Source: Desurra, C. J. (1994). Unlocking the classroom closet: Privileging the marginalized voices of gay/lesbian college students. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, November 19-22, 1994.
The Classroom Climate: A Framework for Understanding
When looking at education, itās easy to see why the goals of academic institutions have been wrought with tension. As explained by Harbeck (1992), schools have become a major arena of social conflict, as one group asserts traditional values, and another demands that children be prepared for changes. Homosexuality epitomizes this conflict in that it has "been a major threat to the traditional cultural ideology set forth in the schools" (p. 1). Rosenfeld and Jarred (1985) define the classroom climate as the "social/psychological context within which the teacher and student interact and form their relationship". (p. 205). Mackenzie (1983) contends this climate is highly predictive of effective schooling. Anderson (1982) further supports Mackenzieās proposition by reviewing over 200 articles and concluding that climate is of central importance when discussing explanations and predictions of educational outcomes in terms of success or failure. For this reason it is critical to examine classroom climates and the implications this phenomenon has for gay and lesbian students.
The effects of classroom climate on the student are quite varied, yet important when trying to understand the studentās classroom experience. For example, climate has been found to influence student cognitive and affective behavior as well as personal growth (Fraser & Fisher, 1982). This indicates the extreme power that educators have on both the academic and social development of their students. Furthermore, studies suggest that supportive climates are correlated with interactions that are frequent, friendly, cooperative, helpful, trusting, and focused Adler, Rosenfield, & Towne; 1983; Gibb, 1960; Hays, 1970). These authors illustrate the relationship between student-teacher interactions and the overall educational climate created through their interactions. They also suggest, by proposing this relationship, a more clearly defined climate goal. In other words, now that we know how important a positive, supportive climate is for student development, we can and must aim toward incorporating those related interactions to further supportive academic experiences for the gay and lesbian student.
Unfortunately, the messages communicated from teacher to student do not always convey such empathy and understanding. For example, in some classroom environments, a teacher might inadvertently communicate to a student restricting preconceptions about appropriate or expected behaviors, attitudes, or personal goals based not on individual characteristics, but on stereotypical sex roles (Hall, 1982). To further illustrate this phenomenon, a parallel can be drawn between the sexist educator and the heterosexist educator. The sexist educator often makes "evaluations and assumptions about abilities, personality characteristics, and role behaviors of men and women that reflects stereotypes based on sex-role attributes" Rosenfeld & Jarrard, 1985, p. 205).
As Rosenfeld and Jarrard continue to explain, "these evaluations are manifested in the perceived sexist individualās differential behavior toward females and males" (p. 205). Similarly, it can be expected that educators send equivalent messages but with heterosexist undertones that are perceived by the gay or lesbian student. These negatively perceived messages are not conducive to the open, supportive environment that research indicates as crucial to a studentās effective learning. Therefore, it seems probable that the gay/lesbian studentās academic behavior and personal growth is significantly affected by the messages sent by the educator. This is important because of the power the educator has in creating classroom climate, and the effect such a climate has in predicting educational outcomes. If the climate is not positive, it could very well place the gay or lesbian student at risk.
Why Gays and Lesbians are "Students at Risk"
What seems clear so far is that students are at risk when their circumstances place them at a disadvantage in the classroom. We often think of the African-American student struggling with Anglo norms in standardized testing arena. This subtle bias places the minority student in a risky situation as a generalizable characteristic (namely, their own sense of culture) is hindering their academic pursuits. In the case of gay and lesbian students, the generalizable characteristic is their sexual orientation. yet, according to Friend (1993), "serious discussions of how inequalities in terms of sexual orientation are reproduced and sanctioned by schooling has been absent in the social analyses of diversity, equity, and power in education" (p. 210).
The Classroom Experience: Being Alone
Recently, much attention has been devoted to the marginalized student (Baker, 1991; Watson, Ambler, & Scudder, 1991) and the communication needed to address these students at risk. Yet, with an understanding of the socially sanctioned explicit discrimination of homosexuals, it is not surprising that many gays and lesbians choose to remain invisible (DāEmilio, 1990) rather than face the harsh consequences of the of the "previously (and in many cases, currently) unrestricted power of educational administrators and the extremes of community intolerance" (Slagle, 1994, p. 1). Addressing the needs of the metaphorically "invisible" gay/lesbian students becomes difficult because their identity is often hidden (DāEmilio) and identification is rarely desired by the individual. Unfortunately, it is these anonymous students, many of whom are frightened and confused, "who may be most in need of support and guidance" (University of California, Ls Angeles, 1990, p. 1).
The gay and lesbian student is excluded from the educatorās consciousness and therefore excluded from an equal chance for education. DāAugelli (1992) explains such exclusion, pointing out that:
When gays and lesbians pursue an understanding of themselves, they do not encounter a literature affirming their lives. More importantly, when they look to their undergraduate curricula for insight, they find themselves deleted from most courses. They are the "invisible" minority, yet the "hidden curriculum" that devalues the existence and contributions of lesbians and gay men is quite clear (p. 214).
Unfortunately, the very arena that is meant to help students grow actually hinders their interpersonal development. Put another way, Friend (1993) argues that "while schools can be described as potentially a site of extraordinary democracy, the process and outcomes of schools deeply reproduce and promote the very social inequities they are said to equalize" (p. 210). It is therefore quite easy to understand how gay/lesbian students have their experiences invalidated by the very institutions that are supposed to enrich their lives and deepen their understanding of the world in which they live.
The gay and lesbian students learn from their academic curriculum fellow students, and teachers to be ashamed of their sexual identity. D'Augelli (1992) notes that "at a time when accurate information and supportive experiences are critical to their development, young lesbians and gay men find few, if any, affirming experiences in higher educational settings (p. 214). While others students are learning self-esteem and self-worth, gay and lesbian students are often left with feelings of self-doubt and self-hatred..
Friend (1993) notes that "within many aspects of schools' curricula,. for example, the value of the superiority over homosexuality is displayed" (p. 211). In addition to the curriculum, the individuals instructing gay and lesbian students are contributing to this problem. Sears (1989) concludes that most of the teachers in training he sampled "expressed negative attitudes about homosexuality and harbored homophobic feelings toward lesbians and gay men" (p. 3). From this, it is not difficult to understand why gay and lesbian students find great difficulty obtaining feelings of comfort and compassion in the classroom.
It is not surprising that gay and lesbian students might feel marginalized in the classroom given that "homophobia is accepted and encouraged by society, particularly in the sterile world of academia which allows, promotes and creates homophobia" (Bapst, 1991, p. 1.) D'Augelli (1989b) found that "evidence gathered at several universities reveals widespread negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians at every setting studied (p, 546). This stifles gay and lesbians' collegiate experience as even those students who are "out" and comfortable in other areas of their lives remain suppressed in the classroom that negates the importance of Lesbian/Gay Identity (Bapst). This negation results because "being openly gay on campus still goes against the grain" (DāEmilio, 1990, p. 17). As socially sanctioned homophobic attitudes trickle down in the classroom, many gay and lesbian students are left feeling different and excluded..
Because our educational institutions do not value gay and lesbian students, they are often left with little support. Friends of Project 10 Incorporated (1989) explain that:
Above all else, growing up gay or lesbian is living daily with a terrible secret that no one else must ever know·Gay adolescents must be ever on guard so that a conversation turn suddenly to homosexuality or a parent or friend launch into a "queer joke", they are not given away by a quivering in their voice of fear in their eyes (p.5).
Maintaining this facade of heterosexuality on campus requires considerable energy. LaSalle (1992) argues that "the expression of negative feelings toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people causes them psychological and social stress" (p.1). for this reason, it should not be that gay and lesbian students are dramatically affected by the stresses placed on him/her by the demands of the "straight" academic structure. Several universities reported investigations of their own campus climates and revealed that gays and lesbians were "significantly more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced problems associated with harassment, discrimination, and loneliness (LaSalle, 1992, p.6). The University of Oregon (1990) further reports that "the University environment is neither consistently safe for, tolerant of, nor academically inclusive of lesbians, gays, or bisexuals (p. 5).
We must ask ourselves: How? Aside from the explicit messages of hatred, how does gay and lesbian students come to feel uncomfortable, alienated, or marginalized in the classroom? These are the questions that provide the framework for our examination of gay and lesbian studentsā experiences in the college classroom..
The remaining text for this article is in the WIU University Library.
Use Your "Back" Button to Return to Your Origin