliatedinstitutions.

An alternative explanation for the positive association between Catholicaffiliated colleges and acceptance toward LGB relationships is that the climate

TABLE 6 Standardized Beta Table for Sexual Prejudicea Among College Students (N = 13,881)

Step R Variable entering

b after step

r 7 13 16 18

Precollege inputs1 .484 Sexual prejudice

pretest.48* .33* .31* .30* .28*

2 .519 Born again Christian –.35* –.19* –.14* –.13* –.13*3 .531 Gender: Female .19* .11* .11* .12* .12*4 .540 Political orientation:

Liberal.31* .09* .08* .08* .00

5 .541 Attended a religious service

–.21* –.05* –03* .00 .00

6 .543 Promote racial understanding

.13* .04* 03* .02* .01*

7 .543 Mother’s level of education

.05* .03* .01 .01 .01

Institutional characteristics

8 .550 Selectivity .21* .09* .07* .06* .07*9 .552 Catholic affiliation .12* .05* .04* .05* .05*

Environment: Major10 .553 Business –.07* –.03* –.03* –.03* .0211 .553 Humanities .05* .03* .02* .02* .01

College experiences12 Religious peers –.27* –.13* –.12* –.10* –.10*13 .567 Diversity coursework .16* .08* .07* .06* .04*14 .571 Attended a religious

service–.27* –.12* –.08* –.09* –.06*

15 .572 Discussed politics .07* .06* .04* .04* .03*16 .573 Cross-racial

interaction.08* .04* .03* .03* .03*

17 .574 Revenue sports team –.09* –.03* –.03* –.03* –.03*College political

influence18 .593 Political orientation:

Liberal.39* .22* .20* .19* .19*

aA higher score on the sexual prejudice scale indicates greater acceptance of LGB relationships.*p < .01.


692 U. M. Jayakumar

at such institutions may be oppressive, while superficially promoting anacceptance of differences in sexual orientation. As Love (1998) noted, stu-dents in his study conveyed an implicit understanding that they were notexpected to agree with the Church regarding issues such as premarital sexand birth control, but they were expected to keep their personal views andactions hidden from the public eye. Likewise, it is possible that Catholicaffiliated institutions engender an acceptance of differences in sexual orien-tation so long as LGB students are kept closeted.

A similar explanation may be appropriate in understanding why thequestions around fraternities/sororities did not enter the regression model.Recall from the discussion of the Rhoads’ (1995b) findings, the individualwho explained that the consequence for being a gay man in his fraternity, isto get “tar[red] and feather[ed]” and “hung from the highest rooftop” (p. 319).Yet, this individual, who viewed such consequences as problematic, did nottake any personal responsibility by way of accountability or action toprevent such an occurrence. In comparison with his fraternity brothers whohe believed would brutally murder an individual for “coming out” as a gayman, the student perceived himself to be accepting of differences in sexualorientation. While he equated violent behavior with sexual prejudice, he didnot consider his compliance in the condoning of such actions as sexualprejudice. The implicit understanding within the fraternity was that relation-ships between gay men were to be hidden (Rhoads, 1995b). Given thatinvolvement in a fraternity/sorority did not enter the regression equation, itmay be the case that survey responses of members did not reflect their trueattitudes toward LGB relationships. Another possible explanation is that theacceptance present among sorority members overshadowed the sexual prej-udice within fraternities.

In a social context that increasingly emphasizes political correctness, itbecomes more challenging to understand which kinds of experiences incollege increase sexual prejudice and which others enhance the trendtoward acceptance. It is essential that we continue to struggle with suchquestions. And it is critical to answer these questions within the frameworkof a larger philosophical question: What does it mean to be accepting ofLGB relationships? Most importantly, we must reflect on the nature of theacceptance being fostered in various college environments.

CONCLUSION

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

While this study advances research on attitudes toward LGB relationshipsusing longitudinal data, it also has several limitations that should be notedwhen interpreting the findings. A major limitation of this study and much ofthe college impact research in general is the lack of a non-college student



comparison group. Without such a comparison group conclusions drawnabout the overall impact of college can only be speculatory. Another limita-tion is that the outcome variable was obtained at the same time as the envi-ronmental measures. Thus, it is possible that students’ outcome attitudestoward LGB relationships may have developed before some of the collegeexperiences took place. Future research can address the issue of causal direc-tion by collecting data at more time points. To control for potential effects ofsocietal changes on attitudes toward LGB relationships, future studies mightassess changes in students’ sexual prejudices for five consecutive classes ofentering freshmen that span the time period over which the 1996 freshmenwere being followed longitudinally (Astin, 2001). In the same vein, futureresearch might include a non-college student comparison group to shedlight on societal influences and maturation effects on student attitudestoward LGB relationships.

This study adds the reduction of heterosexist attitudes to the long list ofeducational benefits accrued when students are exposed to racial diversityon college campuses. While this finding stands alone in its importance, italso prompts further investigation. Scholars, particularly qualitative research-ers, can build on this study to uncover what types of courses influence stu-dents’ attitudes and behaviors, and whether or not universities should adoptmandatory course requirements concerned with racial diversity.

The findings also point to two key areas for further quantitative inquiry.First, to expand on this study’s findings regarding exposure to racial diver-sity, as mentioned above, future research can address the impact of racialdiversity on heterosexist attitudes while controlling for contact with LGB stu-dents and for involvement in programs/ activities designed to reduce sexualprejudice. Additionally, the strong impact of variables related to religiousinvolvement, prompt a more thorough exploration of the impact of individ-ual religious affiliations on heterosexist attitudes and prejudice reduction.

Future studies can address remaining question of why, if most studentsreport that they are accepting of LGB relationships, research on LGBstudents continues to indicate that they feel disenfranchised and invisible.Perhaps the existence of a hostile climate for LGB students penetratesthrough, even when the student population is generally accepting ofdifferences in sexual orientation. In other words, it is possible that adiscriminatory structure can create an oppressive environment despiteacceptance and decreased prejudice on an individual level. The existence ofa negative climate for LGBT students can be understood as more than aproduct of individual attitudes, but rather as a reflection of the entire socialstructure of privilege and cultural norms. As Blee (2004) explains, “socialdivisions of power and resources and cultural ideas about those regarded as‘Other’ make certain groups of people more vulnerable, more targetable,than others even in the absence of particular animus by an individual per-petrator (p. 102).” As we find with regard to racial discrimination, there are


694 U. M. Jayakumar

several other dimensions of an institution (e.g., structural representation,structural legacy of exclusion, etc.), beyond the individual psychologicaldimension that contribute to the formation of a negative campus climate(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999).

A report put out over a decade ago by the Massachusetts’ Governor’sCommission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, “Making Colleges and UniversitiesSafe for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Students and Staff,”is reflective of the continuing necessity to address the issue of heterosexism atvarious levels (Blumenfeld, 1993). The recommendations outlined in thereport include: changes in institutional policies that address a legacy of dis-crimination against LGB individuals, efforts to sensitize the larger campuscommunity, and services that assist LGB students in navigating the collegeexperience. Clearly, improving the oppressive climate experienced by LGBstudents requires much more than minimizing individual negative attitudes.

Future research can explore the implications and hidden messages sentby the heterosexist policies practiced by institutions. Universities send adistinct message when, for example, they only provide health care benefits orlife insurance to the lifelong partners of heterosexual employees. Such discrim-inatory policies remain in practice across all institutional types. Covert mes-sages built into the structure of higher education institutions may stymie thepotential for colleges and universities to engender greater acceptance towardLGB relationships, as documented among students in this multi-institutionalstudy, and the goal of fostering a climate where LGB students feel welcome.

The alternative explanation for the trend towards a decrease in sexualprejudice, that college students are not becoming less heterosexist but areinstead moving away from overtly expressing negative attitudes about LGBcommunities, presents a challenge for future research. If this line of reasoningholds true, then colleges and universities are merely socializing their studentsto be more politically correct as opposed to promoting genuine inclusion.Scholars have noted the ideological shift from overt to covert discriminationwith regard to racism in the United States (Allen, 2001; Allen & Solórzano,2001; Bonilla-Silva, 2001). While there has been progress in the sense thatracial minorities have improved their standing through years of resistance toracial oppression, the current racial structure and colorblind ideology sustainrelationships of domination (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Likewise, in light of previ-ously discussed research that documents the negative climate experienced byLGB students (D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Gellar, 1991; Malaney et al., 1997;Rhoads, 1995a, 1997; Love, 1998), the possibility that sexual prejudice remainsintact while only becoming more insidious merits further investigation.

Implications for Practice

As complex organizations embedded in society, higher education institutionshave the potential to promote or restrict the public good by influencing a



number of social issues (Allen & Jewell, 1995; Bowen, 1997; Dewey, 1944;Nie & Hillygus, 2001; Thelin, 1994). To achieve the goal of reducingheterosexism, actions must be taken beyond efforts to reduce sexual prej-udice. Colleges and universities can engage heterosexual students inrecognizing and challenging their complicity in perpetuating heterosexistprivilege and they can also inform LGB students that an overwhelminglyaccepting attitude does exist along side of those forces that attempt tokeep LGB students feeling invisible. Such initiatives can promote theestablishment of alliances between LGB and heterosexual students withthe goal of affecting institutional change.

This study serves to inform colleges in making decisions that engen-der a decrease in sexual prejudice. Creating a welcoming climate for LGBstudents would perhaps require, for example, that institutions of highereducation to offer LGB employees the same benefits as their heterosexualcounterparts. Overall, this research disbars the rationale that it is primarilythe student culture that creates an oppressive atmosphere for LGBstudents; it seems that there is something beyond student attitudes thatmaintains a confining environment where LGB students continue to feel adisconnect to the rest of the university (Love, 1998; Rankin, 2003; Rhoads,1995a) Nonetheless, the perceptions and attitudes of actors within an insti-tution play an integral role in identifying, sorting, and socializing newmembers (Peterson & Spencer, 1990) and therefore cannot be discountedor underestimated.

The significant impact of diversity coursework and cross-racial interac-tion on student attitudes towards LGB relationships clearly indicates that ifhigher education as a system is serious about genuinely including LGBstudents, it is important for general education requirements to includeethnic studies, women’s studies, gay and lesbian studies, and other forms ofcurricular diversity in the undergraduate experience. The findings from thisstudy indicate that diverse learning environments can contribute to theendeavor of attracting, maintaining, and enhancing a welcoming climate forLBG students. For the general student population, curricular diversity andcross-racial interactions may provide a space for all students to broadentheir perspectives and openness toward LGB relationships, in preparationfor life in an increasingly diverse democracy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Alexander Astin, Linda Sax, Mike Rose, and WalterAllen for their support and guidance at different stages of this study. I amgrateful to Warren Blumenfeld who provided thoughtful comments on anearlier draft of this paper. Thank you to June Han, Nivedita Shinde, andThongdam Pathoumthong for their editorial assistance. While I benefited


696 U. M. Jayakumar

from feedback from various mentors and colleagues, please note that I amentirely responsible for the interpretations and views expressed in thispaper.

NOTES

1. The term sexual prejudice was chosen over homophobia, as the former does not convey anyassumptions about the origins, and underlying motivations of antigay attitudes. “Homophobia” has beencriticized for reducing antigay attitudes to an irrational fear rather than a socially reinforced prejudice(Herek, 2000).

2. Heterosexism includes both prejudicial attitudes, and institutional structural bias or privilegingof heterosexuality (Blumenfeld, 1992; Browning, 1995).

3. Transgender students are not included because the survey item measuring sexual prejudicedoes not represent an assessment of student attitudes toward transgender relationships. Thus, the currentstudy focuses on sexual prejudice toward lesbian, bisexual, and gay students.

4. The District of Columbia also passed legislation to broaden domestic partnership laws toinclude the rights and benefits of marriage under district law to registered domestic partners. In addition,after a court ruling in 2008, New York must legally recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages(Human Rights Campaign, 2009a).

REFERENCES

Allen, W. R. (2001). The struggle continues: Race, equity, and affirmative action inU.S. Higher Education. In D. A. Lee (Ed.), The state of Black America 2001 (pp.87–100). New York: National Urban League.

Allen, W. R., & Jewell, J. O. (1995). African American education since “An AmericanDilemma”: An American dilemma revisited. Daedalus, 124(1), 77–100.

Allen, W. R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2001). Affirmative action, educational equity, andcampus racial climate: A case study of the University of Michigan Law School.Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 12(2), 237–363.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Antonio, A. L. (2004). The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self-confidence

and educational aspirations in college. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 446–471.Astin, A. W. (1993a). Diversity and multiculturalism on campus: How are students

affected? Change, 25, 44–49.Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college: Four years revisited. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Astin, A. W. (2001). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Astin, A. W. (2002). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assess-

ment and evaluation in higher education. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.Blee, K. (2004). Positioning hate. Journal of Hate Studies, 95(3), 95–105.Blumenfeld, W. (1992). Homophobia: How we all pay the price. Boston: Beacon

Press.Blumenfeld, W. J. (1993). Making colleges and universities safe for gay, lesbian,

bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students and staff. In W. J. Blumenfeld(Principle Author), Making colleges and universities safe for gay and lesbian



students: Report and recommendations of the Massachusetts Governor’sCommission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. Boston, MA.

Blumenfeld, W. J. (2000). Heterosexism: Chapter introduction. In M. Adams, W.Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda, H. W. Packman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.),Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism,sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 15–21). New York: Routledge.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era.London: Lynne Rienner.

Bowen, H. R. (1997). Investment in learning: The individual and social value ofAmerican higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York:Carnegie Foundation.

Browning, C. (1995). Silence on same sex partner abuse. Alternate Routes, 12, 95–106.Chang, M. (1999). Does racial diversity matter?: The educational impact of racially

diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development,40(4), 377–395.

Checkoway, B. (2001). Reviewing the civic mission of the American researchuniversity. Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125–147.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Clark, J. M., Brown, J. C., & Hochstein, L. M. (1990). Institutional religion and gay/lesbian oppression. Marriage and Family Review, 14, 265–284.

Cochran, J. K., & Beeghley, L. (1991). The influence of religion on attitudes towardnonmarital sexuality: A preliminary assessment of reference group theory.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 45–62.

Croteau, J. M., & Kusek, M. T. (1992). Gay and lesbian speaker panels: Implementa-tion and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(3), 396–401.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy ofeducation. New York: The Free Press.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians’ and gay mens’ experience of discrimination andharassment in a university community. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 17, 317–312.

D’ Augelli, A. R., & Rose, M. L. (1990). Sexual prejudice in a university community:Attitudes and experiences of heterosexual freshman. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 31, 384–491.

Engstrom, C. M. & Sedlacek, W. (1997). Attitudes of heterosexual students toward theirgay male and lesbian peers. Journal of College Student Development, 38(6), 565–575.

Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliations, serviceattendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among universitystudents. Review of Religious Research, 44(4), 370–393.

Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Wissow, L. S., Woods, E. R., & Goodman E. (1999). Sexualorientation and risk of suicide attempts among a representative sample ofyouth. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 153(5), 487–493.

Gellar, W. W. (1991). Lesbians and gay topics: Awakening a campus. Journal ofCollege Student Development, 32(1), 91–92.


698 U. M. Jayakumar

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher educa-tion: theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard EducationalReview, 72(3), 330–366.

Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 9, 9–22.

Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the UnitedStates. American Psychologist, 61(6), 607–621.

Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexists’ atti-tudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research,30, 239–244.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexualminority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 56(1), 32–43.

Human Rights Campaign (2005). The backlash myth: Progress toward gay, lesbian,bisexual, and transgender equity since May 17, 2004. Washington DC: HumanRights Campaign Foundation.

Human Rights Campaign (2008). Equality from state to state: Gay, lesbian, bisexual,and transgender Americans and state legislation in 2008. Washington DC:Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

Human Rights Campaign (2009a). Marriage and relationship recognition. RetrievedMay 7, 2009, from http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage.asp

Human Rights Campaign (2009b). Statewide marriage prohibitions. Retrieved May7, 2009, http://www.hrc.org/documents/marriage_prohibitions_2009.pdf

Human Rights Campaign (2009c). Statewide school laws & policies. Retrieved May 7,2009, http://www.hrc.org/documents/school_laws.pdf

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverselearning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity inhigher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasinglydiverse and global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforcecompetencies. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 615–651.

Kardia, D. B. (1996). Diversity’s closet: Student attitudes toward lesbian, gaymen, and bisexual people on a multicultural campus. Doctoral Disserta-tion, University of Michigan.

Kim, B. S. K., D’Andrea, M. J., Gaughen, K. J. S., & Sahu, P .K. (1998). A multi-cultural study of university students’ knowledge of and attitudes towardhomosexuality. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 36,171–182.

Lance, L. M. (1987). The effects of interaction with gay persons on attitudes towardhomosexuality. Human Relations, 40(6), 329–336.

Lance, L. M. (2008). Social inequality on the college campus: A consideration ofhomosexuality. College Student Journal, 42(3), 789–794.

Liang, C. T. H., & Alimo C. (2005). The impact of white heterosexual students’interactions on attitudes toward lesbians, gay, and bisexual people: A longitu-dinal study. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 237–238.

Love, P. G. (1998). Cultural barriers facing lesbian, gay, and bisexual students at aCatholic college. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 298–323.



Malaney, G. D., Williams, E. A., & Gellar, W. W. (1997). Assessing campus climatefor gays, lesbians, and bisexuals at two institutions. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 38(4), 365–375.

Milem, J. (1994). College, students and racial understanding, Thought and Action,9(2), 51–92.

Milem, J. (2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiplesectors. In M. J. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Compelling inter-est: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities(pp. 126–196). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (2001). Return-ing to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commissionon the future of state and Land-Grant Universities. Washington, DC: NationalAssociation of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good and Scott London (2003).National forum on higher education for the public good: A report from thenational leadership dialogues. Ann Arbor; MI: National Forum on HigherEducation for the Public Good.

Nelson E. S., & Krieger S. L. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuality incollege students: Implementation of a gay men and lesbian peer panel. Journalof Homosexuality, 33(2), 63–81.

Nie, N., & Hillygus, D. (2001). Education and democratic citizenship. In D. Ravitch& J. Viteritti (Eds.), Making good citizens: Education and civil society (pp. 30–57).New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Pagtolun-An, I. M., & Clair, J. M. (1986). An experimental study of attitudes towardhomosexuality. Deviant Behavior, 7, 21–135.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings andinsights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade ofresearch (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate.In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), New direction for institutional research, 68 (pp. 3–18). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pettijohn, T. F., II, & Walzer, A. S. (2008). Reducing racism, sexism, and homophobiain college students by completing a psychology of prejudice course. CollegeStudent Journal, 42(2), 459–468.

Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgenderpeople: A national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task ForcePolicy Institute.

Rhoads, R. A. (1995a). Learning from the coming-out experiences of college males.Journal of College Student Development, 36(1), 67–74.

Rhoads, R. A. (1995b). Whales tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethno-graphic case study of fraternity life. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,26(3), 306–323.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). A subcultural study of gay and bisexual college males: Resist-ing developmental inclinations. Journal of Higher Education, 68(4), 460–482.


700 U. M. Jayakumar

Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege oncampus. New York: New York University Press.

Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (1996).The American freshman:Norms for fall 1996. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Smith, D. G., and others (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how studentsbenefit. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Stevenson, M. R. (1988). Promoting tolerance of homosexuality: An evaluation ofintervention strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 500–511.

Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E., & Blimling, G. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experi-ences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literaturereview. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 149–162.

Thelin, J. R. (1994). Campus and commonwealth: A historical interpretation. In P. G.Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), Higher education in Americansociety (pp. 21–35). New York: Prometheus Books.

Weerts, D. (2002). State governments and research universities: A framework for arenewed partnership. New York: Routedge Falmer.

Wills, G., & Crawford, R. (2000). Attitudes toward homosexuality in Shreveport-Bossier city, Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality, 38(3), 97–116.


The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity: Factors Influencing Sexual Prejudice Among College Students

Documents

Transcript of The Invisible Rainbow in Diversity: Factors Influencing Sexual Prejudice Among College Students