How Much Difference Is Too Much Difference: Perceptions of Homosexuality in Intercollegiate Athletics. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.

This study explored why college athletes and coaches accept some forms of diversity but are less willing to accept homosexuality. To explore how athletic teams respond to diversity, researchers visited five college campuses, interviewing athletes in higher profile sports with racial and ethnic diversity. Twelve to fifteen formal interviews or focus groups were conducted on each campus, for fifty to one hundred individuals per campus. Because team members were likely to assert heterosexist and homophobic comments around their teammates, homosexuality was explored in single interviews rather than group sessions. In general, there was a remarkably strong sense of community between and among participants on the sports teams even though the teams were marked by diversity. However, there was hostility to gays and lesbians on nearly all teams, and coaches, administrators, and athletes were all unwilling to confront and accept homosexuality. The paper discusses why this situation exists, focusing on athletics as a microcosm of society. It is also probable that athletes have more exposure to racial differences than homosexuality and that collegiate athletics as a field embodies hegemonic masculinity. It is also suggested that athletics may inhibit individual identity in efforts to achieve conformity. (Contains 64 references.) (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. How Much Difference is Too Much Difference: Perceptions of Homosexuality in Intercollegiate Athletics Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel, University of Kansas J. Douglas Toma, University of Pennsylvania Christopher C. Morphew, University of Kansas PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY H orpha)J TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 12"This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Paper presented at annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, California, November 2000. 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Athletics appears to provide a notable example in higher education of creating community across difference. Even though students involved in sports like football, basketball, and track at Division I institutions are typically a much more diverse group than students on campuses as a whole, community seems especially strong on these athletics teams. On these teams, students from a vast array of backgrounds integrate into a coherent whole, where factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and even gender (in the case of mixed gender track and field teams) assume much less meaning than what individuals can contribute to the team (WolfWendel, Toma & Morphew, in press). At the same time, however, homosexuality remains a complex, potentially divisive issue in athletics. Indeed, students, coaches, and administrators alike generally express homophobic and heterosexist views. The purpose of this paper is to explore this paradox why do student athletes and coaches accept some forms of diversity but remain closed-minded to homosexuality? Community, Diversity and Athletics "Community" and "diversity," as constructs, are difficult to define. We use Calderwood's (2000) definition of community. Calderwood associates several images with community connection, caring, interdependence, shared values, rituals, and belonging to a group. The essence of amplifying these images thus building community is to strengthen commonalties within a group. Doing so requires effort, as community cannot be decreed but must emerge through mutual recognition and identification (Calderwood, 2000). Furthermore, community is not only a process of stressing what is common to the group, but also of accepting differences within the group. "For a social group to be a community there must be a belief that they in fact share identity, beliefs, values, practices, history and goals specific and unique to the group. [and] existing or potential differences between competing values, beliefs and practices within the group must be recognized, reconciled and tolerated" (Calderwood, 2000, p. 3). Finally, community can exclude as it includes: "The impulse to community often coincides with a desire to preserve identity and in practice excludes others who threaten that sense of identity" (Calderwood, 2000, p. 12). On American campuses, the concepts of community and diversity intersect. Smith (1995) outlines four dimensions of diversity in higher education: (1) access; (2) campus climate; (3) educational mission; and (4) institutional transformation. Our focus is on the second of these dimensions diversity within the context of campus climate. Campus climate can shape feelings of inclusion or alienation, encourage or discourage student retention, and define positive or destructive inter-group relations. Although higher education institutions have improved access and become more inclusive, problems with campus climate persist. In concentrating on campus climate and in our use of the terms diversity and difference throughout this paper, we focus on the experiences of students who feel marginalized within higher education, including those marginalized by their race, ethnicity, gender, class and sexual orientation. By looking at climate, however, we also focus on the institutional structures that perpetuate this marginalization. On college and university campuses, mass spectator sports like football or basketball can foster community in the most global sense. Attending games encourages what a 1990 Carnegie Report calls a "celebrative community," where the heritage of the institution is remembered and where rituals affirming both tradition and change are widely shared. Others have also noted that college sports serves as a potent source of student spirit and loyalty (Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Cady, 1978; Toma & Cross, 2000). Many on campus, even those who share very little in common, can unite around the success or failure of their athletic teams. At the same time, no event or activity can unite all constituents simultaneously.